UBC Publications

UBC Publications

UBC Publications

The Ubyssey Nov 21, 1962

Item Metadata


JSON: ubysseynews-1.0125725.json
JSON-LD: ubysseynews-1.0125725-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): ubysseynews-1.0125725-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: ubysseynews-1.0125725-rdf.json
Turtle: ubysseynews-1.0125725-turtle.txt
N-Triples: ubysseynews-1.0125725-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: ubysseynews-1.0125725-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

Vol. XLV
No.  30
Britain's entry vital issue to Canada
The European Common Market is
historically incredible. It represents the
close co-operation of nations that have
been mortal enemies for  100 years.
Right up until 1957 when the Treaty
"of Rome was signed, and even beyond,
most   scholars   refused   to   believe   that
■-France  and   Germany  could  forget  old
animosities and work together for their
• common good.
But today the skeptics are wavering.
France and Germany—and their four
Common Market partners, Belgium,
Italy, Holland and Luxembourg—have
-created an economic revolution in planned capitalism.
•      •      •
And the ECM may also be fostering
a politicaL revolution which has every
chance of being bloodless.
It is creating a third power bloc in
-international affairs. And it may well
contain the seeds of a long-awaited
United States of Europe.
Today it is in the news because Britain and several other European nations
are knocking on the Common Market
door. But the gatekeeper is tough Gen.
Charles de Gaulle, who can see only
the grandeur of France, and entry is still
•      *      •
For Canadians, Britain's proposed
entry is a vital issue. Prime Minister
John Diefenbaker expressed hysterical
concern about the possible effects on
Canada when he spoke at the London
Commonwealth Conference in September.
This issue is explored by Jack Richardson, of the University's economics
department, in an article on Canada
and the Common Market on page 5.
Britain's position is discussed in an
article by Dr. William Hughes, of the
faculty of commerce, on page 4 of
Ubyssey Features.
The stumbling block in most of Britain's negotiations for entry into the ECM
have come over the thorny subject of
agriculture, which is still creating problems within the Common Market itself.
Dr. J. J. Richter examines this problem in an article on agriculture and the
Common Market, also on page 4.
The future of the ECM is in many
ways uncertain. But it is likely that all
internal tariffs will be wiped out before
the 1970 target date, and the free trade
area fully established.
•      •      *
But whether the great political
dream of its founders will be realized
in a United States of Europe is a question that is at present unanswerable.
The threat ot Franco-German domination and the inflammable question
of German unification will have to be
dealt with first. MEDI
his battle
When the time comes for the
press to judge the best news
stories of 1962, the Medicare
struggle in Saskatchewan will
probably be near the top of
the list. Looking back on those
hot July days when the first
doctor's ''strike" in history
took place, it seems hard to
understand w hat all the
charges and counter-charges
were about.
The government of Saskatchewan was simply carrying
out its 1960 election promise
of a government-sponsored
medical care plan. When the
Medical Care Act was discussed in the provincial legislature, not one single dissenting vote was cast. Yet this was
the act that the doctors could
not  accept  because it was,  in
By Gary Watkins
Education  !V
the words of Dr. Dalgleish,
president of the Saskatchewan
College of Physicians and
Surgeons: ''The most vicious
type 01 legislation since the
time of King Charles I."
Dr. Dalgleish complained
that "The government's intention is not to set up a
scheme of health insurance,
but rather it is intending to
set up a means of controlling
the doctors of the province by
a monopolistic payment agency
. . . Our basic stand is that we
cannot submit to this monopolistic control."
When charges like this are
levied, it seems reasonable to
examine the past performance
of the opponents in the argument. Even if the doctor's
charges   of   political   meddling
ii u i1 mm
That was doctors' view
This article is taken from
THE RESIDENT PHYSICIAN of September 1962. It
is Part II of a Special Report  to  that  periodical.
Actually, it was not a strike
but rather a boycott of a Marxist-Socialistic scheme of medical care which the government of Saskatchewan was
trying to force and foist on the
doctors of the province. The
Marxist-Socialist party, now
known as the Cooperative
Commonwealth Feder ation-
New Democratic Party, is the
brainchild of a Socialist spellbinder, T. C. Douglas and his
party cohorts, all of whom are
past masters of the tactics of
double-talk and "doublethink."
Since the original CCF was
founded during the depression
years, one of the planks in its
platform has been a program
which would provide tax-paid
medical care to everyone, this
care being given by doctors,
who under the act would be
completely subjugated to, and
regimented by the Marxian
concepts of the politicians who
run the CCF. It must be clear
to all that the Saskatchewan
doctors were fighting a battle
for freedom from Marxian-
Several   years   ago,   T.   C.
Douglas set out to make a deal
with labor. One of the prizes
he offered labor was socialized
medicine in Saskatchewan. In
the 1960 election campaign,
relative to his medicare plan,
Douglas, who at that time had
been prime minister of Saskatchewan for 16 years, firmly
stated he would not introduce
his medicare plan unless he
got a majority of the votes.
Actually, he received only
about 34 per cent of the votes.
Nevertheless, he introduced
and forced through the Medicare Bill.
Secondly, Mr. Douglas said
that any medical care plan
would have to be satisfactory
to both doctors and patients.
This promise was completely
Thirdly, Mr. Douglas stated
that the Bill which he proposed would be based on a pilot
medical care program which
had been operating successfully in S^vift Current, Sask., for
a number of years. This promise was broken. The history
of this man Douglas as a politician is similar to that of
Marxist-Socialists, full of "double-think," double-talk, and
broken promises.
There was no immediate
need for medicare in this province. The introduction of this
legislation, as we said before,
was purely a political payoff.
Mr. Douglas' introduction to
national politics in the June
1962 elections for parliament
was not salutary. In a hand-
picked election district he was
badly defeated. He almost lost
his filing-deposit, which is"the
gr-eatest' misfortune a candidate can'-have'happen to him in
Canada. But, not only did hie
suffer a humiliating defeat,
btit so did every one of his
party candidates in the prbv*
ince of Saskatchewan, where
the CCF-NDP received but 22
per cent; of the votes cast. The
main issue during this federal
election campaign? The activation of the Medicare Act; It is
against such a background that
the doctors of Saskatchewan
are battling a group of Socialist politicians to preserve freedom for our profession.
One of the sad things about
this battle was the fact that
some Saskatchewan politicians, evidencing little or no
scruples regarding the truth,
by their tactics of double-talk
and "double-think" have projected an image of their being
courageous human itarians,
fighting the money-grabbing,
free-enterprise doctors who
were "on strike." Thus, editorial comment far and wide
has been unfavorable to this
small band of embattled doctors because as it has been so
frequently said, "It is unethical for them 'to strike,' and to
endanger the health of the
residents of Saskatchewan."
