soe

~ PARLIAMENT HILL

BY MARK FRANK

Gov't uses whip around stables

as horses bolt with popular vote

+ PUREE galleries are filled on :

Pariament Hill these days as
citizens follow the sensational de-
bate on the Currie Report, the
disclosure of scandals in the army
service works department—behind
all of which, of course, is the
manoeuvering of the political par-
ties for position in the coming fed-
eral: election.

Important as these révelations
are, the more significant by-prod-
ucts of the debate ‘emphasize how
deepgoing is the St. Laurent gov-

-ernment’s attack on parliament
and democracy itself; how these
partisan-minded MP’s are feeling

_. the heat of public indignation; and

how the government is already
using the threat, if not yet. the
letter of Bill 93, in an attempt to
gag criticism of its policies and
actions.

Arising out of the -Currie Re-

port debate is the issue of the

rights of MP’s and parliament.
This is a striking confirmation of
what LPP federal candidates are
Saying—that the St. Laurent poli-
cies of war and subordination to
the U.S.—which all parties in the

House support—are accelerating .

the attack on the supremacy of
parliament.

In the heat of debate came a
_ Solemn warning to all Canadians
_ from the lips of J. M. Macdonnell
(PC—Toronto Greenwood) who
said on January 16: i
“It is almost an act of treason
if the opposition dares to criticize

_ the government.” x
He noted that the government's
conception of national security
“has come to mean not the security

of the country, but the security

of the government.”

. And John Diefenbaker (PC—
Lake Centre) warned that “parlia-

- ment dare not allow its national
police force to be used in any way
that may be considered a political
one or having a political purpose
in mind.” This, of course, was in

_ obvious reference to St. Laurent’s
threat to use the RCMP against
M. J. Coldwell in connection with
the “advance copy” of the Currie
Report that got into the hands of
the CCF leader before being tabled
in the House.

Significantly this final session of
parliament before a general elec-
‘tion, which opened with an attack
on the undeniocratic practises of
the government, will consider Bill

98 (Letter O of the Senate to

amend the Criminal Code) now

the object of nationwide protest

for its infringements on civil lib-
_ erties. :
we :
S. H. Knowles (CCF-Winnipeg’.
- North Centre) began the exposure
of the St. Laurent regime when
on January 13 he charged that the

rights of MP’s and parliament .

were being threatened by a mili-

_ tary caste headed by chief of the,

general staff Lieut. General Guy
_ Simonds. He was replying to De-
fense Minister Claxton’s speech ‘on

_ the Currie Report.

Declaring that the army chiefs
were seized with an “arrogant and
domineering attitude,” Knowles
listed a series of actions of Sim-

_ onds which he said were an affront,

to parliament. At tithes he weak-

ened his arguments by appearing
to separate the chiefs of staff
from the government—wanting to
_ know whether the government was

' being pushed around by the gen-.

erals. What became clear as the
debate ran on was that the St.
Laurent government, far from be-
ing pushed around, was encourag-
ing and backing the brasshats.
The real scandal on Parliament

_ _ Hill — the maintenance of armies:
in Korea and Western Germany

and the $2.2 billion a year arms
build-up—was pushed to the back-

ground by all oppesition members
as well as the government. What
both Claxton and St. Laurent
sought to do was to try and pre-
sent “something bigger” than the
Currie Report to the Canadian
people in the form of high-flown;
tributes to the army overseas and
a flood of stories to distract pub-
lic opinion, This is what also lay
behind the “spy scare” type of
declarations by St. Laurent in
the matter of the disappearance of
an advance copy of the Currie
Report. :

"All this dodging in an effort to.

get out from under has only fur-
ther embarrassed the government.
Knowles listed some of the crimes
of the government and the brass-
hats. They were:

@ Simonds’ memorandum tabl-
ed on December 15 along: with the
Currie Report, a bitter answer to
its criticisms. Full responsibility
for Simonds’ action was placed
on “the minister of national de-.

fense (Claxton) . the prime
minister (St. Laurent)” by
Knowles.

@ The checking of an advance
copy of the Currie Report by De-

. puty-Minister of National Defense —

Drury, despite objection by G. S.
Currie himself. As a_ result,
changes were made in one vital
section, when the draft was chang-
éd from placing responsibility for
army .scandals on those “at or
near the top” to those “higher up.”
Knowles declared ‘the minister of
national defense was part and par-
cel with his military heads” in the
effort to take the heat off them-
selves. .

© @® The December issue of the *

Canadian Army Journal released
in the week of the new session.
In it was a message to the army

"by Simonds in which he referred

to “unremitting attacks from
many sources,” the implicatioh be-
ing that the army resented the. re=.
view of its activities in parliament.

