 It's time for the Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, a presentation of the Lawn Jean Wittner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lawn Jean. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope? Mr. William Bradford Huey, author and analyst, and Mr. Henry Haslett, editor of the Freeman and business columnist for Newsweek magazine. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable George Smathers, United States Senator from Florida. Senator Smathers, our viewers these days are spending a good deal of time trying to appraise the Azenhower administration. You, of course, are the distinguished young senator who defeated Senator Claude Pepper from Florida 1950, and your state, Florida, went most heavily for Azenhower, I believe, of all the southern states. Now, sir, after four months, what do you and most of your constituents think about the President Azenhower and his administration? I think, generally, that most of them are still very loyal to and very appreciative of General Azenhower, now President Azenhower. I believe that they recognize he's had considerable difficulty in moving into the toughest job in the world, but I know that his personal popularity is very high. Does your mail specifically reflect any criticism of the administration? Well, my mail shows some criticism of some of his appointees to the cabinet. For example, I have received considerable mail, which has been critical of the new Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Benson. In addition to that, there has been some mail which has been critical of Mr. Wilson, even though the people who wrote those letters in each letter had stated that they had supported General Azenhower and his candidacy for the President. You say this is a fairly heavy mail against Secretary Benson? No, I wouldn't say it was a very heavy mail. As a matter of fact, there haven't been more than 15 or 20 letters, but of the criticisms which I have heard and that which I have received, it's been directed primarily at those two juniors. Well, I'm interested in the criticism of Secretary Wilson to take this since you're a man with a distinguished military record yourself. What seems to be Mr. Wilson's trouble? What's he criticized for? Well, I actually don't know it seems to be that they're criticizing his general attitude. I think that everybody recognizes that he's a very smart man. He's proven that to be the case. However, in his appearances from the first time before the Senate committees, where he refused to sell his General Motors stock and took the attitude, that as a matter of fact they shouldn't even ask him about things like that, I think that some people began to get a little disillusioned about him. And I must say that in his subsequent appearances before the various, with the Armed Services Committee of the United States Senate, his attitude has been somewhat, well, let's say it hasn't been too cooperative with the result that it has aroused antagonism in the Senate of the United States and also among some people. It's more of that than their doubting his military judgment. I don't think that's right. At the moment, I don't observe that there's any great criticism of the recommendations he's thus far made. Of course, when we start talking about this five and a half billion dollar cut of the Air Force, there has been some criticism of that, but that has not been as much as just his general attitude. What's your own feeling on that, Senator, about this Air Force cut? Well, actually, I think that while we want economy and we must economize everywhere we can, I believe that we should not economize where it might endanger our national security. And I am one of those who's most anxious to have Mr. Wilson and his various representatives explain to us just how it is we're going to get more national security with less money. If that can be done, I'm all for it. Well, are you reconciled more or less for the $74 billion budget for the next fiscal year, to the size of that, the overall dimensions of it? I think that we're already beginning to cut down some on this budget for next year. The House has done a pretty good job of pruning and the Senate is thus far doing better than it has done before in cutting government expenses. I think we're going to get the budget down possibly less than anybody had thought, but according to the new secretary, we're still going to have a six and a half billion dollar deficit. Well, you believe, what do you think about the excess profits tax? You think of continuing it at this time? I think that it's going to have to be continued for another six months, even though we all recognize it's a very bad tax, a very inequitable tax. Nevertheless, it brings in $800 million, and it will in the next six months period, and that money is needed now. You don't see any definite place where that $800 million can be cut out of the spending budget? Not, not, no, not now. Senator Smathers, one of the reasons that you and some other senators gave in 1952, the being critical of the Truman administration, was that you didn't like the conduct of foreign policy under Mr. Atchison. Now, have you been satisfied with the conduct of foreign policy under Mr. Dulles? To be perfectly frank, I haven't seen a great deal of difference between the foreign policy of Mr. Atchison and that of Mr. Dulles. As a matter of fact, everything that Mr. Dulles has done has seemed to me sort of a logical continuation of the program which Mr. Atchison had. Well, do you think Mr. Atchison was a logical program, or was it talking about not getting away from something? I had always felt that Mr. Atchison's program was actually a little bit too soft in our dealing with our allies overseas, and particularly soft in dealing with the communists. I had always felt that the communists had respect for only one thing, and that's firmness and strength, and yet every time that we always bumped into them with the exception of Korea, when Korea started, we had always attempted to appease them, and I thought that was a very bad mistake. Now it appears as though Mr. Dulles is apparently not being a great deal stronger or a great deal more firm than was Mr. Atchison. What are you feeling about this UN proposal for this truest in Korea? It goes too far in dealing with the communists. I certainly do. I don't think it's a good proposal. I think that it sort of makes the mockery of the very things