No path to

T= Eisenhower-Dulles four-day

Msit to Ottawa is over. Like the
> and the Carpenter, “they
ce! of many things,’ much of
4 One didn’t have to be clair-
Yant to anticipate.

in newsmen covering the
5 a generally modest in

Portage. Their opinion was
“t not much had been achieved

eX,

pt Perhaps a better “rela-
Monship,”

NORAD, missile bases in the

anadj 4 : ° .
: dian Arctic, American ‘“conti-
Atal defense”
Cou,

; and such questions

i Bevely be expected to en-

€ average Canadian tax-

eee for a better invest-
1s tax dollars.

“search” of Government
De nd Prime Minister Diefen-
ay tesidence by U.S. “security”
§ te crudely announced and
b meatly raised in parliament
Ment” eo MP, did little to “ce-
Wore anada-U.S. relations. ; It
landlor too much of a bullying
ing ee king over and search-
‘ €w premises for lice.

det Canadian newsmen were mo-
and ing t eir reportage on the visit
Same ¢ Paucity of achievement, the

not be said of American
the aS They played it up big in
ih he. (es with Eisenhower cast
his i ole of an irate coach telling
You hadian team mates to “stop
thee ly-aching” and get on with
ulle me — played according to

* cold war rules.

Pa

ea

bickering could
R Us t. e 1 b .

eds,” glo al game against the
a So let’s have done with it.
Mo, exe curbs on Canadian oil
Mark or dump our wheat in your
« Cts, ju

More _Just remember we need
Pan,» SVE and take on both our

1s was the U.S. attitude.

ne ‘
Ynical| Canadian correspondent
Y observed that Eisenhower

Pacific Tribune

ene MUtual 5-5288
ana: ~ TOM McEWEN
Sing Editor — HAL GRIFFIN
Subscription Rates:
One Year: $4.00
Six months: $2.25

Roo, Publishea weekly at
™ 6 — 426 Main Street
Vancouver 4, B.C.

 9x-C;
h “unteetian and Commonwealth
‘ {ne Year (except Australia): $4.00
“i a1) |, Australia, United States
other countries: $5.00 one
year.

ie

achievement

and Dulles didn’t have to travel so
far to say so little; they could have
phoned in the “give and take”

formula.

Canadians are becoming very
well acquainted with the US.
“take” technique, and more than
a little disturbed, thanks to Liberal
and Tory sellout policies, that it
embraces our sovereignty, resources

and independence.

No less disturbing is the knowl-
edge that unrevealed commitments
were made by the Diefenbaker gov-
ernment which may well take this
country farther along the danger-
ous path of nuclear war, as a satel-
lite of U.S. imperialist aggressions

and “brinkmanship” adventures.

Even in the purely economic
sphere Canadian industry had to

have Eisenhower’s “permission” to
extend its market to the socialist
sector of the world—as a conces-
° ”
sion to “stop your belly-aching.

EDITORIAL PAGE «x

Comment

Gov't strikebreaking

PERATION of the Black Ball

Ferries by the Bennett govern-
ment under Civil Defense Act
authority is highly illegal and,
under different circumstances,
would immediately be challenged
in the courts. The “cooperation”
of certain misleaders of labor does
not necessarily alter its illegal
aspects.

The absence of such challenge
by leading judicial minds and
other experts on constitution and
law must therefore be sought, not
in the Socred government’s use of
an act for which it was never
designed or intended, but in what
motivated a government to resort
to such action.

The answer can be spelled out in
one word—strike-breaking.

Had the government ‘taken
over” and operated Black Ball
Ferries, and, in its capacity as
trustee for the company, continued
wage negotiations with the unions
involved, its action (in the public
interest) would have been fully

justified, and in keeping with estab-
lished labor laws.