@ Knowles’ statement that Si-
monds had ordered members of
the services not to discuss the
Currie Report. He revealed that
army orders dated December 12;
three days before the report was
tabled in the House, carried un-
der a heading on the Currie Re-
port: “The chief of the general
staff requests that no discussion
be entered into by employees of
the department of national de-
fense on the marginally noted re-

Sports :

e ;
To these evidences of govern-
ment-brasshat cooperation to stifle
public protest, must be added the
threat to use the RCMP against
CCF leader Coldwell if he refused
to tell how he received an advance
draft copy of the Currie Report,

Knowles «revealed that corres--

pondence between Claxton and
Coldwell showed that the minister
had threatened to use the RCMP

if Coldwell was “not prepared to | *

give- information” as to how he
got the advance copy. :

The independence of parlia-
ment ... is definitely threatened
by this attitude on the part of the
minister,” said Knowles, claiming
that MP’s could reserve the right
not to disclose their sources of in-
formation when such information
was in the interest of the country.

Claxton’s letter of January 8
to Coldwell on the matter of the
advance copy said: “The RCMP

are being instructed accordingly.

Before, however, they start,’ it
would be of assistance if. °

information that you may have
bearing on this.’ Knowles de-
scribed these words as a “veiled

. USS. orderin

STON 8

you.
could make available to me any

threat from the minister of na- °

tional defense.”

Claxton was followed by a sec-
on intimidatory speech by Prime
Minister St. Lamrent on January
15 in which he likened his fellow
MP’s_ to “receivers or stolen
goods,” for. using the advance
draft copy of the Currie Report,
further infringing on the rights
of members of parliament.

Defense Minister Claxton’s re- |
ply of January 13 to the Curie

Report pooh-poohed the findings.

He. promised more scandals when |
he said: ‘“‘we shall continue to have |
those losses no matter who is min- |

ister of national defense”

and °

compared the financial operations |
of the army to that of a “major

commercial undertaking.
ay .

And on the same day there were |
further exposures placed before .
Commons in the shape of Auditor-

General Watson Sellar’s report—

a two-volume bulky “blue book” -

on Publie Accounts.

Like the ,

Currie Report it lashed into the ,
“cost be damned” attitude of the

brass hats.

The Currie Report, it will be
Tecalled, noted that. the higher-ups

had “gazed forward into the un-
known consequences. of. the Ko- |

rean outbreak and foresaw still

}

4

greater wars not very far away.” |

This ‘same pre-occupation with

Hy
‘bigger and better” was was €x- | °

}

pressed in the army’s general. ac-

counting apart from the
works Service covered by the Cur-
rie Report.

army i

i
i

GENERAL SIMONDS

OPEN. LETTER’

BROOKE CLAXTON

Editor demands review of 4

of an open letter address
to

ed

man:
IN Tuesday, January 6, I attend-

‘ed the inquest into the death -

of Clarence’ Clemens, a Negro

longshoreman, who died»December —

24 in Vancouver General Hospital.

‘Isat through the entire proceed-. ,

ings both as a representative of
the Fisherman and as a member
of the Vancouver Joint Labor
Committee to Combat Racial Dis-
crimination.

/T*camme away from the court-
room deeply shocked that any jury
which had before it the evidence
presented by some 52 witnesses

* could reach the conclusion it did.

Sellar charged that “nocivilion, :

authority answerable -to” parlia-

procurement” take place. » Mil-

lions were bei ;
eing spent for cur : nae
nae CuTeenn uous struggle while resisting ar-

rest by two city police officers at |
approximately 2.30 a.m., July 19, .

use and stockpiling and once items |

are purchased, they are regarded
as the army’s own
erty.

/ For the jury, as you are aware,
found that “. . . this is an unnat-

; ural, accidental death as a result
ment exercises direct control after

personal prop- ,

- The auditor-general listed cases

which showed. how the military
disposes of the taxpayers’ monies.

Estimated, costs in 35 ‘military
projects were limited to $17,565,
_ but without official authorization
the army spent $58,100,

of injury to the spinal cord caus-
ed by an old injury which may
have been aggravated by his stren-

1952, in the normal course of
their duties. 3
I am not an expert on crim-

inology nor any I an expert in the |

medical field. But may I ask that

' if death results from a blow on

the chest, and “death is hastened |

by virtue of the fact that the vic-

_ tim, has a weak heart or some other

Brigadier Alan’ Connelly, the .

some officer Who approved the
to Koje Island, was taken care of
with $29,000 for « home in Re-

gina. The originally authorized
amount was $14,000,

_ Army pay of $2,790 and -Civi-
lian Salary of $2,875 were given a
haa for three jmonths after
€ had been seconded int ivi
service job; * ont oe
e » }: ©

Once the Currie Report is out

sof Canadian ‘troops —

physieal frailty, can that be any
reason to forgive the person who
struck the blow?

