EDITORIAL PAGE * Comment

We would all feel safer

q * What will. the Bennett government do? That’s the question being

Ht sKed by UBC students as they campaign for $15 million new con-
Tuction to relieve crowded conditions such as these in the dining room

at Fort Camp.

4

: au IS NOT vital to the progress
} % this province whether a
| p Senger on the Pacific Great
Olas S “Cariboo Dayliner’’

. Nor cannot buy a drink en

ptt. The liquor laws of B.C.

| fe What they are, we believe

ie), -~* 2 Service on the PGE should

# °© available if people want it.

Mond hat is highly objectionable,
HF % Particularly to working men
ib CUse Women, is the insulting ex-
2B vencr seeedly. given by PGE
f = eral manager Joe Broadbent
wen having such a service:
bun be getting a pretty rowdy
_ “1 OF passengers on this run
1) Miners and the like.”

bas a this weren’t enough,
i that ae reportedly added
Mspecih © PGE “‘Dayliner’”’ isn’t
i : ically designed for the tour:
tade, but for “‘those residents
Bet pedis for dude
or hunting resorts,’

ss where ordinary people
—0 visit for sound economic

2 e e e
‘acific Tribune
; Uublished kly at
Room: — 426 Main Street
pyaltcouver 4, B.C.
| cai ee MArine 5288
Associate — TOM McEWEN

: PSUsiness por — HAL GRIFFIN

anager — RITA WHYTE
of _ Subscription Rates:

i One Year: $4.00
Six months: $2.25

Es -C:;
i onnte and Commonwealth

ne :
(ang 43. Australia, United. States
) other countries: $5.00 one
, a » year. :

“A public insult

reasons.

The PGE’s general manager
owes an immediate apology to
‘‘miners and the like,’’ and has
the responsibility of making the
PGE a public service in line with
the liquor laws if the public so
desires — without reference to
the social caste of his passengers.

te THE controversy now rag:
ing over John Foster Dulles’

latest crack about “‘feeling much .

safer’ if there were no British
or French troops around, were

he an American GI fighting in

the Middle East, a very impor-
tant angle has been entirely over-
looked, that all of us, British,
French and Canadian © alike,
would feel much safer in every
respect if this arch war conspir-
ator weren't around altogether.

Some way should be found,
without presuming to interfere
in the affairs of the American
people, to bring that almost uni-
versal idea to the attention of the
U.S. Senate Committee’ before
whom Dulles vented his con-
tempt of Britain and France.
Popular opinion throughout the
West has made it clear that the
whole world would feel, and be
much safer if John Foster Dulles
were not directing U.S. policy
“on the brink’”’ of war.

The editorial apologies in our
local papers in defense of Dulles
make sorry reading. Dulles was
probably ‘“‘tired’’ or “‘exasperat-
ed’’ when he made such remarks,

and surely “‘no real offense was
intended.”’

Such piffle! Dulles meant ex-
actly what he said, and what he
said fits perfectly into U.S. poli-
cy in the Middle East, which is
to play as much of the Arab
world as it’ can. muster against
rival British and French monop-
oly oil interests to the end that
Wall Street can grab the oil re-
sources and ultimately oust its
rival ‘‘allies.’’

Dulles feels ‘“‘much safer” in
the Middle East if Britain and
France are not too ‘‘close’’ for
much the same reason that com-
peting American gangsters feel
“much safer’? when powerful
competitors have been “‘rubbed
out.”’ U.S. foreign policy as
enunciated by Dulles has a close
affinity to gangsterism, the only
difference being that some gang-
sters are more skilful but no less

ruthless than John Foster Dulles.-

We are sure the American
people share with us the com-
mon desire to feel ‘“‘much safer.”’
An early retirement for an ob-
sessed diplomat would give the
whole world an assurance that
we were.

Or (except Australia): $4.00~

WAS intrigued to read the
l other day that Henry Byron
McCulloch, Liberal MP for Pic-
tou, N.S. had made his first
speech -after sitting in the House
of Commons for 21 years.

What, I asked myself, iinpee
this aphonic politician to spea
when he was so far ahead of
other Liberal back-benchers in

constituents? I refer, of course,
only to the House of Commons.
No Liberal back-bencher has
ever been known to be speech-
less on the hustings unless he
forgot to bring it with him. :
Why did he spoil the” parlia-
mentary record he had .set, not

othing at great length but simp-
ey by Cot saying anything at all?
Within a short time he will have
reached the age of 80 and: have
proved beyond dispute his. quali-
fication’ for a. Senate appoint-
ment. Was he then foreed to: the
extreme ,recourse of making a

years of silence on behalf of_his -

by the usual method. of saying’

speech to draw his qualification

to the government’s attention?

And why did he enter politics
at all if he merely wanted to
listen? Other retired men with
a fancy for politics frequent the
public gallery but there is al-
ways the drawback that they
may be unable to get a seat
when an important question is
being debated. Was he astute
enough to appreciate the advan-
tages of a political. retirement on
the floor of the House itself in a
seat assured by the Liberal party
and maintained by the. taxpay-
ers?

Whatever else he has failed to
do, McCulloch has given a new
meaning to the adage, “Silence
is golden.” :

x xt Ee

I have toyed with the idea that
perhaps his lapse into speech was
prompted by a letter from his
home town of New Glasgow and
I have tried to imagine how the

letter might read.

“Dear Henry:. Some of the
folks around here have been
reading the papers for years, but
they never see nothing about
what you said. They see other
members getting up and. asking
for something: all the time and
they think it’s time you. asked
for something. Maybe. them lob-
ster dinners you give go down
good in Ottawa. but it don’t. do

- no good here. You better ask

for something to let the folks

here know you are looking after
their interests.”

Or perhaps the letter was from
one of the young peopel who have
been advised by the Gordon
Commission to leave Nova Sco-
tia.

“Dear Mr. McCulloch: I am
21 years old and a third-year uni-
versity student. I am represent-
ing the Liberals in a debate we
are having soon and I would like
to have a copy of your last
speech. I understand you were
first elected in 1935; which is the
year I was born, and although I
have looked through all the files
of Hansard I have been unable
to find any speech you have
made.”

None of this, I feel, explains
the quality of a man who could
sit unmoved through all the de-
bates of the depression years, the
controversies of the war years;
who could even resist the temp~
tation to contribute to the cold
war oratory of these latter years.

I have tried to tell myself that
this one speech which took 21
years to fashion was the desper-
ate attempt of a back-bencher to
assert the supremacy of parlia-
ment. But no, it was merely a
gimme speech such as any mem-
ber makes when an election
nears. And, when the man who
had listened for 21 years spoke
for five minutes, only 40 mem-
bers were in the House to hear
him. : : :

~

FEBRUARY 1, 1957 — PACIFIC TRIBUNE—PAGE 7

|
|
q