J. R. Campbell
Publisher: Communist Party of Great Britain
Printer: Metcalf & Cooper, Ltd., London
Transcription/Markup: Brian Reid
Proofreader: Chris Clayton
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2006). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
ALL active trade unionists are familiar with reactionary managers who are not afraid to declare their intention of wresting from the workers their war-time gains. “Don’t think we will give you these piece-rates after the war.” “We won’t tolerate interference from the shop stewards after the war is over.” How often have trade unionists listened to thinly concealed threats of this type. If, at the next General Election, a Government which reflected the views of these reactionary employers and managements wins a majority of votes, the trade union movement would be confronted with a dangerous and difficult situation.
Take the vexed question of wages. The official figures in the last Budget White Paper show that prices have advanced by more than 54 per cent.
Only in two industries—mining and agriculture—where wage rates were exceptionally low before the war, have the increases in wage rates kept pace with the rising prices.
In industries like engineering, shipbuilding and docks, the advance in wage-rates lags far behind the increased prices. At the same time, there has been a leap in productivity of over 30 per cent. during the war, and profits have increased by 84 per cent.
So the workers are producing more and are having to pay more for the things they need.
How do the workers manage to meet these increased prices and pay the increased taxes?
In some industries, by working a great deal of overtime.
But in a group of industries like printing, public utilities, transport, food and railways, most of the workers have not been able to increase their earnings by overtime. Their real earnings are far below the pre-war level.
Thus, as excessive overtime ceases, the bulk of the working class will find themselves earning much lower real wages (wages measured by what they can buy) than was the case before the war.
It is an absolute certainty that the unions will proceed immediately the war is over to insist on an all-round increase in wages. Will the Government help or hinder them?
Or take the question of directing workers to a job. The Minister of Labour hopes that most workers will voluntarily return to their peace-time occupations. But suppose there are not sufficient workers offering their services to vital industries? The Minister will have power to direct workers to them. If we have a Minister of Labour in a progressive Government, he would not set out to direct Labour, but would attract workers to priority jobs by compelling employers to give better pay and conditions. Whereas a Tory Minister of Labour would want to use compulsion in directing workers back to low-paid but vital industries, as for example cotton weaving.
Many of the women who have replaced men during the war have received wages approximating the men’s rates. Are they now to be forced back to the ill-paid, unorganised occupations which they were in previously? The Minister has promised that all poorly organised industries shall be covered by Wages Councils which will fix wages and conditions. A sympathetic Government will expedite the formation of such Councils. A Tory Government will sabotage them.
To what extent are we to retain in the post-war years those war-time innovations that are of value to the workers? There is, for example, the right which the worker now has to appeal against arbitrary dismissals. This is an important check on the arbitrary tyranny of managers and foremen. It ought to be retained in a new form after the war.
In a whole series of industries the workers have received the guaranteed week. The employer cannot give them a job on Monday and Tuesday and send them home on Wednesday because he has no work for them. He must pay for their full week’s wages. Such a measure ensures greater stability of wages for the workers, and will force the employers to organise their industries in a more intelligent fashion. The employers are hostile to this measure. In one of the B.B.C. talks on Full Employment, Mr. Walker, a textile employer, explained that he wanted to be in a position to accept an order which would provide work for two days and engage workers to work on it without having any obligations to them, after the two days’ work was completed. A Tory Government dominated by the big employers would allow this; but a progressive Government would insist on the guarauteed week.
Then there is the whole question of the future of the trade union workshop organisation—the shop stewards committees and similar organisations. A large section of the employers are hostile to them. They want to end collective bargaining on piece-work and similar questions in the workshop and go back to the bad old system when prices or times for the job were decided by “mutual agreement” between the workmen and the rate fixer, with the firm’s unconditional right to sack held in the background.
Of course, the more far-seeing managements will not refuse to recognise the unions. They will simply ensure that the more militant shop stewards shall have a short life inside their particular factory.
Doubtless the Trade Union movement will do its very best to protect the shop stewards but why should they not be protected by law as is the case in France to-day, where a progressive Government is in power?
Recently the French Provisional Government passed a law establishing Factory Committees (Comités d’Entreprise) in all establishments whether industrial, commercial or distributive, employing more than 100 workers.
