TH his promised kickback
On Lion’s Gate passenger tolls

[his juggling with a now-
see-itnow-you-don't budget

lus. of $25 million or so,
ier W. A. C. Bennett is
as a beaver repairing elec-
dams.

ut on the issue of a subsidy
enable Fraser Valley dairy
ers to*stock up enough hay
gkeep their herds producing
ough the fall and winter,
ett keeps mum. If his
ernment has a policy on real
for the farmers it isn’t tell-

anyone, and least. of all the
ers.

she problem facing dairymen
the Fraser Valley is not merely
‘short’’ hay crop, but the lack
Fmoney to buy the tonnage
tded to maintain their herds.
th hay running from $40 to

' Pacific Tribune

| Published weekly at

Room 6 — 426 Main Street
Vancouver 4, B.C.

‘ Phone: MArine 5288

Editor — TOM McEWEN
Sociate Editor — HAL GRIFFIN
iness Manager — RITA WHYTE

Subscription Rates:
One Year: $4.00

: Six months: $2.25
Canadian and Commonwealth
intries (except Australia): $4.00
year. Australia, United States
| all other countries: $5.00 one
; year.

What about some real hay ?

~

EDITORIAL PAGE «x

$45 a ton, they stand no chance
of reaching ’’parity’’ between the
prices they have to pay and what
they receive in return unless
given aid by some sort of sub
sidy. And, as consumers, the.
general public has a vital interest
in seeing that they get it.

Perhaps Bennett can suspend’

his election haymaking long

enough to discuss real hay with
the province's premier milk
producers.

Comment

Make the Sommers report public

JHE RCMP commission report
on the Sturdy-Sommers case
is now -on Attorney-General
Robert Bonner’s desk. What it
contains is still a secret, and the
attorneygeneral has intimated

it will remain so.

It will be recalled that dur-
ing the Sloan Forestry Commis-
sion hearings, David Sturdy,
Vancouver lawyer, sought leave
to read into the record materials is at issue, the public has a right
which alleged that Socred Lands to know just what, if anything,
and Forest® Minister Robert has been revealed. Likewise,
Sommers had been the recipient Sommers must know that any
of financial handouts from log- whitewash-in-camera by the
ging tycoons, in return for forest government will still leave the
license grants. Unable to do so stigma of guilt upon himself,
before the Sloan ,Commission even if he is completely innocent
hearings, Sturdy placed his alle- of the Sturdy allegations.
gations before Bonner. The people of this province

With the apparent approval do not take kindly to double
of the Socred government, Som-
.mers promptly filed a libel suit
against Sturdy. Meantime pub-
lic indignation compelled -Som-
mers to resign his cabinet post,
but not his seat, pending out-
come of the case.- Instead of go-
ing through the court channels
normal in such cases, the case
was turned over to the RCMP
for ‘‘investigation.”’

With the results of this “‘in-
vestigation’ now in the hands°
of Attorney-General Bonner,

that gentleman has let it be
known that this report will not
be made public, a high-handed
action which can only cast fur-
ther suspicion upon his former
cabinet colleague and leave the
public to draw its own con-
clusions.

Since it is the Socred give-
away of the public domain (in
this case forest resources) that

the RCMP commission report

become a public document. The
people have a right to know its
conclusions and to insist that
ministerial integrity take prece-
dence over Social Credit polit-
ical expediency. i

ering the people's affairs, the re-
port deals with those affairs and
the government is duty bound
to make it public.

standards of justice. That is why

on Sommers’ stewardship must :

The government is administer-

: McEwen

ae WEEKS ago I commented |

Tom

upon the letter-writing act-
ivities of a certain type of “cor-
respondent”, the type that writes
voluminous’ opinions on the issues
raised by the 20th congress of
the Communist Party of the Sov-
iet Union, but studiously avoids
putting a signature to them.

Most newspapers have a long
established policy toward letters
from readers. Should a contrib-
utor desire ‘that his or her iden-
tity be witheld for “security”

_or other reasons, a pen-name may

be used if the material is accep-
ted for publication, but the letter
writer’s name and address must
accompany literary efforts.

From his second “letter,” scat-
tered far and wide to a number
of selected people, the type I
am discussing is quite well
aware of this essential rule of

the game, and draws our atten-
tion to the anonymity of letters
appearing in these columns in
the past. This is quite true, with
just one important omission;
that we knew the identity of these
writers. and could thus accept
their viewpoint on current issues
in good faith, even when such
views were in sharp opposition
to our own. With this type of
anonymous “correspondent”
however there is neither good
faith nor good intention.

In defense of his anonymity
our subterranean “critic” explains
in his most recent “circular” let-
ter, “A letter to the Canadian
Tribune (printed in the issue of
May 14). sums up my reason for
concealing my identity.” From
this one could get the idea that
the Canadian Tribune requires no
proof of the bona-fides of its
correspondents, and that only the
Pacific Tribune “refuses to take
the lid off.”

An editorial note in the issue
of the Canadian Pribune referred
to reads:

“Our standing rule that all let-
ters must bear the name and ad-
dress of the sender.remains, This
need not appear in print; should a
pen name be desired for publi-
cation, please so indicate.”

I am quite certain the-corres-
pondent we are dealing with
didn’t slip through that rule un-
noticed, hence his implied “rea-
son” for concealing his identity
is of the same shoddy material as
the rest of his factional effusions.

To deal with the points raised
in these numerous anonymous
diatribes about LPP and Soviet
shortcomings would merely serve
to elevate moral cowardice to
virtuous effort. People who en-
gage in spreading sugar-coated
slander from the safety of a base-
ment are scarcely worthy of
reply, even should some of the
issues they raise contain a germ
of validity !

xm % bes

Then comes a double-barrelled
anonymity. A recipient of one
of these anonymous stink-bombs
sends his copy along, with his
own identity neatly cut off page
one and an anonymous PS added
to page two. “Dear T. Mc: While
I question the sincerity of the
person or persons writing these
letters, I agree substantially with
the criticisms contained herein.
Vancouver, B.C.” In other words,

I don’t trust the apothecary who

prepared this poison, but recom-
mend you spread it around.
Whew !,

a

ay

PT

Tae Tne eT a TT

A a

July 20, 1956 —PACIFIC TRIBUNE — PAGE 7%

¢