 The world's most honored watch is Laun Jean. Laun Jean watches have won ten World's Fair Grand Prizes, twenty-eight gold medals and more honors for accuracy than any other timepiece. Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, is made and guaranteed by the Laun Jean Wittenall Watch Company. It's time for the Laun Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, brought to you every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. A presentation of the Laun Jean Wittenall Watch Company, maker of Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittenall, distinguished companion to the world-honored Laun Jean. Good evening, this is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope? Mr. Bruno Shaw, author, editor and commentator, and Mr. William Bradford Huey, editor of the American Mercury. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Homer Ferguson, United States Senator from Michigan. In this spontaneous and unrehearsed discussion, the opinions expressed are necessarily those of the speakers. Mr. Ferguson, our audience, of course, knows you as a one-man crime buster in Detroit and as a distinguished member of the Senate. Specifically, sir, just what are your committee assignments at the moment? I'm a member of the Judiciary Committee and also of the Policy Committee and the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Huey. And the Judiciary Committee, the Subcommittee, of course is concerned with security at the moment, isn't it, sir? Yes, there's a subcommittee of that committee which is handling the internal security investigations. That committee is concerned with the President's current effort to enforce stricter censorship on the American press, I believe. Yes, it is concerned with that. And what has been your position, sir? Have you opposed the President's efforts to make censorship stricter on the press? Yes, I have opposed that and the reason that I have opposed it, Mr. Huey, is that I believe that in a republic such as ours, that we must have freedom of the press, freedom of thought, freedom of speech. One of the very fundamentals that we must have are those freedoms. And, of course, the danger is this, that a weak government uses the weapon of censorship. How far would you carry that, Senator? How far would you carry it in the field of national defense? How free could you be with publication of news and national defense? Well, of course, I'm a firm believer, and I've stated on the Senate floor that I believe in the security. And there are certain things in the national defense that they should determine whether or not it's for our security. You can't wear on your cuffs all of the secrets of the national military establishment. If the Reconstruction Finance Committee, sir, could have decided what information could properly be published in the United States, we probably would not have had some of the recent revelations, would we? You wouldn't have had any of it, and as I say, a weak government goes to the censorship to attempt to keep things from the public. Take the order after the President issued. Let's give good faith to his issuing on the question of security. But he was delegating to each one of his men in the various departments and agencies the right to determine on their own what was to be security. In the OPS, put one in, anything that might be embarrassing to them. Wouldn't you say that he might have a more reasonable approach to it and that the people would accept it with greater reason if he issued such an order together with the press, with the selected group of the press to discuss it and to express their judgment on these various kinds of orders, including military censorship? There isn't any doubt about that, Mr. Schumann. He should have taken the press in, discussed the whole matter, and first, if there were sufficient causes, had a voluntary censorship. And then, if there couldn't rely on a voluntary one, then he should have used the next as a real censorship on security. Senator, I believe that the McCarran subcommittee of which you are a member has also been considering the matter of the Institute of Public Relations, and particularly the controversial figure of Mr. Jessup. Now, what are your views in the Jessup case? Well, I would say this, and I'm not going to draw any judgments tonight because we have not finished those, Mr. Hewitt. The hearings are going on and my work on the bench has always taught me that the whole judgment to the last sentence is in the record. But, I'll say this, that so far the record discloses that there was a penetration in the Institute of Pacific Relations of those who at least were giving aid and comfort to the Communist line. You have heard Senator, you have heard former Governor Stassen, I believe, before yourself. Yes, he was even there today. He appeared before the committee. Well, I'd like to ask one question on that. Wouldn't you say that since Mr. Jessup himself said he was a member of the America First Committee and other very, let's say, right-wing organizations, that it's somewhat incompatible for him to be charged with both that and communist affiliation. But wouldn't you say that regardless of what he's charged with, he's got pretty near a hundred percent record of bad judgment? Well, I don't want to say it's a hundred percent. That's going a little far on any man's judgment. We all make mistakes, but I think there is some evidence in the record that some of these judgments were very poor. I don't think there's any doubt about that. Our audience, of course, knows you as the colleague of the late Senator Vandenberg, and his memoirs, I understand, are about to be published. Do you think that they'll likely to shed any light on this particular controversy? They'll shed some light. On February the 5th, they'll shed the light that there was a meeting in the White House. That's 1949. A furnishing military aid or the stopping of the aid to the national government in China. The committee in the next few days will receive the copy of the page of the