 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? From the CBS television news staff, Larry Lusser and Winston Burdett. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Charles E. Potter, United States Senator from Michigan. Senator Potter, you're not only one of the youngest men in the Senate, but I guess you know about as much about the Army as anyone else in the Congress since you were wounded three times and lost both your legs in the last war in the Colmar Pocket. Now as a member of Senator McCarthy's investigating subcommittee, do you think his handling of an Army General, General Swicker, could be damaging to Army morale? Well, Larry, let me put it this way. I believe that any person, whether he be a member of the military service or a plain civilian, deserves the utmost respect before a senatorial committee. He deserves the respect that an appearance before a senatorial committee would deserve. I see. Well, Senator Potter, in that secret luncheon with some of the members of the subcommittee, which Army Secretary Stevens attended, what if you could tell us what really happened at that luncheon? It's been a great deal of conjecture about it and many reports. But I refer to the one in which the so-called Memorandum of Understanding was written, in which Secretary of the Army Stevens thought he was defending the Army. Now, could you tell us just what happened there? Well, Larry, I'd be happy to. First, I want to say that due to a prior engagement, as a matter of fact, there was an engagement where I was a host to the future of the television industry. They presented awards to some young people and that's the voice of democracy. I was late at the meeting and I only attended about the last half hour of that luncheon. And I'll be very frank with you in stating that I'm sure that Secretary Stevens and myself had no idea that this Memorandum would cause the fewer that it did. I think that Secretary Stevens had every right to believe that military personnel or any personnel under his command would receive utmost respect from the committee. I don't know if that necessarily is a result of the luncheon, but from his talk with the various members of the committee. At that time, I recall when I arrived on the scene, there were some changes made in the Memorandum, which wasn't debated. It wasn't discussed particularly. I know the Secretary of Stevens made some changes. So I'm convinced the Secretary, along with myself, had no idea that this was a retreat on his part. I think one of the core, the core of the entire Memorandum, which has been lost in the shuffle, so to speak, was the fact that stated that the Army would do the investigation. In other words, the Army would continue the investigation which they had underway prior to Senator McCarthy's investigation, and that the Army would report its findings to the committee. Now, it seems I had assumed, and I think that that was a position of the Secretary, that that wasn't necessarily a concession, but that was an orderly way to do business. That the Army would do its own investigation in this case and report its findings to the committee. Then a committee could do as it saw fit with the material that was turned over to the committee by the Army. Well, Senator, the Republican Policy Committee of the Senate has voted unanimously a study of the rules governing investigating subcommittees. What do you expect this will produce? Any new rules or curbs on one-man inquiries? Well, I think your one-man inquiries is a, I don't think it's a good practice. I doubt if you'll find any member of the Senate that will agree that we should have one-man inquiries or investigations. You must realize one practical factor, however, that, for example, I'm a member of at least nine subcommittees. For example, just this morning I had a, and I attended a hearing of the McCarthy subcommittee, but at the same time I had two other committees that were meeting. Now you can just divide yourself so far. And you've had, and it's a common practice, in having one-man subcommittees. But it's not desirable, and I think particularly with a sensitive committee such as this committee that is most desirable to make every effort possible so that there'd be more members of that committee on hand. Senator Potter, in the light of this shooting which took place in Washington today, I think we all agree that the country has been in a rather high emotional state over this hassle between Senator McCarthy and the Army. Now do you think that there should be additional security given to congressmen and senators like yourself? Well, I'll say this, Larry, that it's a little distressing to have people shoot from the gallery when you can't shoot back. You know, a little different than on the front. But as far as what additional security we can impose, I'm a little doubtful. I think probably the best thing that we can do is for the individual members of congress to be a little more careful as to who they give gallery passes to. I don't think we, certainly we shouldn't restrict the public from attending the sessions of congress. And it's impossible to, in practical, to frisk everybody that sets in the gallery. So I think that about the only thing we can do in that case is to use a little more discretion in passing out the passes to the gallery. That's about all that can be done. I believe so. Senator, we understand that you are going to investigate communist atrocities in Korea. Is this going to be a one-man inquiry? Well, you know, I just concluded a hearing on Korean War crime atrocities. And unfortunately, that was a one-man hearing because time were off our committee and the other Republican members were engaged in other endeavors. However, this