But let's get down to brass
First, these- doctors are not
striking. One has to have an
employer before one can
strike.   These   doctors  are   not
employees. They are not striking against the sick of Saskatchewan! Well then, you may
say, what are they doing if
not striking? They are btoycot-
iihg a Marxist-'Sodialisi plan
for medical care which was
being forced on them by the
What I have" said is no t a
play on words, nor is it semantics. Despite certain scare reports of deaths occurring from
lack of care (none of which
have been properly verified according to my lights), the doctors of Saskatchewan are providing its residents with excellent emergency medical care,
officially and openly, and from
all I could hear, although their
offices are shut down, they are
—shall we say—"bootlegging"
a considerable amount of medical care to their patients. And
all of this is done without
Except for those few doctors who sold their self-esteem
and birth-right to the Marxist-
Socialists, no doctor is accepting fees for medical services at
the present time.
Also, my opinion would be
that during this period of
emergency medical service,
really sick patients are coming
under the scrutiny of consultant physicians and surgeons
much earlier than they did
prior to this debacle. I have
read and re-read the Hippo-
cratic Oath since I have been
out here, and, as I interpret it,
these doctors in the long run
were fighting for the preservation of the .ethical concepts of
the practice of medicine which
are  contained in the oath.
This p.m. I went out to the
City   Hospital   of   Saskatoon.
by the Saskatchewan government are accepted, the record
of the government in the health
field is  impressive.
Soon alter the CCF government was elected in Saskat- "*■
chewan, free treatment and
care were made available for
cancer, polio, venereal disease
and mental illness. A free
air-ambulance system w a e
organized for the benefit of remote areas. A comprehensive
medical care plan was started
in the Swift Current area. The
government started a hospitalization plan that has since been
copied by every other province. Saskatchewan also has
the highest per-capita ratio of
hospital beds per thousand of
(Continued on page 3)
The City Hospital is one of 34
emergency centres in the province and it had a very well-
qualified complete team of
specialists; reinforced by four*
able general practitioners on
call, with one young general
practitioner on duty in the
emergency room all the time.
The hospital (as did every other hospital I visited) seemed to
have nurses galore on duty,
and the nurse I was with told
me they had ample nurses and
more than enough applicants
for nursing school. On this lazy
Sunday afternoon, and I might
add. in a city in which everything, even movies, drug
stores and most of the restaurants close down on Sunday,
there were two graduate nurses and one student nurse on
duty in the emergency and
accident division.
The census of the hospital -
w-as down because "elective
cases" were not being admitted. Patients coming into the
emergency division had about
tripled in the previous week.
Talking to the general practitioner, I found that patients
turning up for emergency medical care were essentially of
the type which would come
into a general practitioner's
office. More than 80 per cent
were treated and sent home.
About 20 per cent were admitted to hospital.
It seemed to me that doctors
in the emergency service were
bending over backwards to ad-
m i t patients rather than to
keep them out of the hospitals
I visited.
On    Second    Avenue     (the
(Continued  on  Page  3)
(Continued from page 2)
population and spends more
on its mental health p.rogram
than all the other provinces in
Canada  combined.
Contrasted with the record
of the Saskatchewan government  is  the  opposition  of  the
'American Medical Association (the big brother of the
Canadian Medical Association
and the Saskatchewan College
of Physicians and Surgeons)
to federal health grants to
states because they were,
"... wasteful and extravagant
. . . . tending to promote communism;" to voluntary health
plans; to Social Security because it was, "a definite step
towards totalitarianism;" to
National Health Insurance; to
the crippled children's programs, because it was a
"socialistic regulation;" Social
Security for the permanently
and totally disabled at age 50;
and to health care for the
elderly, under Social Security.
That the doctors' organization should oppose something
like a crippled children's program because it was "a socialistic regulation," considerably
weakens their case against
While the Saskatchewan
doctors were striking against
Medicare in that province,
their counterparts in New
Jersey were threatening to go
on strike if President Kennedy's    Medicare    bill    was
passed. This threat of a doctor's strike prompted the
United States secretary of welfare to accuse the doctors of
"trying to blackmail the Congress and the American
people." He went on to say
that the doctors don't mind
the thought of federal funds
when they themselves are the
beneficiaries, as when most of
the hospitals that they use are
built with the aid of federal
When the American Medical
Association brought up the
charge that the medical aid
bill threatened to. sap the initiative of the people, President Kennedy made a graphic
explanation of why a medical
plan was needed. "I can't imagine anything worse—or anything better for sapping someone's initiative than to be sick,
alone, broke, or to save for a
lifetime and pay it out in a
week, two weeks, a month,
two  months."
The stand that President
Kennedy took was bound to
help the Saskatchewan Medicare plan, but the people of
Saskatchewan never heard
about the President's mammoth rallies in support of his
Medicare plan, with the exception of a Sunday morning news
broadcast on the CBC May
Saskatchewan does have
newspapers, television and
radio stations, but they do not
always act as responsibly as
they   might.   The   news   most
of Saskatchewan's people read,
hear and see is edited for them.
During the doctor's strike, pro-
Medicare news was suppressed.
When the ownership of the
Saskatchewan news media is
- studied, the reason for the anti-
government bias of the news
services becomes apparent.
The only newspaper in Re-
gina, and in Saskatoon is
owned by the Sifton family.
The only television station in
Regina is also owned by the
Sifton family, as is one of the
Regina radio stations. The Sifton family is staunchly Liberal and makes sure its communication media keep up a
barrage of pro-Liberal, anti-
government propaganda. The
two newspapers, between
them control the news flow to
the urban population and serve
more than half of Saskatchewan.
One poignant example of
the "news control" was in the
daily press, when it was reported that Lord Taylor, the
mediator in the Medicare dispute was quoted as giving an
order for the province to rest
after the end of the "strike".
The newspaper reporter went
on to say, "five minutes later
he heard a radio news broadcast where he was quoted as
praising the doctors but not
the government. He waved his
arms and raged to reporters in
the stately dining room of the
Bessborough Hotel that he had
given an undertaking to  both
that he would praise both. Now
he must expose the Canadian
press 'to the opprobrium of
the  civilized world' ".
When the bias of the news
media is considered, the doctors can hardly be blamed for
being made pawns of politicians, and for calling an essentially humanitarian medical
scheme "tyrannical". If, however, one reads a British Columbia act similar to the Saskatchewan Medical Care act, the
only possible conclusion that
can be reached is that most of
the opposition to the Saskatchewan Medicare program was
purely political and designed
to embarrass the  government.
