Is our police force in Vancouver organized for the purpose of protecting life and property— or as a specially equipped body of tax collect- ors? This is a question being asked by increas- ing numbers of citizens, and not without good _reason. This week a couple of holdup men, said to look like Yankee “‘tourists” but lacking the a Dunbar bank at gun point and got away with more than $6,000. A ‘“‘block’’ system devised by police heads (who are reported to have been tipped off that a bank holdup in the district was being planned) failed to trap the bandits. Yet the holdup car was abandoned only 11 blocks away, and then it was found, an hour and a half after the holdup, by a milk driver who wondered why it had been left with the Only a few days later, a still more daring thief calmly hijacked a truck loaded with furni- ture, successfully evaded police cars operating their “block” system to trap him, unloaded the furniture and got away. Police were called im- mediately by the driver of the stolen truck, but they failed to find sany trace of the hijacker, who must have driven through their cordon sev- eral times, until the empty truck was found where he abandoned it. These crimes are recent. But what of the not-so-recent unsolved crimes, ranging all the way from murder and bank robberies to criminal at- tacks on children? What of the numerous vic- tims of hit-and-run drivers? It may be true, as Chief Mulligan claims, that the police force is under strength, but the fact remains that the strength it has is disproportionately disposed to place the collection of parking fines, before- the protection of life. _ This fact is brought home to citizens every day as they see well-fed, well-armed men tour- What's wrong with the police ? more subtle approach of Wall Street, held up . ing up one street and down the other, engaged in the hazardous occupation of chalking tires and hanging parking tickets on windshields, or direct- ing the operations of Buster’s Towing Service in taking cars to the city pound. It undoubtedly gives the city more revenue with which to pave streets for the BCElectric, but placed against the growing index of unsolved crimes it is a sorry substitute for police security. The late Gerald Gratton (“Go back to the breadline’”’?) McGeer, with the acquiescence of his “Non-Partisan” council, reshuffled the po- lice administration in Vancouver to fit his own concept of efficiency, which hinged on a get- tough-with-labor policy. Recognition of meritori- ous service played no part in his shakeup. The results are self-evident. The police force has be- come meter-conscious, an agency for the biggest tax-collecting racket ever foisted on the Vancou- ver public. We have no doubt that had the holdup car or furniture truck been parked over- time in a meter zone they would have been plastered with tickets. We remember a holdup on Howe Street months ago in which a merchant was tied up and robbed by an armed bandit in broad day- light. A bare few minutes after the holdup a policeman came to the store—to hand the mer- chant a parking summons. The coming civic elections provide citizens with an opportunity to halt this farce by electing a council committed to restoring the police force to its original function of providing protection to life and property. Twelve years of Non- Partisan administration have proven that the pre- sent council cannot do the job. Only a council composed of men and women who will place citizens’ interests before those of big business, protection of life before collection of revenue, can do it. ~Non-Partisans welch again D URING recent election campaigns the time- worn trick of making alluring “promises” has played a big role in the final outcome. The 1948 Vancouver civic elections were no exception. Tory | and Liberal incumbents at the city hall—who drape ~ themselves with a ‘‘Non-Partisan” halo—are no slouches at the game of “promising.” Among the numerous “promises” made by these civic political t men for big business during the last municipal election, was a new Granville Street bridge. _ The promise of a new bridge was a good vote- getter. The old Granville bridge is not only an eye- sore, dilapidated and obsolete, but a dangerous haz- ard to traffic. Rarely a year passes without the Granville span adding to the toll of dead and injured it has claimed over the years. Consequently, the promise’” of “a Non-Partisan business administra- tion” to build a new bridge helped considerably to veal up the vote Now we learn that Vancouver’s “financial ex- perts’” have advised that there won’t be enough money available to continue the city’s road-building program and the new bridge as well. So the ques- tion arises: which should be shelved, the road building or the new Granville bridge? Considering their boast of “‘good business ad- thinistration,”” one would have thought that the Non- : Partisans would have ascertained the availibility of civic finances to cover pre-election commitments. While we have no criticism to offer on the fine job of road work that has been done in the city—pain- “or seaiaei tr pe rrorCagg bh m completed and i way is primarily for the convenience of the BCElectric tran- _ sit octopus, rather than for the citizens. This, of course, is quite in keeping with general Non-Partisan policies, designed to serve the monopolists,. rather than the people as a whole. . The city council should not be allowed to nege on the Granville street bridge project, on the A. the press department of the Soviet embassy in Lon- . excuse that it cannot do both and thus either the bridge or the road program must be ditched. The fact that the BCElectric needs better roads to fur- ther its dime transit holdup may explain the latest discovery of the city’s “financial experts” and Non- Partisan readiness to comply. Granville Street bridge, like its counterpart, ; Cambie Street bridge, is a proven death trap and a menace to every vehicle and pedestrian that crosses it. The people gave the Non-Partisan council a man- date to fulfill their 1948 “promise” of a new bridge. ‘The 1949 elections must call a reckoning on that “promise.” It is not a question of “‘either, or,” but both, All that Is needed is a civic administration that can deliver the goods. If the Non-Partisans are looking for an “out” _ on their 1948 election promises, they should get it $9949, ‘but definitely: Raa a) 7 all Street's aim economist, declares in an article published by don that American monopolies are seeking out of the Marshall plan fiasco with a pestering large capital investments abroad. “American firms are