inquiry, all members of the committee have been invited and I sincerely hope that they will be in attendance. It's a hearing we plan on starting next week. I believe the communiques have said, Senator Potter, that there are 3,000 Americans alive or possibly imprisoned in Korea. Do you actually think they are alive and imprisoned there? Well, we have this information, Larry. We know, for example, that the communists captured 11,500 Americans during the Korean War. We know also that as a result of little and big switch, they returned to us about 3,500 PWs. We have fairly conclusive evidence that about 5,000 Americans were either murdered or died in Korean and communist prison camps. So that leaves about 3,000 or not accounted for. We do know that there are some American prisoners of war that are still held behind the Iron Curtain against their will. Now, how many of that 3,000 are in that group? I don't know. But that is the endeavor. That's the purpose of our investigation. We certainly have an obligation towards these men. What do you intend to look for? What can you do first on this investigation? One of the first things we're going to do this week, we're having representatives of the Department of State, the Department of Army, the Department of Navy, the Department of Air Force, and other interested government agencies to meet with us in the executive session to funnel our information into one source to find out just what information we have. Ever since the end of the Korean War, there has been fragments of information, but it hasn't been correlated in one place. Now, here's what I'm hoping. You say, well, what are we going to do with this information? I'm hoping that we'll be able to first to tie down, as best we can, the approximate number of prisoners of war that are held back there and to, I think, we can probably determine about where they are. Now, I hope that we can then give this information to our ambassador at the United Nations, Cabot Lodge, and it would seem to me, and this is maybe prejudging the case, but it seems to me that we would be in a position then to say to the Soviet Union or to the Communists in the UN that we know that we're not holding any Communists, PWs, neither are our allies. So we invite an impartial, inspecting team to come in to our country, to look, to see for themselves, to see whether we are holding any Communist prisoners of war. But by the same token, we demand that we have an opportunity to appear behind the iron curtain, to visit your prison camps, to find out about the American prisoners of war, which we know that you're holding. In other words, at least we'll be going to this thing with our hands clean, whether we get anything. Absolutely, absolutely. Well, Senator Putter, I'll let you get back to the original thesis regarding this investigation of Communists in the Army. Now, it seems to me we've been operating in a sort of a cloud land, and it's very hard to pin anything down in the recent happenings between Stevens and Senator McCarthy. Do you think the Communist Party should now be outlawed so the Army can really take some sort of action on it? There's no doubt about it, Larry. Today we're operating in a sort of an area of contradiction. We say on one hand that the people will say, well, the Communist Party is a political party. It's allowed on our ballots in certain states. Well, in the same token, we've tried Communists under the Smith Act. So I think that today there's no reason why any person should be so naive to join the Communist Party without knowing what he's belonging to. It's an international conspiracy dedicated to overthrow our former government. We might just well recognize it and to outlaw the party. Thank you very much, Senator Putter. Glad you're here tonight. Well, I'm happy to be here. Thank you, Larry. The opinions that you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Lone Gene Chronoscope was Larry Lesser and Winston Burdette. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Charles E. Potter, United States Senator from Michigan. A Lone Gene watch makes the most distinguished gift, for a Lone Gene is not alone one of the very finest watches made anywhere in all the world. But equally important, it's the watch of highest prestige. Now consider these beautiful Lone Gene ladies watches. Here are superb examples of the watchmaker's exquisite art. Diamonds, where used, are of the finest quality. Meticulous hand finishing gives that final touch of perfection. For men, Lone Gene has created a watch for every need and purpose. Shockproof, moisture resistant, automatic watches for rugged service. Handsome dress watches for business and formal wear. Each style with impressive good taste. And every Lone Gene watch, whether for a lady or for a gentleman, is made to the unique Lone Gene standards of excellence, which have won for Lone Gene 10 World's Fair Grand Prizes, 28 gold medals, highest honors for accuracy in fields of precise timing. And yet, you may buy and own or proudly give a Lone Gene watch for as little as 70-150. So, see your authorized Lone Gene Witner Jewellery Agency. And remember that throughout the world, no other name on a watch means so much as Lone Gene, the world's most honored watch. The world's most honored gift. Premier product of the Lone Gene 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 Lone Gene Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour. Broadcast on behalf of Lone Gene, the world's most honored watch. And Witner, distinguished companion to the world honored Lone Gene. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Lone Gene and Witner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem. Agency for Lone Gene Witner Watches.