But the government chose to
seek shelter in its role of strike-

breaker behind the Civil Defense
Act, and in the process to terminate
the institution of free collective
bargaining between management
and labor. :

No wonder the CPR can ignore
a conciliation board award, tie up
its ships, sit back and adopt an
attitude of “the public be damned,”
in its attempts to smash the mari-
time unions. With the Bennett gov-
ernment obligingly operating the
Black Ball (at a handsome profit
for the company) and depriving
the unions involved of the right to
bargain for wage increases, thereby
setting the stage for “dog-collar”
laws for seamen and other workers,
a form of provocation is being
enacted to which the only answer

left is that of strike action.

The logic of workers is simple
and direct; if the government can

act illegally, why can’t we?

Tom
McEwen

S BURNS wrote, “The Best
Aiaia schemes o’ men and mice
gang aft agley,” and especially
in Washington’s “massive retali-
ation” department.

The news that the U.S. phut-
niks had sent a grapefruit-size
cone into space with a tiny white
mouse aboard, didn’t cause a rlp-
ple among the “humane” sob-
sisters who had worked them-
selves into hysterics in the mon:
opoly press about the “cruel
Russians, when the latter sent
up the little dog Laika in Sput-
nik II to pioneer space travel.

Unlike Laika, of course, the
poor little mouse just didn’t stay
up. The rocket-minded boys at
Cape Canavarel had goofed
again. Mousie’s rocket didn’t
“orbit. The best it did was
probably ta make a fine splash
in mid-Atlantic somewhere off
the coast of Africa. But it was an
achievement that even the Bet-
ter Mousetrap Corporation of
Oshkosh, Nebraska couldn't dup-
licate — and wouldn't find it

profitable if it did.

Such achievements must be
conducted at the taxpayers’ ex-
pense, and that as the Immortal
Bard said, makes harassed cold
war taxpayers and poor little
mice “fellow mortals.”

“Lost: one white mouse, find-
er please return to Pentagon,
Washington.” But be canny about
collecting. FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover
will want to know just when,
where, how and why YOU hap-
pened to find it, when the com-
bined operational forces of the
U.S. Air Force and navy couldn’t.

Poor little mouse . .. and tax-
payer!

os bes 5 Og

When Douglas Jung, Conserva-
tive MP for Vancouver Centre,
currently attending a
NATO youth gathering in Paris,
made some critical observations
about governmental pre-condi-
tioning of Canadians visiting the
Soviet Union, Liberal Senator J.
W. De B. Farris awoke in the
somnambulant chamber to. de-
mand, “What right has this China-
man to make statements on be-
half of the Canadian people?”

Not “this member of parlia-
ment,” the “member from Van-
ccuver-Centre,” “this young MP,”
or other non-derogatory reference
but “. . . . this Chinaman.” And
in the august Canadian Senate
chamber, there was not one voice
raised to protest this racist preju-
dice.

In the public hullabaloo that

has since erupted an effort is ap-
parent to smooth things over, to
find excuses for the senator. He
was “tired,” “hasty,” “unthink-
ing,” “angry” and so forth.

Actually Senator Farris was
just being himself. In Vancouver,
and in fact all B.C., the Farris
family stands in much the same
relation as did the Cabots and
Lodges in early Boston days,
when “the Lodges spoke only
to the Cabots, and the Cabots
spoke only to God” — and both
drew their ill-gotten wealth
from the sweat and toil of the
people — of all races.

To men with the Farris men-
tality and thin veneer of “demo-
cratic” pretentions, Chinese-Can-
adians are still ‘“Chinamen,”
“Orientals,” the “Yellow Peril,”
accepted only when they “keep
their place,’ insulted by racist
bigotry and prejudice when they
don’t conform to Pharisee opin-
ion.

Douglas Jung may have erred
in his statements. to NATO youth

. and then again he may not.
The only right Senator Farris (or
anyone else) has is to challenge
(or agree) with what Jung said,
not to question or insult his
racial origin.

Moreover, those who seek to
“apologize” or ascribe “extenuat-
ing” circumstances to Farris’
racist outburst, are as stupid as
the senator and equally guilty of
racist prejudice.

July 18, 1958 —

PACIFIC YRIBUNE—PAGE 5