*%

_be laid by the heels. This, of course, is. not So-
* cialism—yet.

‘of Kent and Brackenridge as to whether the fare

OL’ BILL

SHORT JABS

T is marvelous (or is it?) how the frothy-mouthed advocates of

free interprise jump off the free-enterprise band-wagon and line
up with the monopoly boys when it suits their interests to do so.
To mention a specific case of this defection—the U.S. government,
the greatest and most powerful gang of free enterprisers, which is
willing to go the length of war to stop socialism, has called off its
beloved dog-eat-dog economic creed in the matter of the American
atom bomb.

That head-and-front of all the free enterprisers in the whole
world owns and controls all patents in the U.S. not only for making
the atom bomb, but for splitting the atom and for research work
in atomic energy. It also controls the supply of
the raw materials necessary for these purposes.
The discoveries of the physicists and chemists en-
gaged in that research work must be turned over
to. the government and become its property. In

Canada too! Let any free enterpriser try to horn
in on that monopoly and see how quick he will

We have the same thing here in B.C., only
on a smaller scale. The pip-squeak president of
the Board of Trade, T. G. Norris, climbed off his
box-seat on the free enterprise chariot last Sat-
urday to line up with Vancouver's leading mon-#%
opoly, the B.C. Collectric. BI

He issued a “warning” to the public that a “Red-inspired” smear
campaign had been launched by .the Communists against the “in-
terim” fare increase through letters to the ,press attacking the PUC
decision and the advice given by city-appointed experts. As his sorry
substitute for argument, he tried to discredit letters written by
the Trade Union Research Bureau, Civic Reform Association, and
B.C. Housewives Consumer Association by the familiar device of
smearing them as “Red front” groups. “The public should be warned
against accepting as bona fide criticism and public comment matters
contained in recent letters to the press. ... These letters and state-
ments base their attacks on the ground that the decisions made and
the conclusions arrived at do not follow democratic procedure.”

These letter-writers, according to Norris, are acting behind a
sereen of apparent respectability. This is so much balderdash. The
letters which have appeared in the press are written on the basis
that the “interim” fare boost is a gouge of the people of Van-
couver. The PUC, the Board of Trade and the spineless Non-Partisan
city council, being public bodies, lay themselves open to criticism
for pandering to the dime-grabbing B.C. Collectric in their exploita-
tion of the public. ‘ ES :

Norris’s spate of verbiage is no answer to the

Marcuse and Emil Bjarnason of the Trade Union
who are actually Norris’s target, to debate the

challenge of Bert
Research Bureau,
report and facts
increase is justi-
fied or not. Let Norris and his gang take up that challenge before
they sink to slandering better men than they ever were about a
smear campaign. The organizations he mentions may not be as
“respectable” as the Board of Trade or the Law Society but their
members are at least honest. And since when did it become lese majeste
to criticize the PUOC, the Board of Trade, the city council or the B.C.
Collectric?

The Board of Trade must be hard put for a mouthpiece when
it has to depend on a nincompoop like Norris. In his budget of ac-
cusations, however, he cannot say it was the Communists who
raised the fares. Besides he is inspired, but the source of his in-
spiration is a very despicable one—the Buzzard. I read the same line
of drivel in that mephitic organ of misinformation which we pay for
every time we drop a dime in the fare box, on the day before he
issued his warning in the press. Commenting on an alleged request
for a fare inc e on the city-owned street car system of Chicago
or a nine million dollar deficit, the Buzzard gave us a preview of
Norris’s poppycock.

It may be true that the Chicago system is on the rocks. About
40 years ago, J. A. Dalrymple, general manager of the very success-

ful, municipality-owned tramways in Glasgow, was invited by the

Chicago city council to advise it about taking over the many com-
pany owned street cars in that city. He advised against public
ownership because it would be wrecked by the political graft that
was rampant. This appears to have happened now, particularly since
the Chicago people don’t any longer have Hinky-dink and Bath-
house John to stand between them and the transportation racketeers.

The Buzzard extends its sympathy to the straphangers in Chi-

cago, but has no word of sympathy ‘for the sardine-packed strap-

hangers in Vancouver. It further comments, “MacCarter (the man-
ager in Chicago) may wonder why men go into public transit. We,
ourselves, wonder too.”

Is that why the B.C. Collectric has bought up nearly all the
bus lines in sight and is now blackmailing the Municipality of West
Vancouver to part with its bus service for a quarter of a million
dollars plus a share ofthe profits? What profits? If there is no
profit in the business, as the B.C. Collectric continually squawks, it
looks as if the West Van. people are being taken for a ride. It
might be a good idea for us to take up a collection to send Professor

-Carrothers and T. G. Norris, K-C., back to school, fifth grade. Some

of the boys or girls there could explain to them the difference be-
tween “interim” and “permanent.’