The works representatives are elected from a panel chosen by the trade unions. They cannot be dismissed by the employer on any pretext without the consent of the Ministry of Labour.
These Factory Committees are entrusted with the management of factory welfare institutions, canteens and day nurseries.
They have the right to advise the management on all production questions. If the Committees are dissatisfied with the management’s reply they have the right to appeal to the Minister of Labour.
The Committees have also the right to be informed of the firm’s financial position and its production programme.
The firm’s balance sheet must be submitted to the Committee before going to the shareholders. Would it not be well worth while to support the shop stewards’ committees in Britain by similar legislation?
The strengthening of all forms of workshop organisation is also necessary so that the work of the Joint Production Committees can be maintained and developed, or, in cases where Joint Production Committees do not exist as yet, they can be set up.
In the new proposals for the post-war regulation of wages the Minister of Labour proposes to take powers to compel all employers to observe the trade union rate of wages for the district. More than this is surely necessary. There are quite a number of firms which categorically refuse to negotiate with trade unions representing the workers. Is it not time that this minority of firms were compelled by law to recognise trade unions, and so grant to their workers the right of collective bargaining? No Tory Government is likely to coerce employers for this purpose. But a progressive Government would take a strong line with them.
Next to conditions of work the trade unionist wants a steady job. Full employment is said to be the aim of all Parties. It would be a mistake, however, to imagine that the average employer wants a permanent state of full employment where there are more jobs than men. Naturally no employer wants chronic mass unemployment on the scale that existed between the wars. But reactionary employers have no objection to some unemployment, for this reinforces the threat to sack, and helps the employers to maintain “discipline” and keep wages low. Full employment can only be based on a great social programme and policy of raising conditions here and abroad. There will undoubtedly be a great deal of employing class opposition to the practical measures which are necessary to carry out such sweeping reforms, for these involve control of prices and supplies, preventing monopoly cashing-in on the people’s needs, taking over the land for housing, and so on. The general control of the economic system by the State, which full employment entails, will be greatly strengthened if vital industries like steel, fuel and power and transport are brought under public ownership. Quite a number of employers who want a high level of employment will be in violent opposition to the measures which are necessary to achieve it. So unless a progressive Government is in power full employment may prove to be as empty a slogan as homes for heroes was at the end of the last war.
The unions are not merely concerned with wages and conditions but with the successful conclusion of the war against Fascism. They want the punishment of the Fascist war criminals and all the necessary measures taken to make sure that neither Germany, Japan, nor any other country will ever again be able to bring war into the world.
They are determined to see this war through to victory over Fascism, no matter what the cost, or how bitter the sacrifices still to come, or the demands for production still to be made. They want to be sure that this is the last war.
Lasting peace will make it possible for the nations to co-operate for trade. It will help to reduce that international trade war and cut-throat competition which leads to armed war. International co-operation between the United Nations would mean that Britain would be prosperous, that we could assist in the restoration of devastated Europe and help the industrial and social development of a free India and of other Colonial countries, in common with other nations.
All this would mean that British industry would be called on to supply large quantities of goods to these countries, especially engineering products, and that in return we would receive goods which we need. The amount of work would be increased, wages could rise, there would be real town and country planning, more leisure for all kinds of sport, cultural and educational development.
A Britain and a world like this would be possible provided that, after the war, the nations co-operate with each other for maintaining peace and in the use of the world’s resources.
What does this mean, practically? In Europe, the nations with whom we shall have to be on good terms and with whose Governments ours will have to co-operate, will, in most cases, have democratic and progressive governments. The Soviet Union, with whom our 20 years’ Alliance is a cornerstone of peace and international co-operation, has a Socialist Government.
A Tory Government, representing Big Business, would try to weaken the Peoples’ Governments of Europe. What has happened over Greece shows this. It would be more inclined to compete, as in the pre-war years, with America; and its relations with the Socialist Soviet Union could never be really secure.
These are among the reasons why trade unionists desire that the trade unions are represented at the Peace Conference: a demand on the agenda of the World Trade Union Conference which meets in February. Trade unionists realise the responsibility of their organisations to secure international co-operation and to prevent attempts from Britain or America to install reactionary regimes in Europe or to undermine the Peoples’ Governments which already exist.