Under Section 11, of the B.C.
Government Employee's Medical Services and Public Services Medical Plan Act, the
B.C. government sets the fees,
reserves the right to prove any
fact regarding fees payment,
determines the benefits to be
paid; may limit the amount
paid for any treatment; may
prescribe the method of payment and the limitation of the
claim and the right to determine what employees may be
excluded from the act and determining the circumstances
under which the contribution
may be discontinued and refunds  made.
Instead of vesting these powers in the cabinet, the Saskatchewan government formed a
commission made up of people
appointed by the government,
the    medical    profession,    the
trade unions and the chambers
of commerce.
Most people would agree
with the doctors if they decided,
to strike against the B.C. Government employees health
plan, but no murmur of protest was heard when this act
was  passed.
A quote from the London
Daily Mail sums up the argument  nicely:
"Far be it from us to judge
the merits of the medical dispute in Saskatchewan, Canada.
But when doctors strike and
neglect patients, the voice of
humanity protests.
That this could happen in
Britain is so inconceivable that
we regard Saskatchewan with
astonishment and sadness.
Even our nurses refuse to
abandon the sick to forward
a justified and overdue wage
But the North American approach of doctor to patient is
(to put it kindly) more matter-
of-fact than it is here. The
sentiment we see in the U.S.
films is not very evident in.
real life. Or.if it is it has to
be  paid for.
Medical fees in the U.Svare
ferocious. Anything beyond a
mild illness can bankrupt an
average American family. Yet
the doctors are campaigning
against State medical care to
aged persons.
We have much to be thankful for."
(Continued from Page 2)
main drag) was a large medical
clinic building occupied by
Medical Service Incorporated,
which provides prepaid medical service.
In checking up later I found
that about one-third of the
doctors in Saskatoon belong to
this Medical Service group.
There is another beautiful
clinic building, the Medical
Arts Building, in which solo
practitioners and group-practitioners are found. I would
judge that about three-quarters of the doctors in Saskatoon were housed in these two
Group practice is a common
way for providing medical
service in Saskatchewan, and
more than two-thirds of t h e
provincial residents have some
sort of medical coverage.
I visited the University Hospital of the University of Saskatchewan Medical School
which is a very modern and
well thought-out hospital. Another emergency service is
housed there.
I was especially interested
here to find out how "gown
and town" were getting along
in this crisis. I regret to say
that there had been a difference in opinion. It seemed
that one departmental chairman had been on the original
commission which finally reported out the Medicare Bill.
The practicing physicians' reactions to his activities on the
commission were such that he
resigned after the committee
had reported and left Saskatoon and the province. Another professor, for reasons
that now seem very unclear to
me, issued a statement to the
press which the press interpreted as being in favor of the
government's  position.
I understand that his statement was not quoted in its entirety by any newspaper
which I saw. As one might expect, it created a real stir
among this doctor's practicing
colleagues in the province, and
more bitterness on the part of
"town" towards "gown." To
my mind there should be real
fear relative to the effect of
this crisis on medical education, in Saskatchewan.
Certainlj prospective students will be dubious of enrolling in a school whose faculty has split with the practitioners, and, secondly, if there is
a real exodus of doctors from
this province, many of the
voluntary clinical faculty will
be leaving and the teaching
and educational processes will
be greatly hampered. The full-
time staff forms but a nucleus
of the teachers. To digress a
bit, I am becoming increasingly disturbed by the split between "town and gown"' over
stands taken on medical socioeconomic problems in our own
Full-time faculties of medical
schools are becoming increasingly ready to feed out of any
governmental trough which is
available and are becoming
increasingly split apart from
the practicing physicians.
Something must be done about
this rift.
Editors all over the United
States and Canada, when this
story of the so-called "doctors'
strike" broke, for the most
part assigned political reporters to cover it, rather than reporters who had had any experience with medical reports
ing. The net result of this was,
as far as I was concerned, very
unfortunate, because the news
stories continually missed the
medical point of view and frequently gave an erroneous report on the true aspects of
that which was transpiring.
Most stories indicated a lack
of knowledge in framing questions which would give them
11,9 answers.
It must be made clear exactly what the situation was
in regard to British doctors
recruited for service by t h e
government. None of these doctors were being recruited for
permanent service. The government actually believed the
situation would clear in its
favor within a month or six
weeks and they didn't want to
have a surplus of doctors on
their hands. Actually, the doctors who were showing up
were vacationists, or those who
favored  socialized medicine.
The catch is, however, that
since 1948, British general
practitioners have not been
doing any surgery to speak of,
while the general practitioners in remote areas of Saskatchewan have, of necessity,
been doing quite a bit of major
traumatic and general surgery.
Thus these British doctors perforce will be called upon to do
things which they are not familiar with by practice. If they
do them, untoward results will
be obtained, and criticism must
be expected from Saskatchewan doctors. If they say no,
then the patients will criticize
them. So, whichever way they
turn, they will be in hot water. It's a miserable situation
in which the medical profession finds itself in Saskatchewan today.
V +
"Damn the torpedoes, full
speed ahead" was Mr. MacMil-
lan's reaction immediately after the Commowealth Prime
Ministers' conference in September.
The Ministers had met to discuss Britain's entry to the
European Common Market
and stayed to launch many
torpedoes. Mr. Diefenbaker
and others appeared to view
British membership as a threat
to the political structure of the
Commonwealth—a cry that has
not gone ' unheeded by Britain's opposition Labour party
—while African Ministers saw
a united Europe as a sinister
banding together of colonial
rulers for imperialistic exploitation. The economic implications of involvement in Europe
were not forgotten and most
Ministers were fearful of diminishing exports to Britain.
As opinion at times verged
on hostility, and as much of it
was well argued and contained more than a grain of
truth, Britain's "full speed
ahead" decision can hardly
ha,ve been made without soul
searching meditation and conviction. To gain Europe while
losing Commonwealth goodwill
would be neither political
good sense nor in keeping with
traditional British sentiments
or desires. This goodwill can
be retained only if British
membership of the Market
brings overall long run benefits to Commonwealth countries, a result that the British
government evidently believes
is inevitable.
Is this result likely? Reputations are not risked in long
run conjectures, and so such
speculation is a safe occupation
for would-be experts.
The speculation must be
necessarily grounded in both
politics and economics. Not the
least of the political implications of Britain's membership
is the sensitive issue of sovereignty. Any nation which joins
the Common Market must of
necessity surrender sovereignty in certain matters by
transferring some rights to the
Common Market institutions.
Inevitably this will mean that
monetary policies, labour legislation, social welfare practices
and such like will be centrally
directed at some future date.
