_ Legislative, By STANLEY B. RYERSON HE outfit had its headquarters in. Manhattan, and branch offices in London, Paris and other spots. Its business was killing: organized, systematic, efficient. Of late, a new method had been de- veloped—shorter, if not so sweet, but definitely deadly. Patented too: a Company Exclusive. The outfit warred on labor, neatly combining strikebreaking with mass murder, at home and abroad. It got away with mur- der (literally) because it not only got police protection (it owned the police) but for another rea- son as well. Among the victims of its far-- flung operations, a growing num- ber were inclined to resist, to get together and put a stop to “Murder, Inc.” and all its works. But some were found who'd have none of such doings. For one rea- son or another, though they pro- fessed attachment to decency, and were on record against murder, they could not condone resistance. The Company, after all, was part of free enterprise. And ‘free, en- terprise was democracy: “Our way of life.” And this in turn was threatened by the Reds. ... So it seemed logical for these wavering spirits to swear allegi- ance to the Company, and do pro- motion work on -its behalf— against the remainder of the hu- man race. This policy did not turn out favorably for them. But it worked hell for every- body else, Until it was stopped. e The evil old man in Boston bemoaned the fact that his at- tempt at infanticide had failed. He had failed thirty years ago, he said, to strangle, the Soviet Republic at its birth. So he’d come to make a deal for a man-sized job (British understatement) — which “Murder Inc.” might be expected to take on. That this was exactly what he was after was attested by the Toronto Globe and Mail, which editorially explained (on April 2): ’ «Naturally, he did not use - explicit language in speaking of the future possibilities which may lift the threat of Commun- ism and Russian aggression from this generation. It would have been impolite for him to do so...” But what Mr. Church-~ ill had in mind, the editor has- tened to point out, was “a crumbling of the Soviet regime and of its empire.” To bring this about, a “purely defensive” pact is set on foot. The ~ United Nations is scuttled. The world is got ready for war. “De- fense against Bolshevism” was a good enough alibi for Hitler: why not for us? ATLANTIC PACT DOOM TO NEUTRALITY RIGHT OTTAWA, March 18: — For whatever it might have meant, Canada, when ‘it signs the North Atlantic security pact, will surrender her right to neu- trality in any future war.” —Toronto Globe and Mail. Mindful of the men of Vichy, for whom he and his spiritual su- periors had felt such warm re- gard, -Louis St. Laurent sold Canada to the new Axis, bound and (at least partially) gagged. It seemed a cinch. Could it be, that appearances were deceptive? It could. : On the walls of the Assemble at Quebec, posters rs Company stooges for Aurder Ine. “The outfit had its headquarters in Manhattan. . . . Its business was killing, organized, systematic, efficient. . . . The outfit warred on labor, neatly combined strikebreaking with mass murder at and/or abroad” . were plastered, boldly denouncing the pact, proclaiming refusal: ‘“NONK = In the streets of Montreal, hun- dreds, then thousands, shouted: “Nous volons la Paix!—We Want Peace.’ Nor could the sickening _thtd of police batons on skulls, the clatter of their horses’ feet, reduce that cry to silence . . ‘da Paix!” ‘ Across the Prairies, to the Pa- cific, the will for peace is affirm- ed.. Farmer and factory worker, student and housewife, seek and find words for their protest. The movement of resistance.to war,. of opposition to the pact, finds the Communists in the fore- front—but not alone. In the farm movement, voices speak up for peace; and in the trade union leaders and trades councils. Among a million or so support- ers of the CCF, opposition rises. At first a ripple, no more. Then a definite current, gathering speed. It will become a flood. e ; For the average CCF supporter, the urge to speak up for peace encounters a dilemma. M. J. Coldwell spoke in the House of “the fear that is wide- spread — and I admit that it is widespread in our own coutnry— that this Security Pact may be a \ step in the direction of a third world war.” Indeed! But Coldwell does not conclude from this the need for opposi- tion. He declares: “The CCF believes that Canada should support and -join a North Atlantic security pact.’ Quoting a Bevinite publication, he says that “socialists” have been com- pelled “reluctantly to accept the need for a degree of rearming and a military alignment with the United States.” Coldwell is not content to swear allegiance to “Murder, Inc.”; he must quell the fears of its prospective victims, and re- fute the arguments of its adver- saries: . “Contrary to the propaganda against the proposed North At- lantic treaty, the proposal is not an attempt on the part of so- called American imperialism to bring Western European de-| mocracies into an alliance for the purpose of destroying the Soviet Union. It originates in the anxiety of Western Euro- pean democracies to persuade North America to support them in a defensive union.” (Hans- ard, p. 2073). Oh, yeah? Just get the picture. A bevy of virgins fluttering about seeking the protection of their kindly Am- erican uncle... Or is it a bevy of tycoons, of Vickers and Im- perial Chemical Industries, Schneider-Creusot and Roths- child and Dutch Shell—tying up with the Rockefeller-Morgan- Dupont gang of atomic gunmen Which side are you on, Mr. Coldwell? It seems he told us long ago, when giving us his picture of the world divided, this: “On our side, which is dom- inated by socialists and the re- maining capitalists (!), we have the atomic bomb. On their side the Communists have a huge army, intact and ready to march.” (Toronto Star, Jan. 22, 1947). The bosses are always, of course, only “defending” them- selves against the “aggression” of workers refusing to take wage cuts, or let their union be bro- ken. : And ithe bosses manage to find, in the ranks of the workers, ele- ments ready to talk the bosses’ language. (There are ten long columns of bosses’ language in Hansard for March 28: all filled by the leader of the CCF). ‘The Atlantic war pact is sup- posed to provide, according to Coldwell, Lewis and Millard, “the dynamic democratic leadership which is the only real answer to Communism” (CCF National Council Statement, Jan. 31). The dynamism is to be the pro- duct of Wall Street dollars and U.S. munitions plants..The “de- mocratic” part is to come from the shredded. mantle of Cold- well’s (and Bevin'’s) “democratic socialism” (read: “free enter- prise socialism”’). With unutterable unction, Coldwell warns the House against the possibility of “a dangerous armaments race”. But should it come nonetheless, virtue will be maintained: ‘No one must be allowed to profit in the production of instruments of war... profiteering must be eliminated”. We are to make war on Socialism according to “social- PACIFIC TRIBUNE — APRIL 22, 1949 — PAGE 4 “The evil old man in Boston bemoaned the fact that his at- tempt at infanticide had failed. He had failed 30 years ago, he said, to strangle the Soviet Re- public at its birth. So he’d come now to make a deal... .” ist’ principles! We may droP bombs on Soviet cities and col- lective farms—provided it’s in the record ‘that the curbing of wat” profiteering was firmly advocat- ed by the leader of the CCF! For those who honestly want peace, there’s only one side to be on, And it isn’t the side of the boss- es, of the “remaining capitalists and the atom bomb. It’s the side of mankind's mil- lions, the plain folk, the ones that have the guts to stand up 3”! say “No!” to the wheedling bos® with the blackjack behind hi® back.