A Tory Government, after the General Election would make these aims of trade unionists infinitely harder to achieve; but a Progressive Government would lead the way towards international co-operation and the building of a secure and lasting peace.
Now all these questions, to which we could add many more, are of immediate importance. The trade unions do not advocate them as items in a programme to be realised in the distant future. They must be realised in the first months of the post-war years if the workers’ conditions are to be safeguarded.
The unions therefore want the post-war General Election to throw up a Government which will carry out the measures needed to realise these immediate aspirations.
Now to defeat the Tories and get such a Government will not be easy. The Tories have strong cards to play. The war with Japan will still be on and the argument will be used that Churchill, who led us to victory in Europe, must remain to lead us to victory in the Far East.
The Tories will appeal to the country on what looks to be a quite progressive programme. A National Health Service, a comprehensive system of Social Insurance and a great housing programme will be amongst measures they promise. Indeed, they will promise many of the same reforms as the Labour Party does.
But the people must remember that the Tory Party is not in the main composed of earnest social reformers, but of hard-headed business men who will not hesitate to repudiate their promises and even get rid of Churchill if it suits them after the Election is over.
In order to defeat the Tories there will have to be many progressive victories in town and country constituencies that are traditionally Tory strongholds.
This in our opinion can only be achieved if the progressive forces of the country are united, behind a common programme. If the Tories relying on the personal prestige of Churchill are confronted with a competent team of leaders with a wide popular appeal backed by all progressive organisations, they will be decisively defeated.
The unity of the progressive forces to break Tory domination was represented at the last Labour Party Conference as a trick on the part of the Communist and Common Wealth Parties to coerce the Labour Party into giving them seats at the next General Election. This imputation is suspicion mania. The object of progressive unity is not to divide seats which the Labour Party would win in any case. It is to unite all progressives in a powerful united campaign to win seats which in the absence of unity could not be won.
The Labour Party will have to put up the greatest political campaign in all its history. It will have to win every possible ally. It has the responsibility of bringing all working-class and progressive organisations together so that an agreement can be reached regarding electoral unity against the Tories. To rely, as some Labour Party spokesmen indicate, on a political swing of new voters to its support, is to play a dangerous game. It is like a poorly organised trade union deciding on a strike, and hoping that the mass of non-unionists would follow it. In short, it is an exceedingly hazardous gamble.
The proposal for progressive unity relies on a powerful coordinated campaign of the progressive forces, in which every politically active person is mobilised to bring about that gigantic turnover in votes that is necessary if victory is to be secured.
Many people will doubt the possibility of the Labour Party acting on its own defeating the Tories. They will have no doubt whatever of victory over the Tories if they see the progressive forces united behind a single candidate in each constituency.
What are the arguments against the policy? They are summarised in Man and Metal, the journal of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, in its December issue:
“The constitution of the Labour Party, in the provision it makes for individual membership, when anyone who accepts its constitution can join and have ample scope to work for the achievement of the Party’s aims, is such that there is no organic need for making any arrangements for seeking accommodation with other separate political bodies.”
Alas, the writer is concealing from his readers the fact that the constitution of the Labour Party provides membership not only for individual membership but affiliated membership. The constitution states
“Affiliated members shall consist of Trade Unions affiliated to the Trades Union Congress or recognised by the General Council of the Trades Union Congress as bona-fide Trade Unions, (b) Co-operative Societies and (c) Socialist Societies.”
Now, the Communist Party has always been prepared to affiliate to the Labour Party on the same terms as is the Fabian Society at present. It would accept Labour Party discipline and act as a unit of the Labour Party in the same way as the Iron and Steel Confederation does. This proposal for unity was put forward at the Labour Party Conference in 1943 and turned down.
So when Labour Party members say to the Communist Party “Come into the Labour Party” the Communists’ answer is perfectly clear: “We are willing to come in on the same terms as the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation or any other trade union, or the Fabian Society.”
The writer in Man and Metal conceals from his readers that the Communist Party has offered to affiliate to the Labour Party and suggests that the Communist Party should dissolve and its members should join the Labour Party as individuals.
But the members of his own trade union are equally free to join the Labour Party as individuals. Suppose, someone was to argue that the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation should cease having a political fund and its members should join the Labour Party as individuals. The writer of the article would wax fiercely indignant. He would point out that the Labour Party constitution permits the affiliation of trade unions and that the trade unions have a specific contribution to make to the Labour Party.