PACIFIC 9588

i  neaetnenannam \

FERRY MEAT MARKET

119 EAST HASTINGS
; VANCOUVER, B.C.

FREE DELIVERY
Supplying Fishing Boats Our Specialty
Jack Cooney, Mgr. Nite Calls GL. 1740L

moence Y/

ne wats et
ms wade AES RSS
aiisaentd ® ; %

Real Soviet atom story |

blacked out by press

By ISRAEL EPSTEIN

—NEW YORK

The Soviet Union, as well as
the U.S., knows how to make atom
bombs, The U.S. was the first to
develop, employ and stockpile this
weapon, and has used its supposed
monopoly in diplomacy as_ well.
The Soviet Union has also devel-
oped a bomb and has it available.
But it has never dropped it, or
brandished it as a threat. If
attacked with atom bombs, how-
ever, the Soviet Union is able to
come back in kind. That is fact
number one.

The U.S. has had atomic energy
sources longer than the Soviet Un-
ion. But the Soviet Union, judg-
ing by the Tass announcement of
“blasting operations” and many
other Russian hints, is first in
using it in peaceful construction.
Everyone has recognized the tre-
mendous possibilities of the atom
in two directions: for death or
life. The Soviet Union seems to
have gone much further in the
second direction, that of making
the atom serve man’s needs. That
is fact number two.

Fact number one was, or should
have been, known a long time
ago. V. M. Molotov, the Soviet
foreign minister, said almost two
years ago, on November 6, 1947,
that the U.S. monopoly of the
bomb no longer existed and that
“this secret has long ceased to
be a secret.” :

Molotov’s statement was gener-
ally ignored or disbelieved until
protracted /!U.S.-British checking
supplied corroboratory*® evidence.
President Truman made a special
announcement to that effect on
September 23 and Soviet spokes-
men then said unexcitedly that
the bomb had indeed been in their
possession since 1947, when Molo-
tov had said so.

* * *

In the light of the confirmation
Truman has now given Molotov’s
1947 statement on fact one, it is
good to recall what the Soviet
Union has said on fact two, which
is the’ real news.

4s early as October 29, 1946,

Molotov said in the United Na-
tions ,General Assembly:

“We, the Soviet people, do not
tie up our calculations for the
future with the use of the atomic
bomb.” :

Soviet Ambassador Andrei Gro-
myko, introducing his country’s
proposals for international control
of atomic energy on June 19, 1946,
stressed the following:

“There can be no active and
effective system of peace if the
discovery of the means of using
atomic energy is not placed in
the service ‘of humanity and is
not applied to peaceful purposes
only.” ;

. Thus, while insisting that atom
bomb production: be stopped and
existing stocks of bombs be de-
stroyed by international agreement,
the Soviet Union opposed holdin
down atomic energy in general.
Indeed it called for each nation
to apply it, the more the better,
for productive ends.

America’s official proposal for
contro] of atomic energy, known
as the Baruch plan and also sub-
mitted in 1946, likewise spoke of
peaceful use of the atom. Its
actual provisions, however, dealt
with limitation rather than pro-
motion of such use.

Instead of leaving nations free
to develop it, subject to inter-
national inspection to which the
USSR agreed, Baruch proposed
international ownership and “com-
plete managerial control” of all
plants producing fissionable mater-
ials for any purpose.  . ~

Such international management
would «be carried out by the U.S.-
led majority of the United Nations,

which is not only anti-Soviet but |

lives under a different system of
society, the capitalist system in-
stead of the socialist. Soviet dele-
gates to the UN vetoed the pro-
posal. .

A comparison of the industrial
position of the USSR and _ the
U.S. will show why this is in-
evitable. National welfare and
living standards are determined,
among other things, by the amount
of power produced per inhabitant.
The USSR began industrialization

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — OCTOBER 7, 1919 — PAGE * —

much later than the U.S, Eve?
today, it turns out only oB&
tenth as much power per citize®
and thas access to much less °
and other fuel for expansion. }\

national ownership of all produ

tion, however, the Soviet Unio?
is in a position to utilize ae

methods quickly to expand ©
figure. _ .

The US. on the other hand
already produces much power. J
existing expensive facilities 4°
largely owned or exploited by P¥.
vate power trusts, which would
stand to loose from the too-raPi
development of new sources, eithe?
at home or abroad.

U:S. utilities are powerful ™
the government. The U.S. con _
many other votes in the 'UN- Tt

is in capitalism's interest to Prove
that socialism cannot produce his?
standards. The USSR there
could not agree to what amou?
to US, control of its industri
plans. :
While the U.S. could not s€€
itself relinquishing its lead ip
atom bombs, the Soviet Union bid
fused to give up the possibility
of leading, or even engaging,
peaceful use of the atom. only
prohibition of atomic weapons-
avoid a race to produce bom
and later use them in war.

prohibition, unaccompanied
strings on other development, or

lead to the healthy competition o
two systems, each showing W?"), |
can do more with the atom —
make man’s life richer and bette? —

Highest Prices Paid for —
DIAMONDS, OLD GOLD
Other Valuable Jewellry

STAR LOAN CO. Ltd:

Est. 1905 ie
oo |
——

719 Robson St. — MAr.

‘ FINE
CUSTOM TAILOR!

by