Further than this it is too
soon to be certain what will
On the one hand, President
de Gaulle believes that strong
nation-states should be preserved in a proposed Union of
By Dr. William Hughes
Faculty of Commerce
States, each with the right of
veto. On the other hand, there
are those inclined towards a
federal organization with no
national right of veto. If Dr.
Adenauer falls in with President de Gaulle's ideas, there
is the possibility of domination
by a Paris-Bonn axis, unless
British membership comes in
time to influence the architecture of the new Europe and
lend the balance so much desired by the less influential
Common Market countries.
Whatever the details of the
final constitution it is likely
that defence and foreign policy
will be subordinated to central
direction. To' this extent at
least, as Britain becomes
"European" a realignment of
Commonwealth loyalties and
a loosening of apron strings is
Nevertheless, it would be going too far to predict that the
loss of some British sovereign
rights will mean a break-up
of the Commonwealth as many
would have us believe.
The economic effects of the
Common Market on individual
Commonwealth countries are
already being felt. The six
member nations, Germany,
France, Italy, Belgium, the
Netherlands and Luxembourg
have made considerable progress towards their 1969 goal
of tariff-free trade between
themselves. As barriers to labour and capital .movements
are being dismantled vigorous
investment is taking place in
modern industries scaled to
serve new mass markets. This
is already providing the base
for the surge of European
economic expansion and will
sustain it in the future.
Partly as a result of European investment and prosperity, Commonwealth exports to
the Market countries are expanding at a much higher rate
than are exports to Britain.
Why, then, should Commonwealth members balk at the
idea of a Britain-in-Europe?
For some thirty years, a system of preferential trading between Commonwealth members has been practised. This
trade preference has meant that
Commonwealth countries have
exchanged many goods free of
customs duties or, in other
cases, with lower tariff barriers than those facing non-
Commonwealth countries.
A common market, however,
by definition implies a common tariff to be applied uniformly by members against
imports from "outside" countries. It is axiomatic that if
Britain joins the Market she
too will have to apply a com
mon tariff whether or not imports are from the Commonwealth.
The step-by-step adjustments
towards this common external
tariff are expected to be completed by the end of 1969.
A perplexing question is
whether or not the loss pf
Commonwealth trade preferences in Britain will be offset
by the growth of the European
market in general. By now,
however, after twelve months
of bargaining between Britain
and the Common Ma«rket, it
seems clear that vital Commonwealth interests will be protected. For example, the vulnerable economy of New Zealand will be given special
treatment, as will imports
from African and Asian members. Britain has asked for, and
will probably receive, tariff
free entry to Europe for many
raw materials imported from
Canada and Australia. Australia will undoubtedly lose substantial wheat exports but
should break even with expanded duty-f r e e sales to
Europe of wool and other raw
materials. Canadian wheat will
not be similarly affected as it
is not directly competitive
with the European variety.
Almost every other commodity,
except manufactures, stands to
For Canada, and for many
other Commonwealth members, a net economic gain can
be seen if Britain joins.
Should Britain become a
member of the Common Market, she will have a share in
the new prosperity and in the
political future of a rising
power bloc of 220 million
people. The alternative for
Britain would be declining
British exports to the Commonwealth as Commonwealth
countries reach industrial maturity themselves, a consequent declining British market for Commonwealth exports
and an insignificant, waning
British and Commonwealth
voice in world affairs.
Britain's considered decision
has been to choose a vigorous
and expanding future rather
than a relapse into an inert,
comfortable (yet mortal) contemplation of old glories in old
In this writer's opinion Canadian acceptance of the new
alignment would indicate
maturity and independence
which is the only logical conclusion to the events of 1867.
The older and newer Commonwealth members can look for
expanded trade in a prosperous British-European market
and, above all, a voice in this
twentieth century renaissance
that would not otherwise be
MACMILLAN  ...  no time for Commonwealth ties
EEC aedl
By  DR.   J.  J.   R'ICHTER
Associate  Economics Professor
Has Canada a chance to increase its
export of foodstuffs to the Common Market? Should the United Kingdom be
granted admission, would Canada's export c* agricultural products be seriously arfected?
The economic growth of the six
countries comprising the E.E.C. (Common Market) since World War II was
spectacular. The first stage of their integration (1958-1961) was so successful
that the acceleration of the original
timetable for lowering trade barriers
among members was implemented. The
next great changes will pertain to agriculture.
k     •     •
The value of agricultural commodities produced in France, Germany, Italy
and the Benelux, is a declining percentage of the gross national product of
these countries. Nevertheless, their
farmers have increased the degree of
self-sufficiency in food production for
many commodities produced in the temperate zone.
The increase in productivity of resources employed in the agriculture of
the E.E.C. is higher than that in industry. This increase is associated with the
special care with which the governments
of these countries have built up their
production of food, granting prices higher than world market prices, providing
subsidies for improvements in techniques of production, and shielding their
farmers from competition from foreign
—particularly overseas—countries.
*      •      •
Governments allocated large sums
of tax money and foreign aid funds for
the further development of agricultural
production. High tariffs and a system of
import quotas were applied during the
years after the second world war.
Under these conditions European
agriculture went through a phase of
revolutionary changes; the farmers increased yields and output per man-hour.
In spite of this, the increase in demand
for food, caused by an influx of population and an increased per capita income
resulted in food imports of a great magnitude. Twenty-five per cent of the
world import of food is the Common
Market's share in the trade of agricultural commodities on the international
The countries forming the Common
Market could not
procedure to ap
of agriculture -Jn
At the time oitl
Treaty, it was d>
integration of ag
date, and only al
stage" of integra'
Only in recen
steps been taken
ary 1962 decisioi
39 of the RomeJ
"(a) to increa
tivity by develor
and by ensuring
ment of agricultu
optimum utilizSt
production, partii
(b) to ensure
of   living   for   th
tion, particularly
ual earnings of p
(c) to stabilize
-   (d) to guarant
(e) to   ensure
What is actu;
national aspiratic
in food supplies
transformed into
ization. A systeri
tariffs and the al
"commodity com:
the entry of "nor
to the Common fti
planned increas<
There is no c
willing to pay a
for this accomm
culture. By lffli
agricultural comi
lished and a com
The develops^
culture became i
for the possibilit
dom joining the
drastically chanj
mand and supply
national commod
ticians and econ
Commonwealth ti
trade among its i
erential tariff's
tariff wall and v
buy French whj3£
from the member CANADA
. concern national or international?
rst agree about the
to the integration
Cpmmon Market,
ming of the Rome
d to postpone the
ture until a later
;he so-called "first
was completed.
iths have the first
plement the Janu-
carry out Article
;ricultural produc-
technical progress
rational develop-
•roduction and the
jf the factors of
.y labor,
by a fair standard
ricultural popula-
ncreasing individ-
s engaged in agri-
*ular supplies; and
jnable  prices   for
lappening is that
)r self-sufficiency
)eing successfully
ra-national organ-
levies in lieu of
on of imports by
>ns" will prevent
iber" products in-
and facilitate the
that the Six are
tively high price
>n of their agri-
nlform price for
es will be estab-
tariff for imports
f-the E.E.C. agri-
I world question,
the United King-
mon Market can
: pattern of de-
Qpd on the inter-
arket. Some poli-
;   fear   that   the
II be severed and
3rs lose the pref-
tages. Behind a
the obligation to
other foodstuffs
is? E.E.C. (or their
associates) the United Kingdom may
cease to be the reliable customer of
wheat from Canada, wool from Australia and butter from New Zealand.
