 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? Larry LaSœur of the CBS television news staff and Kenneth Crawford, National Affairs editor of Newsweek magazine. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the honorable John J. Williams, United States Senator from Delaware. Senator Williams, you're best known as a one-man crusader against corruption in government. Do you think they've now cleaned up what they call the mess in Washington? I wouldn't say that they have cleaned it up, but I will say that they're making great strides. It's rather a long and tedious job. After these cases are exposed, they have to be presented to the grand juries, and then they've got to go through the orderly process of being tried in the courts. But they are moving along rapidly, and I think they're doing a good job toward cleaning it up, yes. Senator, you're best known for your work in cleaning up the Internal Revenue Bureau. How did you get interested in that? Well, back in 1949, a gentleman came to my office with a rather fantastic story it seemed at that time, but he outlined what reasons which convinced him that we had operating in this country and organized tax-fix ring. And as it was described at that time, certain members of the underworld and along with the political favorites were able to fix their taxes in a manner different from what you and I, and the gentleman had a good bit of the facts enough that I was able to move into the case. And it turned out that way, didn't it? It turned out that way, yes, definitely. Well, Senator, when you investigated the Internal Revenue Bureau, did you discover just favoritism, or was it plain stealing? Some of both. The record that was put out by the past Commissioner, I haven't seen the recent tabulation, but Commissioner Dunlap put out a report in the early part of 1952 in which he listed that since these exposures had started in the Treasury Department alone, there had been 174 Treasury officials who had been dismissed with charges and included among that list there were 53 that were charged with accepting bribes for fixing tax returns. 21 of the gentlemen were indicted for failing to pay any income taxes of their own. Now remember these were Treasury agents and three of them were convicted for operating what in effect constituted a blackmail ring. They admitted that they were faking false claims and false charges of fraud against what they described as timid taxpayers and shaking them down for a payoff. And 24 of them have been jailed for taking bribes for fixing the tax returns of the nation's biggest racketeers. Senator, when you got into this, did you get help from the honest employees in the Bureau? Yes, I did. And I would like to say at this point that I'm more convinced now than I was even when I started that the overwhelming majority of the government employees, even in the Treasury Department or any other, are honest and are trying to do the job. Naturally, Senator, those who are want the others caught. They do, and they resented. It's a reflection on them as well as a reflection on the service and they resented it. Well, Senator Williams, when you got started in your investigation of the Internal Revenue Bureau, weren't you actually accused of being delinquent in taxes too? Yes, but that had nothing to do, I don't think with this particular case because in our own state, one of my payments was taken out, but that gentleman was convicted for embezzlement in late 1948, I think it was. Was he just getting after senators, you think? No, I don't think so. At the time that he took mine, I'm sure that he never dreamed any more than a lot of the rest of them that I would ever be in the Senate and I certainly did not know anything about it at the time. When we got to checking that particular office, naturally the fact that he tapped my own account helped expedite the disclosure. But I don't think it had any connection with the later developments except this, the lack of cooperation that I got from the executive branch in Washington in cleaning up that situation caused me to be a little suspicious in general, and I wasn't too hard to sell on the idea that there was something wrong when in 1949, about six or eight months later, this man came down with that story because otherwise I think I would have thought it was a little too fantastic. The bad thing to pick on a man was going to be a senator, isn't it? Well, it's... Take care if you don't know it. Well, yes, it's bad to pick on most anybody. I guess it was a wrong thing to have done. Well, Senator, didn't you feel that the Treasury Department aided your investigations with any alacrity or they just hold back? No. I have said that I received no cooperation as far as the executive branch or the Treasury Department of the past administration. In fact, what was exposed was done in spite of them and not as a result of any cooperation I had. You want to remember that I had no investigating staff. It was done largely as a result of this information which was brought to my office, of course, when you get started, other information comes in. But every, practically every disclosure that I put on the floor of the Senate, and I think they all stood up and most of them in the courts subsequently, but practically every one of them were taken from the files of the Treasury Department itself and from their own reports which they could have moved on in and prosecuted if they seemed fit to do it. Well, Senator, do you think they're trying to muzzle you now by passing this rule in the finance committee that only investigations which are by a full vote of the majority of the committee shall be publicized? I think it's wrong. I protested it and refused to serve on a subcommittee under any such rules. I don't question the motives of those who voted for it. Maybe they had what they thought were good reasons, but I personally disagreed with it. And I think this, that if we set that rule, adopt that rule on any committee, the American people would not have confidence in what we did. Because I think that we've got to agree in advance and they got to know in advance that we're going to disclose it regardless of where it falls and which political party might be involved. We do have some in both political parties, you know. It was not aimed at you, however, was it? It was some other committees. No, it was at the committee of which I asked to be sent and yes. Well, Senator, you're also on the finance committee as well as the agriculture