He would be right; but equally the Labour Party constitution permits the affiliation of Socialist societies; and a body of keen and enthusiastic Socialists like the Communist Party, the largest of its kind in British history, has equally a contribution to make.
Indeed it is safe to say that one of the principal ways of bringing about decisive changes in public opinion is the activity of a party of individual members drawn from the more active trade unionists, shop stewards, co-operators and professional workers. Such a party is the Communist Party.
Both the trade unions and the Socialist societies have a distinctive role to play in the Labour Party. In opposing unity, the dominant leadership of the Laborer Party not only seeks to restrict the activity of affiliated political parties, but, as a necessary consequence of its policy, also restricts the political role of the trade unions.
Because of the great support given to it by its affiliated trade unions the Labour Party has sometimes been described as the “trade union in politics.” Recent restrictions of trade union rights within the Party have, however, weakened the accuracy of this description. As a result of changes imposed in the period when the late Ramsay MacDonald was leading the Labour Party, the Labour Party, while prepared to accept the money of all trade unionists, is only prepared to give political rights to some trade unionists. Thus tens of thousands of Communists pay the political levy in the unions. The Labour Party takes that money but refuses to allow them to be delegates to local Labour Parties or the Labour Party Conferences or to be nominated as the Parliamentary candidates of the union. The offect of this policy is to create two classes of trade union members—those with full political and industrial rights and those with only industrial rights.
Thus Communists are Presidents, General Secretaries and National Organisers of trade unions but are not allowed to represent their union as delegates to the Labour Party, either on a national or a local basis. Ironically enough it is usually the Communists who are in the forefront of campaigns to get all members of the trade unions to pay the political levy.
Consider, for example, these figures, which show the affiliation fees paid to the Labour Party by some important Trade Unions in 1935, and in 1942 (more recent figures are not available). In 1935 the Communist Party was not so strong and held fewer leading positions in these unions than in 1942. We are sure the 1943 figures will show an even bigger improvement:
A.S.L.E. & F.
T. & G.W.U.
Nat. Union Foundry Workers
Fire Brigades Union
When the Communist Party was much less influential than it is to-day, it was possible for the Labour Party to get away with a policy which divided the unions into members with full rights and others. With the growth of Communist influence this policy is seen by all enlightened trade unionists as stupid, dangerous and destructive of trade union solidarity.
If the Labour Party were to agree to the affiliation of the Communist Party and to lift the ban against the Communists being allowed to represent their unions, working-class political unity would be achieved in a manner that is perfectly in keeping with the Labour Party constitution. Affiliation, not dissolution: this is the real way to working-class unity.
But Right-wing Labour men always want to have it both ways. They refuse to create a united Labour Movement by accepting Communist affiliation and yet expect the Communists to behave as if they were under Labour Party discipline.
“If there is no fundamental difference of policy,” says the writer of the Man and Metal article, “there is no justification for the separate existence of the Communist Party. If, on the other hand, they claim that there is, they should seek power as a political Party, in their own way, on the basis of their own programme,” he says.
Yet every honest Labour Pasty member knows that as soon as the Communists start seeking political power by putting up candidates, the writer in Man and Metal and those who share his views will promptly turn round and accuse the Communists of splitting the working-class vote. In any case there is no fundamental difference between the policy of the Communist Party for post-war Britain and that of the Labour Party; as readers of Harry Pollitt’s book “How to Win the Peace” can find out for themselves.
Because the Communists are out for a Labour and Progressive Government at the next General Election they are anxious to avoid splitting the vote. They have tried to achieve unity of action through affiliation and it has been rejected. They are now trying to achieve it by means of an electoral agreement in which the various progressive parties agree to apportionment of seats and put their united weight behind a single candidate in each constituency.
Now, the writer in Man and Metal does not dare to deny that such unity might defeat the Tories:
“If Electoral arrangements were made with the Communist Party and the result were a Labour Government, is there any guarantee from past history that the Communist Party would really support the Government they helped to return? On the contrary, the chances are that most of the time would be spent in holding the Government to ransom.”
There you have a revelation of the outlook of an opponent of unity that should really worry a thinking trade unionist. For this writer is not concerned with a Tory Government being in power in Britain during the first formative years of peace. In effect he tells his readers that even if working-class unity can put a Labour Government in power it is not worth having because the Communists might work against such a Government.