When the government of the United
Kingdom is urged to negotiate with the
Six in Brussels in such a way as to safeguard the interest in foreign trade of
members of the Commonwealth as well
as other countries, it provides an appreciation of the fear that a sudden change
in trade patterns would upset their economies.
*      *      *
As far as Canada is concerned, $269
million worth of wheat and wheat flour
was sold to the United Kingdom and
E.E.C. countries in 1960; $341 million
worth in 1961. This is substantially
more than the total annual consumption
of wheat and wheat flour in Canada.
The United Kingdom and E.E.C, therefore, is the chief commercial market for
agricultural commodities. This is only
one example.
Canadian exports of foodstuffs to
the United Kingdom at present come
under the Commonwealth preference
scheme. If the United Kingdom joins
the Common Market this preferential
treatment will be lost and the United
Kingdom will be obliged to buy French
wheat, or wheat coming from other
members or associates of the Common
Market. A similar situation will arise
in connection with Canadian fruit. The
Common Market's tariff wall may become insurmountable.
•      •     ••
The members of the E.E.C. made a
bold step ahead, and to integrate their
agriculture is one of their toughest assignments. There is no doubt that the
changes the Common Market will experience from now on until the complete
re-allocation of resources is achieved
will be as revolutionary as those in the
past decade proved to be. The non-
member countries have a vital interest
in this development and will try to find
new ways for the organization of international trade. The detrimental effect
on Canadian agricultural exports which
is expected in the short run, is being
averted to a great extent by commodity
agreements, e.g., for wheat. How far
association with the new block of nations will be of benefit; how far new
international agreements can stabilize
the export and import of food, must be
While Canadians seem to be
primarily concerned with the
economic repercussions of
the growth of a Common
Market in Western Europe,
any evaluation of even the
economic consequences must
be undertaken in the larger
perspective of potential political and cultural effects.' Thus,
even if the Common Market
affects Canada detrimentally in
the economic sphere, this loss
might be more than offset by
the gains in political stability
and cohesiveness of these nations. Indeefl, evaluation of the
impact on Canada of this entente depends primarily whether the frame of reference
is one of national economic
self-interest or perhaps one of
larger   international  concern.
If the narrower frame of
reference of national economic
well-being is chosen, then, in
addition to abstracting from
the possible political gains of
this union, the economic consequences themselves must be
viewed in a proper perspective.
The importance to Canada of
the European Common Market
with Great Britain as a member is due to the demands
from these countries for Canadian exports. While this combined market is an important
one now, it is significantly
overshadowed by the importance to us of the United States
as a market for our exports
and as' a source for necessary
Because Canada wishes for
a   less   heavy   dependence   on
Published occasionally by
the staff of The Ubyssey,
the student newspaper of the
Alma Mater Society of the
University  of B.C.
Authorized as second class
mail by the Post Office Department, Ottawa, and for
payment of postage in cash.
Editor in Chief
Keith   Bradbury
Denis Stanley, Joyce Holding, Fred Fletcher, Gail Andersen, Ann Pickard, Peter
Penz, Mike Hunter.
ENGRAVINGS: Clint Pulley.
High-quality contributions
are welcomed from students
and faculty members for future editions of Ubyssey
By Jack Richardson
Department of Economics
U.S. markets, then the potential threat to these alternative
markets is magnified in importance. Thus, any deterioration in the volume of exports
to the European Common
Market is undesirable, both because it means a decline in employment and production in
Canada, and because it implies an even greater dependence on the United States as
an external market for our
One further reservation. The
impact on Canada of Great
Britain joining the Market
may be different depending
on the length of time one
chooses for the assessment.
Thus what is a hardship in the
first years of adjustment may
become an eventual benefit as
the Canadian economy adjusts
to the new situation.
Within this rather narrow
framework, let us inquire
about the economic consequences to Canada of European
Common Market with Great
Britain as a member. No concrete answer can presently be
given, since the terms of Great
Britain's entry are still in
negotiation. Instead I shall outline the sources of benefits
and losses to the Canadian
economy from the admission
of Great Britain to European
Common  Market.
Great Britain's entry will '. esquire considerable adjustments
in the structure of Commonwealth preferential tariffs and
Canada will be faced with the
loss of this advantage for some
of her exports. Britain's membership will require that she
adopt the Market's common
external tariff on all of her
imports, and this will change
the level of tariffs on Canadian exports. The adoption of
the common external tariff of
the Market will not necessarily
involve Canada only in losses
of export markets, since the
present level of tariff on some
of our exports may decrease.
Beyond the effects of the
new tariff rates resulting from
the Market lurks a rather
more important question for
Canada. To what extent will
this enlarged Common Market,
with a population exceeding
that of r«e United States, develop new productive facilities to supplant their present
dependence on imports?
Canada seems to be in a rather fortunate position on this
question because a large proportion of our exports to Great
Britain and the European
Common Market, which are
raw  materials   or   natural   re
sources, cannot be produced
in this area. As the productive
capacity and levels of per capita income rise in Europe, then
there would be an increased
demand from Europe for some
of these products.
However, this does not protect Canada entirely from a
reduction in the purchases of
these products, since alternative sources of supply of other
countries presently outside the
framework of the Market, f'< r
example, Sweden or the former African colonies of France,
may compete away Canada's
present advantage. This would
occur especially if the Market
accepts more members either
as associates or as full participants in the economic and?
political integration.
Canada may benefit, in a
rather important way, ffom
the impact that this Market has
on other outside countries. If
the admission of Great Britain
and the steady completion of
the policies outlined in the
Treaty of Rome by the present
members result in higher
levels of income for the members, then they will be ready
to assist more substantially in
the development of Africa and
Asia. This development in low-
income countries may create
new markets for some Canadian exports, especially if
Canada is willing to make some
effort to produce the required
types of products and to market them aggressively.