buying up the more p fitable enterprises belonging to British, fea Dutch and Belgian capitalists. This applies in the first place to enterprises which are located in the colonial possessions of the West European countries and which are poe. out valuable raw materials which American: my always needs,” Leontyev states. | bee In pointing to Wall Street’s demand to de- valueate ity Orr “Here we have the reason manding the devaluation of the European currency. If this is carried through, the American “eae will be able to buy up more enterprises on W ern European capitalists very much more cheap LEONTYEYV, the famous Soviet political. European currency, Leontyev comments: why Wall Street is de-_ TOM McEWEN As We See It INCE the Old Lady of Cambie Street, better known as the scab- — produced Daily Province, insists willy-nilly of dragging us in to give its corny views a dash of relish, it is perhaps not out. of place if we too have a word to say on Canadian “defenses.” During recent days “Exercise Eagle’ has been underway uP north, A lot @f army and RCAF boys have been engaged in a “de- fense” sortie along the Alaska Highway. According to Ross Munro, writing for the Southam “news” manufacturers, “Exercise Eagle” showed “some startling weaknesses” in Canada’s defenses against the Sov.. It would appear that the army and RCAF lads did a very com- mendable job with equipment little better than junk. Leastwise the . er, Eskimos, main plea in Munro’s‘story was for more modern RCAF “operational” craft and other equipment. Apparently the RCAF is expected to keep the Es- < kimos in check with aircraft barely fit to fly in a grubstake for a Yukon sourdough. We can ex- pect to hear top RCAF and army brass whooping it up one of these days for new and up-to-the-minute equipment—and in volume, if Canada is to be prop- — erly “defended.” ee And that, it may be added, will cause a good deal more “optimism” in the stock exchanges along St. James and Bay Streets than any of Louis St. Laurent’s pre-election.promises on housing and s0- . cial insurance. Who in hell wants to putter around with a few thousand in profits from housing or other peace-time measures when there is a possibility of developing “defense emer- gency” requirements—on a -cost-plus basis? As Ross Munro suc- cinctly puts it, the boys of “Exercise Eagle” did a good job, but “the tools of war were lacking.” Under our new North Atlantic war pact, the “tools of war” are extremely important—and profitable. For our merchants of death, “defense” is a splendid spur to profit- — able patriotism. f Editorializing on the Alaska Highway maneuvers, _ Province designates the “enemy” against whom the “tools of war” are so urgently needed by a spot of cheap red-baiting. This Southam scab product accuses the Communists of weeping “crocodile tears over the fate of these poor boys (Canadian soldiers) who are being — trained to fight as victims of a Wall Street conspiracy.” But, states our top B.C. strikebreaker, “these are the same people who find accounts of great military reviews in Moscow very inspiring, very democratic, very peaceful.” In keeping with current practice, the Province lies on both counts, The Communists do not shed “crocidile” or any other kind of tears for the boys assigned such “operations,” except perhaps in : a relative sense. We can visualize Communists coming close to tears — when thinking of a young RCAF lad, sent out in an obsolete crate to do a job calling for a modern up-to-date machine, and thinking meantime of his old man who may be pounding the sidewalk for thie past three years on an ITU picket line around the buildingS #f the Southam chain for the very ideal he is practising to “de- fend.” Such a thought does bring home to us the weakness in our “defenses.” It also convinces us that the “enemy” is not “hyp0- to home. \ "+ thetical,” nor does he (or it) resid Je in Moscow, but much closet 7 ry : ; \ = Admittedly We are not downcast when we read that “perhaps” : the world’s first socialist state has all the “secrets” of the atom Ds bomb, or that, according to a recent news item in our “free press) j tucked away in the back pages, the Soviets have jet planes that fe whizzed past in a Moscow pageant almost before the announcer had time to report their coming. Such socialist achievements cOD- — stitute a very effective brake on warmongers everywhere, and that, in the long run, is all to the good. * Our viewpoint is that Canada has everything to gain from: : peace—and everything to lose in a Wall Street-inspired war, “hot — or “cold.” Communists are not against Canada having adequate de Boe fenses, They are against the propaganda of those who seek to col vinte us that they are needed to head off “Soviet aggression.” They — are also very much against Canada being used as a catspaw PY | Yankee imperialism to embroil us in war against peoples and‘ na tions with whom we haven’t even the semblance of a legitimate dis- agreement... even though our “way of life” differs. sy Yankee imperialism resembles a gigantic corps of Al Capones scattered across the entire globe, laying down and imposing the rules ~ of a new political blackmail game, doing it all in the name es “peace,” and threatening all and sundry with atomic extinction if ' they do not.bend the knee to this new gangster “democracy.” ba Unfortunately for Canadians, we have been committed to fa ro suicidal policy by Liberal, Tory and CCF “statesmen’—a_ policy disastrous to Canada’s peace, independence and security, The 4& fense of a sovereign, independent Canada, against all ~ aggression: and particularly ‘that of Yankee imperialism, is a matter of vi patriotic im munist. ; portance to every Canadian, Communist or non-Com- : On that point, Canadian Communists need no advice or instruc ; tion from a union-hating scab journal, But “defense,” used 85 x 5 . camouflage! for imperialist intervention and aggression against of _ cialism; designed by madmen and gangsters for pelf and profit, something else. That is the: kind of “patriotism” we leave to -8¢ab Province and the kept press to “defend.” In that they a! prove themselves “laborers worthy of their hire.” "By - i] MIL me) : Hat LON oe, f | D>) fF) al) f Cy Cl) eau in it lboavmasvedldesconneacernsattll coostttfivesetltavcneetbttiehe, Hib _ Published Weekly at 650 Howe Street / THE TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY LTD. Telephone MA, 5288 Tom McEwen ....... Bos _.... Subscription Rates: 1 Year, $2.50; Printed by Union Printers Ltd, 650 Howe Street, Vancouver. Bo. PACIFIC TRIBUNE—AUGUST 12, 1919-PAGE 5 . , 6 Months, $1.35.