»
\ *
*
- - - - .*» ' -C*W
April lOp 1952
The Extra Edition of th© ?feroh 21* 1352
DEACON provoSfid a reply by Mr0 Roy Atki neon*
Regional Director of the CoXo00 for the State
of Washington* TSi® Editor showed this reply
to fr* Endal* S ,JC» who in turn addressed we
another oomrumi cation relative to Kr* Atkin
son*® latter*
53S BEACON 1® glad to B«rs's as a me dim
through ?;hioh conflicting ‘flews my be aired.
H9m<* X pr sent in this Extra Edition Mr* At
kinson0# letter and Fro Eudal0* reply*
C=D -ae cao mm mm cj® mm mm mm mu u mm mm mm mm m* mm «*m mm mm mm mm
CIO SMITH TO.VER SEATTLE 4, WASHINGTON.
March 31® 1952.
The Beacon
Dillingham® Alaska
Pear Sirei
I am in possesion of your extra of
March 21* 1952, in which you aotstfcat the edi~
was purchased by a father 6adale Since there
is considerable reference to myself and the CIO
in this edition, 1 feel it incumbent upon me to
replyo
While my record on free speech is wel
established, I feel first that I must warn your
press that I may find it necessary to seek re
lief from the malici/ous slander of this Priest
and feel that in fairness, the owners of your
paper must also be made aware that according toj
law, you are responsible for each and every li'j
bel published in your paper
All Christian religions, and the Jewfj
faith as well, are concerned with the Ten Com- j
mndm8nts as tha basis for human conduct. In '
the case of Tr* Endal he seems to have strayed
nretty far from this basis of conduct, and to
have completely forgotten that Comaandmento
which says, " Thou Walt not boar false wlinssi
against thy neighbor"
Si-’so Fir© Endal presumes to give odt ad®
vie© to everyone in the matter of labor rela
tions, for which ho sh owe nc aptitude, and
which one coaid conceivably feel was not with'"
in the field of his training and education,,
my T bo so bold as to offer earns advie^ to
hie Church? It is a very simple bit ofadwie#*
tab© this mgr, back for & refreehar course in
religion, with emphasis on tha Ten Cansnadmentsc
and then let him minster to the spiritual naed»
of man, or if he then wants to enter the fi&d
of organicod labor, let him t&i£« off 2*11® robes
of hie office^
It is not ray intention to reply tcasah
each and every slander of this Priest<> I
have in some detail replied to an article de^
signed to breed the same sort of misunderstand
ing that this mind reading Priest conveys© I
do desire, however, to point out seme vgcry ob
vious factors in the present situation,*
They are ;
1* The CIO Cannery Workers were certifiddppy
NLRB.
2o T&e attempt of the ••Beck-Downey-lAmdkerg
axis* to turn over the Resident Cannery
l Workers to the Sailors 'ssas a back door deal
without sanction of the membership*.
3o This office did recommend a settlement of
* 12$ increase for cannery workers lafct year*
Hs.d it been accepted, the cannery workers
would have had a full season0s work. Would
n°t the cannery workers have been boMsr
off .with that increase, and a.^gasoagst WPk?
SH 100$ of nothing Is still noth., xg, and
of no work is ttill not take home pay, FHlh
er« ,
4, under CIO the Resident Cannery Workers have
had labor contracts sine® 1942 which are a
nong the finest in the food processing in
1 dustry in the United States, and neve* nave