A bleak picture has been
painted by many observers in
Canada because they predict
a shrinkage in the volume of
Canadian exports going to the
Common Market. This seems
unnecessarily pessimistic especially if the total impact
over a number of years is considered. In addition, many are
concerned that this rearrangement of trade will hinder Canada from increasing the size
of her manufacturing sector.
While the total volume of exports to the enlarged Market
may not decrease, nevertheless
the composition of the trade
may shift more drastically to
raw materials or only slightly
manufactured products. Even
if this were the anticipated outcome, Canada could offset this
shift, at least in part, by
specializing in a few manufactured products of high
The talent to predict the
future belongs only to Cassand-
ras. However, mere mortals can
at least attempt to describe a
number of possible outcomes
from these new developments.
Canada's present enemy is
not ignorance but inertia.        . KENNEDY
a thorn  in  his side
Castro s Cuba
An assessment of the recent
Cuban crisis requires consideration of three main questions:
(1) -Why did the Soviet
government send the missies
to Cuba?
(2) 'Was the U.S. quarantine,
though tactically and politically effective, legally justified?
(3) What are the likely results and implications of the
•      •      •
These questions are much
easier, to pose than answer
and in the case of the first and
third, we can only speculate as
to the truth.
The official Soviet explanation for its policy is that Russian intelligence sources had
reported in August that an
American invasion of Cuba
was imminent. Chair man
Khrushchev decided to send
the missiles to Dr. Castro hoping thereby to elicit from
President Kennedy a guarantee
that the U.S. would not attack Cuba. Presumably after
such ;a guarantee was given,
the Russians would withdraw
the missiles.
•      •      •
Although this theory seems
plausible, there are several
facts which would suggest that
it is more a rationalization for '
the withdrawal of the missiles
than a credible explanation of
the Soviet motives for introducing them:
1. Dr.  Castro   was   and   re
mains visibly displeased that
the missiles are being withdrawn, even though the American president has given a
guarantee not to invade Cuba
in his note of October 28 to
2. The Soviet government
was aware, as a result of repeated U.S. policy statements,
that the sending of offensive
weapons to Cuba would be considered a threat to American
3. The Soviet government
knew that Cuba was under
constant U.S. surveillance,
and yet it took no measures to
hide the establishment of the
missile bases. The 42 missiles
were extremely vulnerable
both to U.S. detection and destruction.
•      •      •
4. The Soviet government
has repeatedly claimed that it
needs no foreign missile bases
and that its home-based weapons could destroy the United
States and Europe. Forty-two
highly vulnerable missiles
would hardly constitute an
effective deterrent against a
U.S. invasion of Cuba; from
the strategic point of view,
then, there was little military
value in building the mfssile
bases in Cuba unless the
Soviets' long range nuclear
capability is less developed
than has .been assumed previously by western experts.
5. Khrushchev's almost eager
willingness   to   dismantle   the
bases suggests that he had no
serious commitment to Dr.
Castro to establish bases
on the island. He agreed to
dismantle the bases without
even asking Dr. Castro whether the American pledge not
to invade Cuba wa.s acceptable
to the Cuban government.
Subsequently Dr. Castro revealed emphatically that Kennedy's note to Khrushchev was
not a satisfactory guarantee.
In fact, during the week of
the crisis, the Soviet chairman
was publicly negotiating Cuban
policy without even consulting the Cuban government.
6. No evidence has appeared
indicating that an American
invasion of Cuba was "imminent" last August; Dr. Castro
did not mobilize his troops until the quarantine was announced, which suggests that
the Cubans themselves did not
expect   any invasion.
7. Finally, the decision to
send missiles to Cuba was
probably taken early in July
during a visit by Raul Castro
to Moscow. If this is correct,
the decision was made at leas*
a month before Russian intelligence sources indicated that
an American invasion of Cuba
was forthcoming.
Although these facts create
doubts about the reliability of
the offical Soviet explanation,
they do not by themselves explain  the Russian policy.
* •      •
Some experts have speculated that the scheme to introduce missiles in Cuba was
closely connected with the
Berlin problem. I would agree
and argue that the Soviet government's policy was primarily
of a diplomatic—not military
—nature and that its objective
was to create a situation which
would lead the Allies to make
concessions in Berlin; for example, anticipating an American blockade of dubious legality, the Russians would have a
precedent to justify their own
attempt to blockade Allied access to Berlin. And certainly
. the Soviet chairman's- second
note to Mr. Kennedy shows
that he hoped to obtain the removal of at least some American missiles in Europe. In
other words, he may have
hoped to gain western concessions without making a serious concession of his own.
Future developments in the
Berlin crisis may' indicate
whether this hypothesis is
Some self-styled experts on
international law have
claimed unequivocally that the
U.S. quarantine was a gross
violation of that law. However,
in the absence of a clear precedent, the legality of the
quarantine is open to interpretation.
• *      *
The Rio Treaty of 1947, for
example, permits its signatories to take individual or
collective measures for defense, and prior to the publication of the quarantine proclamation, the OAS unanimously
voted to approve the U.S. measure. Nevertheless, the UN
Charter requires that all enforcement action be sanctioned
also by the Security Council.
And    yet,    it   has    not   been
established, because no precedent exists, that a selective-
qualitative blockade does in
fact constitute an enforcement
The UN Charter also guarantees the right of collective
and individual self-defense,
but there is no expert consensus which indicates whether or
not a clear case of aggression
has to occur before governments can take steps in self-
defence or resort to anticipatory force.
•      •      •
I doubt that the quarantine
can be fully justified by law
(and certainly it challenged
the    well-established    doctrine
Dr. Kalevi
Department of
Political Science
of freedom of the seas), but at
the same time there is ample
room for debate and interpretation.
Several important results of
the crisis can be delimited, although it will take years to
reveal all of the implications.
1. The episode demonstrated
that, whatever opinion Latin
Americans hold toward Dr.
Castro and his revolution, they
will not look with favor upon
any attempt by the Russians to
use Cuba for purely Soviet
military or diplomatic purposes.
•      •      •
2. The crisis should dispel
the idea, so frequently stated
by Soviet diplomats recently,
that the Americans are not
willing to defend their interests when confronted with an
accomplished fact or the threat
of force.
3. President Kennedy maintained  a  sense   of  moderation
in a crisis situation; rather
than succumb to the jingoism
of many Americans he did not
embark on a holy crusade to
destroy Dr. Castro. The President outlined only limited objectives and kept a proper
balance between means and
ends; he did not adopt a policy
of Cuban unconditional surrender.