that we've been fighting for. We do want a truce if we can get it, but we want an honorable truce. We don't want to become expedient at this time and to give in on the very principles which we said we were going to uphold when we started in Korea. Well, do you think there's anything in the tax speech, any of the proposals that he made which ought to be considered? Well, as I recollect what Mr. Taft said at Cincinnati was that he doubted whether or not the United Nations Organization was an organization which could stop aggression, and I think that he can rather well prove that point that it has not been able to stop aggression. However, I'm not one of those who would scuttle the United Nations, but I don't think there's any sense kidding ourselves overselling ourselves on what the United Nations can do or will do. Coming back to domestic policies, sir, I assume that you and the people in Florida were quite happy over the administration support in the Tidelands matter. Now, you've scored a victory there. What's your next objective in the Tidelands matter? Well, we were very happy about the Tidelands victory because not so much in our state because we thought that we were going to discover oil. We now don't have oil off our shores, but we felt that it was important because it was a recognition of states' rights. It was a recognition for the first time that the federal government should not own everything and tell everybody what to do. It was a reversal of sort of a 20-year trend in centralization. So in that respect, it was important to us. But where we go from there, the next question is now that we have had it established that Florida on its west coast owns out 10-and-a-half miles. The question now is, what are we going to do about that land underneath the water, which goes out even further than 10-and-a-half miles or what we call the continental junk? And you hope to get to establish a claim to a portion of that? Well, not to the Tidelands. We believe that the federal government owns that land, but we feel that that federal property should be treated like other federal property within state boundaries, and that it should have some right of participation in the royalties and the mineral leases on that land. You took a strong position on the Tidelands controversy even in the last election. Didn't you oppose to Stevenson on that? Very much so. Senator Smathers, our viewers have heard a good deal of discussion about the Hawaiian statehood issue, and now there's general feeling that Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood have been postponed at least for another year, and you and some of the southern senators are given credit for that postponement. Now, sir, will you tell our viewers just briefly what your objections are to Hawaiian statehood? Well, frankly, I think that it would be a departure of 150 years of historical precedent if we reached out 2,400 miles, took in a people who are almost totally dissimilar to the people of the United States and made them the new state in the Union. And once we start that, once we break the precedent, once we begin to reach over vast territories of water or land for that matter, we take in Hawaii, we then take in Alaska, in the Republican platform of 1952. Many people don't realize that there was a provision they're calling for the immediate statehood of Puerto Rico. So we have Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico. And if we take those three in, then we go undoubtedly to the canal zone, the Virgin Islands, and so it goes. And I don't think that we should start on this program of empire building. As a final question, Senator, to come back to this highly emotional issue of Korea, and as a man who served three years in the Marine Corps, do you feel that we should be very careful about the possibility of an easy truce there? I definitely do. I think it would be a grave mistake to make a mockery of what amounts to 130, we've had 130,000 casualties. Those boys have fought over there believing very seriously that they were fighting for a noble principle that might alone did not make right. And I think that if we suddenly became expedient and said, just because we're not able to defeat these people, we're now going to make an easy peace with them. We're now going to let them have their aggression. I think it would be a mockery of the fight which we have thus far put up. I think it would be a mockery of the memory of the boys who have been killed. Well, thank you, sir, for being with us this evening. Thank you. The opinions that you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Henry Haslett. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable George Smathers, United States Senator from Florida. The wedding march, the band of gold, the bouquet thrown through the air, the shower of rice, these are all traditions of a wedding. Now, many happy couples treasure special souvenirs of that memorable day. Laun Jean duet watches, a Laun Jean for the bride, a matching Laun Jean for the groom, perfect twins in everything but size. Now, best of all, these magnificent duets, like all Laun Jean watches are created with the artistry, the skill, and the perfection, which made Laun Jean, in fact, the world's most honored watch. Honored by ten World's Fair grand prizes, twenty-eight gold medals, and highest awards for accuracy from the great government observatories, Laun Jean is the watch of highest prestige among the finest watches of the world. And yet, unbelievably, you may buy and own or proudly give a Laun Jean watch for as little as seventy-one fifty. Now, for a wedding, for an anniversary, for the graduate, for father-on-father's day, no other name on a watch means so much as Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift, premier product of the Laun Jean Witner Watch Company, since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. We invite you to join us every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday evening at this same time for the Laun Jean Chronoscope, the television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Witner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Laun Jean. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Laun Jean and Witner watches are sold and service from coast to coast by more than four thousand leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem, agency for Laun Jean Witner watches. This is the CBS television network.