But why should they? The Communists have been the most fervent advocates of unity in order to defeat Toryism. They will be interested more than anyone else in the progress of a Labour and progressive Government. So far from seeking to undermine it they will work to strengthen it in every possible way.
But what a damnable indictment of the anti-unity forces in the trade union movement. For what the writer in Man and Metal is really saying is “if we can only get a Labour Government with the aid of the Communists then we will do without a Labour Government.” This is the attitude of people who are afraid of responsibility and power. They fear the post-war world and its problems and want to leave their solution to the Tories, hoping at most for a stronger Labour opposition to prevent the Tories from being too reactionary. The fact that unity would lead to a Labour and progressive victory is to such people an additional reason for opposing it.
But the great mass of trade unionists do not share the doubts and fears of those political weaklings. They want to see a great advance of the common people after the war and are determined on getting a Labour and progressive majority inside Parliament. That is why they should support unity between the Communist and Labour Parties, and consider exploring the possibility of electoral unity also with Common Wealth and Liberals.
The decision as to whether we will have progressive unity leading to a Labour and progressive majority in Parliament or whether we will have another Tory-dominated Parliament rests to a very great extent in the hands of the active trade unionists in this country. They have the power to break reactionary opposition to unity which threatens to saddle us with further long years of Tory domination.
Already great unions like the Amalgamated Engineering Union, the Mineworkers’ Federation, the National Union of Railwaymen, the National Union of Distributive and Allied Workers have either declared in favour of Communist affiliation to the Labour Party or in favour of the Labour Party Executive meeting the Communist Party with a view to discussing joint action at the next General Election.
Most of the unions which were in favour of the Labour Party Executive meeting the Communist Party passed their resolutions after the agenda of the last Labour Party Conference was compiled. Consequently the discussion on unity which took place at the last Labour Party Conference was not raised in the most effective way.
There is still time between now and the next General Election to get the Labour Party to meet the Communist Party and other progressive bodies with a view to a united effort for a progressive victory at the General Election.
Between now and the General Election there will be another Labour Party Conference—at Whitsun, 1945. There is still time for trade unionists to win their unions for Unity, so that the Labour Party Conference gives instructions for electoral unity in order to defeat the Tories.
Between now and the General Election the annual or biennial conferences of many of the large unions will take place. If these Conferences spear for unity in no uncertain fashion the Labour Party Executive will be compelled to move.
So much that is vital to the trade union movement is at stake in the next General Election that progressive workers must work to achieve unity at all costs.
If a trade union were confronted with a strike, on the success of which its whole future depended, every conscientious trade unionist would work to ensure that the workers came out to the last man and woman.
The General Election will be vastly more important than any strike could possibly be. That is why trade unionists must support the unity policy which mobilises every man and woman to secure the decisive overthrow of Tory domination and the return of a Labour and progressive majority.
Remember, the trade union movement founded the Labour Party to conduct the political fight inside Parliament and in other ways on behalf of all working people.
In those days it was only a matter of winning a few Parliamentary seats; but to-day, with the trade union movement and Labour Party acting as leaders of the political and industrial life of the masses of the people of this coimtry, the question has become one of winning a decisive majority in Parliament, and of assuming the Governmental direction of this country.
The trade union movement, which fathered the Labour Party in 1900, must help its offspring to achieve power in 1945.
This means giving every help to build up the financial resources of the Labour Party in its fight against its rich opponent, the Tory Party. For every trade unionist, this involves the personal responsibility of paying the political levy; and campaigning to see that all trade unionists pay it, and supporting special grants towards the Labour Party funds from trade union resources.
It means rousing the trade union members to take a greater interest in the big political fight that will soon be upon us, to ensure that the trade union movement is solidly behind the policy of electoral unity against the Tories, and that every trade unionist uses his or her vote for Labour and Progressive candidates.
The trade union movement has it in its power to make certain that the end of this war will be quite different from the end of the last. It has it in its power to get the kind of Government that will give the people comfortable homes, give the children the best education, provide real health services and security for everyone, and transform this country into one of the world’s leaders, equipped to provide the people with everything they need.