4. Khrushchev's willingness
to concede an untenable tactical position and his desire to
prevent the incident from escalating into a nuclear exchange
has earned him considerable
prestige abroad. On the other
hand, he is now subject to
vigorous criticism from the
Chinese and the domestic
Stalinists who argue that his
Pacific policies in the crisis
have led to a Soviet "Munich."
5. By publicly accepting
the principle of the inspection
during the withdrawal of the
missiles, Soviet diplomats may
have to return to their pre-
1961 position of accepting some
form of international verification  in  a test-ban  treaty.
*      •      •
6. The Cuban problem is not
solved: the American policy
of attempting to destroy Dr.
Castro by economic and political mee.ns has not changed.
And, if the Cuban govern-
increases its policy of subver-
version and incitement to violence in Venezuela and other
areas of the Caribbean, it may
be faced ultimately with a
Latin-North American invasion of the island.
7. Finally, the crisis revealed
that the United Nations, and
particularly its secretary-General, may play an increasingly important role in mediating
important crises. The Cuban
crisis was the first of the many
post-war super power confrontations in which .a UN
agency (as well as a British
philosopher) was unable to
"separate" the combatants
and impose itself as an interested and influential third
CASTRO .  .  . Americans out to get him COLLEGE    EDITOR
...  a   fading   brand?
Heres the column
that upset
Barry Goldwater
Editor's note: the following excerpt from
a column by Carl Milcham which appeared
recently in the University of Colorado Daily
started the Barry Goldwater-Colorado controversy.
"I do not divorce Goldwater from other politicians; for my considerations he does not differ
essentially from Eisenhower, or Kennedy, or the
Socialists,  or the Fascists. They are  all  politicians. As Goldwater himself has said, his policy
differs from others only by its frankness.
"I could argue with Goldwater (or Kennedy)
that there are better means to achieve the ends,
or confine myself to refuting his premises. But
I reject the political issues as valid expressions
of the contemporary situation and I deny the
society the right to cajole me into responsibility
or respectability. I return the bone with a kick.
There is no meat on it.
"The common denominator of politicians—
as well as the new nuclear pacifists—is the belief that they can control war, that the outcome
of these events of violence is in their hands.
They present the realism of blindness. In present
context, they also are the victims of a self deception, a complete unawareness of the impending ruin of the world as we know it.
"Goldwater is completely deluded by the
nature of war. He forgets that the conquerors
are always conquered by the defeated. 'When
nations resort to war they blind themselves to
. the real forces at work; by opposing one another they make themselves the instruments of
a force which is superior to their antagonistic
claims.' Goldwater talks of history, yet ignores
the vision that extends from Thucydides to
Toynbee, that war transcends the wills and decisions of the men who make it.
"In his second book, Goldwater suggests that
the United States copy the strategy of the enemy
because 'theirs has worked and ours has not.'
' This suggestion he calls realism: the results he
would style victory.
"Goldwater is the victim of forces outside
himself—as were the men of Homer's "Iliad"—
- not because, of fate, but because of the nature of
violence. His delusion is his passion. Read for
what he is-^not as an abstraction or depersonalized politician^—Barry Goldwater is a fool, a
mountebank, a murderer, no better than a com-
, mon criminal.
"He is unconscious of the fear in the streets—
what it implies and what it rejects: this world
of legitimate murder. And all politicians, Kennedy included, are no better. Duty, service, sacrifice—his 'traditional values'—these are words
which are thrown to the dogs. I would rather
^preserve samples of Kennedy's faces for poster-
* ity than all the ideals of national governments
which he and Goldwater accept."
of fhe press
Academic freedom and freedom of the press seem to be
rapidly deteriorating to hollow
This is the trend that is being
plotted by such phenomena as
the dismissal of the editor of
the Colorado Daily and the
pressure that the University of
Mexico paper, the Lobo, has
had to resist.
Last month, Gary Althen,
the editor of the student news-
.  .  .  urged   firing
paper at the University of Colorado, was fired for printing an
outspoken article by a philosophy student.
Carl Mitcham, contending
that society has no right to cajole him into responsibility and
respectability, wrote:
"Goldwater is completely deluded by the nature of war. He
forgets that the conquerors are
always conquered by the defeated . . . Read for what he is
—not as an abstraction or depersonalized politician —Barry
Goldwater is a fool, a mounte-
banke, a murderer, no better
than a common criminal."
Senator Goldwater, leader of
the right-wing movement in the
United States, demanded apologies and Editor Althen com-
plied. Unsatisfied toy this gesture, Goldwater demanded the
expulsion of Carl Mitcham and
the firing of the editor and
questioned University President Quigg Newton's ability to
administrate the university. In
the true democratic and academic spirit, Newton replied:
"We have a genuine demo,
cracy on our campus. We have
fought long and hard to
achieve it, and the fight has
been against those who, like
yourself, believe the function
of the university is to indoctrinate, rather than educate."
After another attack by Mitcham on a prominent Republican, this time ex-President Eisenhower, several Colorado dailies intensified their long-standing campaign to have the liberal editor Althen ousted and
the university investigated for
Suddenly democracy and
freedom did not seem to matter
anymore. Without explanation,
Newton dismissed Althen.
At the University of Mexico,
the liberal editorial policy of
the Lobo apparently was one of
the causes which last year led
to the introduction in the
state's legislature of a bill to
investigate the university.
It was defeated by only a
narrow margin. The Lobo is
still able to hold out against
the threatening infringement
on its freedom of the press.
Where does this pressure
come from? Apparently it is
exerted by political factions
outside the university upon the
u n i v e r sity administrations,
which in turn keep control
over what the students say in
public. This seems to be the ex-
planations for the fact that on
many American campuses cer-.
tain dissenters do not receive'
the permission to speak on the
In the Colorado incident,
pressure was exerted not only
by Arizona Senator Gold--
water, but apparently by such
prominent personages as Democratic congressional candidate
Conrad McBride and Colorado'
Governor Stephen McNichols
who advocated control over the
student paper by the university's journalism department.
Colorado students feel that the'
fight over the Colorado Daily's
editorial policy has become a
major issue in the state election campaign, and that Newton's turnabout was the result
of tremendous outside political
Is this to mean that the freedom of the press is to be kicked around by politicians who
find it to their advantage to incite popular prejudices?
Is academic freedom to be
stamped out by political opportunists?