committee. May I ask you, what do you think of Secretary of Agriculture Benson's farm program? I think, I agree with Secretary Benson on this farm program and I think he's trying to do a good job. I have a great respect for him and I think that if they'd leave him alone, he would do much toward putting our foreign policy on a sound business-like basis. Secretary Benson is, as you know, not endorsing the present high 90% supports. He's more inclined to think that we should adopt the flexible or lower support program and I agree with him. I might say that many of those who are his staunchest critics today, just a few years ago, were the strongest advocates of this same program and that includes Mr. Patton, the President of the Farmers Union, who is now protesting it. Mr. Patton testified before the committee of the Senate at the time they were discussing this program and he was most enthusiastic about it and said it was the most constructive and forward proposal had never been made to the American farmers and it was much better than the original 90%. Well, aren't some of these severe critics of Secretary Benson's farm program also your constituents in the state of Delaware? No. Now, I don't say that we don't have some in the state of Delaware that disagree with Mr. Benson. Don't get me wrong on that. But the farm organizations in the state of Delaware largely, and I think that's true in New York, New Jersey, or any of the northeastern areas, the two largest farm organizations are the Grange and the Farm Bureau and both of those organizations are on record as being opposed to the current high 90% support program and more in favor of the lower support program and I think are endorsing Secretary Benson's proposal. You would agree, wouldn't you, Senator, that Secretary Benson is in bad with Western farmers? Yes, I think so. The Western farm block, so to speak, has always been, and this is not on political lines. Both political parties in that particular area, the most of them, have been always in favor of the 90% support in the high and the only objection they find with that is they want the 100%. Now, what many of those critics failed to point out the fact, though, is this, that we already have the program in effect which they're advocating, not the one which Mr. Benson advocates, but the one which they want. And under that program, we have accumulated about $4 billion worth of agriculture commodities. They're in the warehouses all over the country. And short of a war, not one of them have come forward with a constructive proposal as to what we're going to do with them. And most of the farmers recognize that you just can't continuously keep piling these commodities up in the warehouses and letting them rot. You've got to get them moving in the channels of trade and let the consumers eat them. Senator, it's been assumed, I think, that Secretary Benson is largely responsible for the administration slipping somewhat over the country. But yesterday's elections occurred mostly in urban areas where the farm problem was not at issue. How do you explain those democratic victories yesterday, particularly in Jersey? Well, I have read many explanations as to the results of yesterday's election, and I've heard many commentators, some of the country's best brains, explain why it happened. But I think it all boils down to one thing, they have more votes than we did. Well, as a final question, Senator Williams, that you've been a farmer and a grain merchant. Now, if we go ahead with the farm parity program and store up these mounting surpluses, what's going to happen to these surpluses in view of the high cost of living now? Well, under the old program of accumulating them, if you remember what happened with the potatoes, we destroyed them. And short of a program of destroying these farm produce, I don't know what we can do with them, short of a war. We want to remember today that agriculture prices have declined, yes. But the war is over. If the war was to break out tomorrow, we know that they would be higher by the same token. And agriculture prices today, with the exception of beef or one or two maybe commodities, are higher than they were in the pre-Korean period just before the war broke out. And I don't think that the whole country is going to the dough just because we're getting what many people recognize is a healthy readjustment to a peacetime economy. Well, thank you very much, Senator Williams, for being with us tonight. The opinions you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Long Gene Chronoscope was Larry Lusser of the CBS television news staff and Kenneth Crawford, National Affairs Editor for Newsweek Magazine. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable John J. Williams, United States Senator from Delaware. Every year, about this time, the great arena in New York's Madison Square Garden comes alive with color and drama, as International Society assembles for the National Horse Show. And this year again, here, as in the great horse shows of Paris, Rome, Madrid, and elsewhere, Long Gene is exclusive official watch for all timing. As the thoroughbreds compete for championship ribbons, the judges consider two factors. Their time performance and their beauty. And for exactly the same reason, discriminating people the world over make their choice of a fine watch. Long Gene, the world's most honored watch, the only watch in history to win for accuracy of performance and beauty of design, 10 World's Fair Grand Prizes, 28 gold medals, and highest honors at the great government observatories. The new Long Gene watches for Christmas giving, now featured by authorized Long Gene Witner jewelers from coast to coast, are conceived in X was a good taste, and manufactured to Long Gene's exacting standard of performance. You'll find a style and a type for every need and every purpose. And yet this Christmas, you may proudly give the Long Gene watch for as little as 7150. Long Gene, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift, premier product of the Long 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 Long Gene Chronoscope, the television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Long Gene, the world's most honored watch, and Witner, distinguished companion to the world honored Long Gene. This is Frank Knoll, reminding you that Long 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 Long Gene Witner watches. Enjoy the four-star playhouse on the CBS television network.