This verdict, in my opinion,

was unjustified on the basis of the |

evidence submitted.
S

Clarence Clemens died ‘on De-

_ cember 24, five months after his

nO the. way—the Liberal. party: ©

wants it

‘teé where it has a safe jori

WE SERS EAA ‘ majorit

—the rest of the a
*. 3 ~

; properly buried in a spe--
cial, defense expenditures commit-

session will un-—

© “AE thé -top of the list will be Bill

93 which provides

a follow up on |

the Currie Report that is pertinent _

since the issue of
vices and the RCMP
Sharply.

Early preparation of the 1953-
54 budget, expected to come down

:

the armed ser- |
came up so’ WH ; :
‘ing about 200 pounds. °

_ in early March will be a big topic; ©

as also the tabling of the Royal |
Commission. report on the Saskat-.
_chewan. River Project; and an- |
nouncements of new federal health
grants, meant as an electoral sop -

to the mounting public demand for ik

national health insurance,

arrest last July 19. Both the medi-

‘cal and other evidence establish~

ed ‘beyond a doubt in my mind
the fact that from July 19 to the
time of his death, Clemens. was
afflicted with paralysis in greater
or lesser degree, and no evidence
was produced to show that he
had been so afflicted prior to the
time of his arrest. Clemens never
again spoke after July 28 but
witness after witness told of the
beating he had allegedly suffered
and while their evidence may not
(five months after the event) have
jibed in every fine detail, it did
bring out the essential point: that
a man of 52 and of ordinary sta-
ture was involved in a struggle
with two policemen each weigh-

Is it not of some significance
that not one witness, and there
were several in the cafe at’ the
time, bore out the allegation of
Constable Wintrip that Clemens
had struck him in the New Station
Cafe, thereby prompting Wintrip
to arrest him? Or is one police-
man’s story to be given more cre-
dence than that of several “color-
ed” witnesses? :

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — JAINUARY 30, 1953 — PAGE 4

evidence in Clemens case

OLLOWING is the text.

_ Is not the conflicting evidence
of police officers as to whether or
+ not Clemens was handuffed at
Attorney General ,
Robert Bonner by George ;
North, editor of the Fisher

' force at Jeast such ‘a step being

the time of ‘his alleged beating
cause enough alone to warrant 2
fuller study of this case? Other
inconsistencies in police evidence —

: taken. There are; and these will
be found on examination of the
evidence, several such inconsis~
tencies.

e
After studying the evidences
“you, Mr. Bonner, will agree,

believe, that Coroner J. D. Whit--
bread was much more Severe im
his ‘cross-examination of those
‘witnésses appearing, so to speaks.
‘on’ behalf of Clemens, than. those
witnesses’ appearing again, so tO
speak, on behalf of the two police |

_officers.. Examination of the re-

cord will bear this \out—some of |
the questions, incidentally, were

not only embarrassing to witnes= —
ses but almost insulting.

*"Objéctive of Mr. T. Dohm, coun-

cil for ‘the Policemen’s Federal

_ ‘Union, and ‘he seemed* to have’

‘some sympathy in the jury and —
‘onthe bench, appeared to be to
besmirch the name and character —

| “of ‘the deceased ‘and of certain
', witnesses rather than to ascertain i

‘the’ facts of the case.

Finally, how, in the name of
Justice (and the laws of chance) —
was it possible for a seven-mall —
jury to be chosen which had not —
a ‘single working man as a mem i
ber? I am _ not speaking of &
trade unionist, or even a person :
of Chinese, or Negro, or Japan~
ese, or Indian extraction, but of ® —
laboring man. In fact, though I |
have made no thorough investiga”
tion, I am convinced that there is —
no minority national group rep~
resented on the jury in question. |
Is this indeed not strange? While

I, as a layman, am not conversant

with the selection of such juries:
I am nonetheless deeply disturb-
ed at the unrepresentative makeup
of this particular jury. i

‘Here are the names and occu-

pations of the jurors: _ :

W. J. Barbour, retired, 955 —
Thurlow; W. .C. Southwick, vice~
president and manager, 2970 ©
Mathers Crescent, West Vancou-
ver Arnold Webster, school prin-
cipal, 3578 Chaffey, Burnaby; J-
F. Buckham, underwriter, 3819 —
West 27th; R. R. Horrex, man7
ager, 2882 Bellevue, West Van
couver; G. C€. Lunn, controllet —
950 East Broadway; and M. J.
Nugent, sales representative, 1792
Raleya. ; : P ‘ ee ’

I feel sure that you, Mr. Bon-
ner, in your wisdom, will see Tesi
to act on the request»of the B.C:
Federation of Labor for a review
of the case and of the verdict. It
would, in my opinion, be 10
only a tragedy but a dangerous
precedent if this case were to be —

considered closed without a most

thorough investigation by your d@
partment, f

Nie