The rightists claim that unrestricted freedom leads to sub-
version and subversion will destroy freedom. Consequently
freedom has to be "controlled,"
which really means it has to be
surrendered. If we cannot
trust the student, or for that
matter any citizen, to discriminate between good and bad,
to make his own decision, then
we might as well junk the
whole idea of democracy. The
rightists, although they have
every right to express their
opinions, have no right to wave
the banners of democracy and
liberty, which would thus not
only become meaningless
euphemisms, but outright deception.
If we are sincere in our democratic ideals, we must protect
freedom not by the restriction
of freedom, but by the assertion of everybody's right to express his opinions. This includes freedom of the press and
academic freedom.
Students should take it upon
themselves to protect the universities from any infringement upon these liberties. This
means both resisting outside
political control of the administration as well as inside control of student opinion by the
administration. We cannot afford to let our campuses be
haunted by the ghosts of Joe
McCarthy and John Birch. THALIDOMIDE
Ubyssey Staff Writer
Congratulations to the Belgian jury that
acquitted Mrs. Vandeput of murder in the mercy
killing of her thalidomide-deformed baby. Congratulations for its humane and broadminded
interpretation of the law.
Mrs. Vandeput had given birth to a freak
with no arms and deformed legs as a result of
the thalidomide drug the mother had taken.
After recovering from the initial shock she received when taking the first look at her baby
and after consulting with husband, mother and
sister, she obtained a tranquilizing drug from
her family doctor and put an end to this pitiful
creature. .
She was then put on trial for the murder of
her baby. The family doctor and the other three
members of the Vandeput family were accused
of complicity. The defendants admitted to the
killing and the prosecutor insisted that it was
legally impossible for the jury to return a verdict
of not guilty of the murder. But the jury d)d
acquit Mrs. Vandeput and her four co-defendants.
Jury against law
As far as the letter of the law is concerned,
the jury most likely went against it, since in all
Christian countries mercy killing is unmercifully prohibited. It can be claimed that the jury
was caught in the storm of passions and emotions that battered the court. It may even be
claimed that the decision was anti-social, that it
will lead to an epidemic of euthanasia and infanticide; or that the action was irreligious and
indefensible, as the Vatican radio openly stated,
and could not possibly be condoned.
As the mother said, "What I did was the only
possible solution. I felt the child could not be
happy as it was." If this is unjustified according
to the Catholic Church, then I would regard
such a religion as inhuman. And an inhuman
religion must be rejected as an authority on
After ignoring the bigots, the supporter of
the verdict will encounter the self-appointed
watchdogs of social stability. I am all for social
stability, if it is accompanied by social justice
and humaneness, but I have something against
narrow-minded watchdogs.
To argue that as a result of the acquittal
more mothers might kill their deformed babies
is probably correct. In fact, a courageous and
unpossessive mother would do this to spare her
child a life of loneliness and misery. Whether
she does it or not, she should at least have the
acknowledged right to do it.
Court not authorized
Finally, we inevitably bump into the legal
pedant who with biblical doctrinarianism will
read out the decree. It is true that the court is
not authorized to substitute a new law for the
existing. But declaring the defendants guilty
would have been to brand them as criminals for
having done the only humane thing. The jury
solved this conflict in favor of humaneness.
But why must this conflict exist? Why can
mercy killing not be legalized? A mother should
have the right to ask a doctor to put an end to
a deformed newborn's life if this infant is going
to be burdened with helplessness, loneliness and
misery. Life is not an end in itself. It is only
worthwhile if it is accompanied by enjoyment.
If there is no chance for such a life, we should
mercifully relieve this child of its future unhap-
a little bit of an old English pub
—Don  Hume photo
Have we lost our court of last resort?
Ubyssey Staff Writer
Decisive action is necessary
if the intellectual life of UBC
is to survive.
The base and inhuman action
of drying up the University
watering-hole, the Georgia,
place of the bubbly, the milk
of Paradise of w'nich the poet
sings, is without parallel in its
monstrous cussedness.
Fie!  shame!
Wherefore will ye answer
when it shall be required of
you: "I was thirsty and ye gave
me not to drink."
This cruel act undermines the
basis of -the student's fundamental right to soak up Socrates
while sloshing suds.
For almost as many years as
spans two generations those two
small, sub-terranean rooms with
their warm, brown walls invited the scholar, heavy with the
burden of his learning, to discharge his cerebral voltage into
the  conducive  atmosphere.
Questions of the utmost moment have been battered, into
a bloody mess, reshaped and
pounced on again around the
large, rectangular tables. (There
is no documentary support for
sometime rumors that anything
has ever been settled there).
Do they want to see us short-
circuiting on milk and fruit
Rare was the freshman so
timid as to let age bar him from
the basement  brotherhood.
Those fortunate enough to
possess the required hormone
supply would cultivate their
scanty chins wiih the assiduousness of an amateur gardener
coddling a patch of prize petunias; while those short on body
juice but manly in their thirsts
resorted to all manner of ingenious means to scale the
threshold into the membership
of that most honored company.
Inside, mixed with beery and
full-throated yells for "setemup-
allround," the discussion was
hot and heavy, the smokey atmosphere filled with black,
masculine words and roars of
Here you saw a heavy black
beard arguing earnestly—desperately—at a pouting red
mouth set under an upswept
hairdo and a pair of innocent
blue eyes across the table, that
sex is good for you.
There, behind you, someone
was straightening out the hereafter, between two rounds of
beer, on predestination, hell,
damnation and the matter of original sin, in one fell swoop.
Ahh! it's gall and wormwood.
"Why didst thou promise such
a beauteous day?"
The most formidable forensic
abilities were lent the frequenter. Few indeed were the uninitiated able to withstand the
powerful lungs of the habitue,
expelling in the heat of battle
a   draconic   mixture   of   beer,
pepperonies  and halitosis.
The loathsome and arbitrary
action is to be resisted. Not only
is the cultural life of the university in grave danger but the
whole thing smacks with undertones of treason.
Seditious elements are obviously attempting to strike at
the national economy through
the barley farmer and the hop
picker. Therefore, it is our
patriotic duty to resist this un-
Canadian act.
A thousand parched throats
will rasp their curses of this
warlike move.
The peculiarly salubrious
legacy to the imbiber's health
of these mellow-brewed, golden
waters are so generally recognized and applauded as to require no recounting.
What student is not aware of
the beneficial effects of beer in
opening up the body pores,
clogged with nervous sweat after
a  particularly beastly exam?
Taken in sufficient quantities
at such trying times beer purges
the intellect of everything morbiferous. It induces in its place
that state of pure spiritual essence men call Nirvana. At such
moments the hardest are known
to  have broken  into  poesy.
Manly and martial attributes
grow in sucn an atmosphere as
readily as ragweed 'round an
So I ask: "Take this away
from us  and waddawegot?"


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items