Senator's diary that he wrote with his own typewriter. And you think the Vandenberg revelation will be damaging to the cause of Mr. Jessup and will support Mr. Stassen and the controversy? Well, I think it supports the contention of Mr. Stassen that the State Department, Mr. Atchison, was perfectly willing to have the aid stop as of that time. And that Senator Vandenberg was only consulted on the China policies, as I understand it, on that particular occasion. Was that, Senator, was that committee, I think, of about 20 to 25? Was that a pretty well-balanced committee? Who picked them? Well, the committee that went, that's another committee in October of 1949. That's the committee that Mr. Stassen is talking about. That's the one that he contends that the record now shows, and they have finally produced the record, showing that the sympathy was on the side of the recognition of Red China. Was that a well-balanced committee, would you say? Well, I think not. The reason we're investigating that particular committee was that there's so many members of it, were members of the Institute of Pacific Relations, which we are investigating as to whether or not there was penetration by the communist or the communist line. To sum that point up, sir, do you expect to oppose the appointment that Mr. Jessup, to the ambassadorial post that he's recommended for? I would say at the present time, from what I can learn from the committee hearings, that I should be compelled to vote against the confirmation of Mr. Jessup for this particular post. And I try to reserve judgment as long as possible on these matters, and I want to hear all the evidence. But that's the way I would stand tonight, and I want to frankly say that. Our audience also knows that you have to do with taxes and money, sir, since you're an important member of the Appropriations Committee. Now, this morning we noticed that we have 11% tax increase. Did you favor that tax increase, sir? Mr. Huey, I voted against that tax bill. I came to the conclusions and my conscience really rebelled that I could not vote for it because I felt that we were placing a burden on the American people that could be avoided by the cutting of expenses in government. And I sincerely believe that that was true. Have you any idea at all of what that cut could amount to in comparison with all the other things that you're probably in favor of, which is huge national defense, 0.4, Marshall Plan and all the others? Is it really an amount that is considerable, or is it just a matter of principle to cut it down? Well, it isn't. I believe that we could have taken six to eight billions of dollars. I hesitate mentioning billions of dollars because it's such an enormous sum that it's very difficult to understand. I like to explain a billion as being one tenth of the entire production of metropolitan Detroit of all the industries for a year because they produce about $10 billion worth. So you can see how much goods that is with the amount of automobiles and everything else that's produced in that great metropolitan area. Senator, I'm sure that our audience wouldn't want you to believe before you gave us a prediction as to whether you think taxes will go even higher in America. Well, I don't see how they can go much higher. And my reason for saying that just about three weeks ago, I met with members of the House and members of the Senate. And we were discussing this tax question and they came to the conclusion that we are about at the bottom of the barrel. Some of them think we are through the bottom and there are no other greater sources to actually get returns without diminishing returns. That is, that you tax people so much that the business goes down and there is a failure to get taxes rather than to get more. I see. So to sum up, you believe as a member of the Appropriations Committee that we have reached the point of diminishing returns. Thank you very much for being with us tonight, sir. The editorial board for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope was Mr. Bruno Shaw and Mr. William Bradford Huey. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Homer Ferguson, United States Senator from Michigan. A watchmaker such as Laun Jean recalls that Christopher Columbus made his great voyages before the watch was invented. His only timepiece was a sand glass like this rare specimen from the Hayden Planetarium. This was reversed every half hour. The hours on shipboard were the seven hours of prayer. In those days, the only navigating instrument was a compass and so navigators of today salute Columbus as the peer of them all. Columbus Day marks a Laun Jean milestone for one of the 38 World's Fair Awards won by Laun Jean was this gold medal of the St. Louis Columbia Exposition some 59 years ago. The 400th anniversary of the discovery of America which honored Christopher Columbus. Now consider how consistently Laun Jean watches have maintained their leadership over the years. Winner of first prizes for more than three quarters of a century including 10 World's Fair Grand Prizes, 28 gold medals, and literally thousands of awards for accuracy from the great government observatories. Today's Laun Jean watches are our finest, distinguished for exclusive styling endowed with traditional accuracy and long life. Truly throughout the world, no other name on a watch means so much as Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch. Premier product of the Laun Jean Witner Watch Company since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. This is Frank Knight again reminding you that the Laun Jean Chronoscope is brought to you three times weekly every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. So won't you join us every Monday, Wednesday and Friday evening at this same time for the Laun Jean Chronoscope. A 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, sold and service from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display the emblem agency for Laun Jean Witner watches. This is the CBS television network.