The age of scarcity has passed. Only the most narrow-minded self-seeking Tories wish to perpetuate the old days of cut-throat competition, unemployment and restricted production.
The Labour Party and Communist Party, with the active backing of the trade union movement, can make this the age of abundance, and lead the way in building that kind of Britain for which the men in the Services are fighting and the workers in civil life are toiling.
The Communist Party has proposed that the Labour Party should open discussions with other working-class and progressive organisations, with a view to ensuring the return of a Labour and progressive majority at the General Election.
In support of this proposal, one hundred and thirty-one individuals holding elected national positions in trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party, signed the following statement, which was sent to the Labour Party Executive:—
AS individuals holding elected national positions in trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party, we wish to put before your Executive Committee a point of view which we are confident is shared by large numbers of the members of our organisations.
The future of our working people, and indeed of the nation, depends on the Labour movement being roused to play its rightful part in leading the country, and putting through measures which will safeguard and promote the people’s interests.
It cannot be seriously denied that, the Communist Party, with its active membership and campaigning energy, can greatly help the Labour Party in rallying the movement for its common aims.
The General Election is approaching, and the Communist Party has made a timely proposal to the Labour Party, to open discussions with, a view to ensuring the return of a Labour and progressive majority at the Election. We believe that, this proposal is in the interests of the whole movement, and we therefore urge you to give it favourable consideration, and not to allow past prejudices on either side to stand in the way of working-class unity and Labour’s progress.
The signatories to this statement include nearly all the leading mining trade unionists in South Wales, Scotland, Lancashire and Cheshire; practically every member of the A.S.L.E. & F. Executive; seventeen out of the twenty-four members of the N.U.R. Executive; all but two of the E.T.U. Executive.
W. Lawther, W. J. Saddler, E. Hall, J. Hammond, A. L. Horner, Abe Moffatt, Alex Sloan, M.P., A. Davies, George H. D. Jenkins, Jim Evans, E. A. Bennet, J. Hughes, T. Lewis, S. B. Jones, J. Brookes, D. E. Thomas, J. W. Grant, E. J. Butler, J. W. Doder, James Evans, Cliff James, Joseph A. Hall, H. J. Finch, D. D. Evans, H. Lewis, R. H. Condon, W. Pearson, John Wood, Peter Henderson, John Colchart, Jas. Cook, Alex Cameron, John Rutherford, James Dickson, William Gray, Daniel Sim, James Tennyson, Alex Edgar, John Miller, A. N. Davidson, Malcolm Waugh, John Mitchell, Wm. Sneddon, Lawrence Glover, Harold Howarth.
Peter M’Cubbin, Fred Banner, D. F. Sharman, F. Kelland, G. W. Norton, H. E. Bidwell, A. W. Clifford, Ken Saunders, J. A. Brown, A. Barker, J. Harrison, L. H. Cronin, Thos. Hollywood, R. Hobbs, A. Ridyard, T. J. Rowan, A. R. Franks, J. H. Potts, Wm. Watson, H. R. Whitby, C. Rayner, C. Hoare, B. B. Lemoon, J. T. Owen.
W. Jeffcoate, Dan Wilson, W. B. Beard, Ted, Hill, C. A. Bean, Tom Rowlandson, A. Whitney, P. Doig, R. Airey, V. Stancy, S. H. Bradbury, George Ramage, C. Yates, W. Morgan, Jas. Duncan, G. Hutchings, G. Cole, L. Gregory, H. F. Ffoulkes, J. Hy. Potter, G. Stevens, H. J. Moorden, E. J. Haynes, T. Carter.
D. Groves, R. Bradds, S. Rise, R. G. Bowskill, E. Fletcher, J. Mooney, J. R. Scott, F. L. Haxell, E. Breed, Jack Deans, W. Stevens, M. S. Greenwell, E. Irwin, R. Henderson, D. G. Campbell.
J. Cullion, J.P., G. M. C. Robert, G. Mann, R. Barker, W. V. Donald, A. J. Gaynor, John Strain, Chas. Ratcliffe, A. Falconer, Phyllis Pimlott, J. R. Shanloy, Ken Baker, Frank Docherty, Arthur Fyles, J. H. Mills, S. Bishop, P. Belcher, Alfred Salkin, J. Gue, H. Kanter, Robert Milloy, James Parker, James Patterson.