 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 LeCerre from the CBS television news staff, and Lewis Banks, associate editor of Time Magazine. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the honorable John C. Stennis, senator from Mississippi. I think it's only fair to say that during the past year, the United States Senate itself has been under considerable pressure. It's labored in an atmosphere which has brought connotations of irresponsibility, exhibitionism, and even lowered standards. Now, it speaks for the esteem in which our guest tonight is held by his fellow senators, that he was chosen by the Senate to appear and to re-represent them on the Watkins Committee. Senator Stennis, does this Watkins Committee report, uh, touch on the subject of how much power a congressional committee should have? Yes, it does. That's one of the main points involved in the report. But before I say anything about the report, let me emphasize that I make no comment here about the allegations so far as they pertain to Senator McCarthy, uh, his innocence or his guilt. I'm just discussing the legal principles involved, and you've mentioned one of the main ones. You know, we have the age-old conflict between the executive branch of the government, the presidency, which has certain power to withhold information and keep secret high matters on our security front. And then the legislative branch, which is the Congress, having the right to make investigations, primarily for two purposes. One, to determine what basis to pass the laws on, what are the facts with reference to needed legislation, and then to see also if the laws we already have are being properly carried out or executed, while the money is being properly spent. So that line of division between the executive and the legislative has never been clearly defined. The conflict has gone on from George Washington's time down until today. Senator, does the Watkins Committee report actually crystallize these areas, this ill-defined area between the legislative and the executive's power? No, it makes no crystal clear mark, a line between the two. It points out the problem. It recognizes there is a field of investigation. There's a field where the executive has the right to hold back certain information, the security of the nation being involved. But it does point out this, that with the increased budget, with the enormous expenditures that we have, the budget having increased from $3 billion annually to $60 billion annually, with our far-flung military installations all over the world, and particularly in view of our worldwide fight against communism, international conspiracies, that there's more need for investigations at the same time, there's more need for security information being kept secret in the circumstances. Well, Senator, what rules changes does the Senate need in order to bring its mechanism up to date? We did not recommend any legislation on this very important and vexing subject, but we did recommend this, that the heads of the senator committees and also the ranking member of the part out of power meet with the executive heads of the departments of Guff. And see if there could not be a plan worked out, not necessarily by rule of law, but by the spirit of cooperation, where the integrity of the president's power would be preserved, the integrity of the legislative power and responsibilities would be preserved, and all of it worked out for the protection and benefit of the people as a whole. And a great deal is already being done along that line, I can assure you and the people, but more needs to be done, and we may have to have new legislation, because the statutes that control this proposition as to how far the executive can go and how much the, how far the legislature can go and how much the executive can withhold is not clearly defined. Senator Stennis, as you realize, it's all very well to come to an agreement on just what a committee should do, but the chairman of a Senate committee has vast powers. Is there any way to enforce any rule changes? Well, we've had, yes, you can enforce rules on that. We have had rather vague and loose rules on the matter. I say this investigator power has not been as extended and as important as it has become in the last few years. Now, the rules are not definite on that. It's left, has been left in part to the standards that the committee itself might set, or which the chairman might set. Now, we feel that the Senate must reexamine this, must reappraise it, and we definitely recommend it here. A start on some additional rules. One is that no witness should be compelled to testify unless there are at least two members of the Senate present, unless he waives that right, unless the whole committee votes to authorize the chairman to proceed. Another thing that a witness can be interrogated only by a member of the Senate or its staff member chosen by the committee, not just the chairman, but by the committee for that purpose. And another thing we recommend is that no committee chairman be permitted to disclose what all went on in the executive session, executive hearing, unless the committee votes that it be disclosed. Now, we put another provision on there, a recommendation that no payments could be made for the expenses of this committee until it had complied. With these rules, that is, the chairman certified. Senator Sanders, did you touch upon the so-called rights of government employees to pass on classified material to members of Congress? Well, that's in the report and what we said on that speaks for itself. That goes right back to the first point I'm mentioning here about the line being somewhat vague and uncertain in places. The executive branch of the government undoubtedly has the power to withhold certain information and to put executive orders that will keep those files, protect those files. Senator, I suspect that one key question that should be answered is whether you think the Senate is going to back up the Watkins committee censure. Well, I don't want to pass on that in any way. That's each individual senator must make up his own mind. It presents a question that he has to apply his own standards of thinking and his own concept of senatoral conduct and the proper exercise of senatoral power. I have already reached my conclusions, but that's a matter that each senator must decide for himself. It does involve the Senate. I think the senatoral question is involved, but each individual senator has to make up his own. Well, Senator Sanders, I know you have compelling reasons for not wanting to predict what the Senate will do on the Watkins committee report on Senator McCarthy. I wonder if I could put the question this way. Could you tell us what material effect it would have on a senator if the Senate passed a vote of censure against him? Well, that's entirely conjectural. I wouldn't want to go into that. It depends upon so many factors. The case has not been concluded and haven't reached that part of it, and I would respectfully withhold or comment on it. Senator, in a political year, wouldn't it have been easier for your committee to duck a decision on this and just you weren't absolutely ordered to bring in a decision? Well, we weren't ordered to make recommendation specific, but you say a political year. Now, we were appointed in a non-political atmosphere. The resolution said three Democrats and three Republicans, and that's the last time those words were used or heard. We had no suggestions whatsoever from any outside source or among ourselves about the political implications or the line of political parties with reference to this decision. We were entirely free of that. So after the evidence was heard and considered, why, they had instructed us to hear the testimony and to report. And we, the report speaks for itself as to what we decided. We thought we were following a line of duty, reference to that. Senator Senus, of course, you're a member of the Armed Services Committee beside this special, the Watkins Committee. I'd like to ask you something about a new factor that's arisen now. How do you people on the, or you yourself feel on the Senate Armed Services Committee about the re-arming of West Germany? Well, I feel and I think most members of the feel that it's necessary to re-arm Germany in order to protect the situation in Europe. I thought then that EDC would not be ratified by France and that came to a head this last September and France turned the EDC down. I felt like that we should have another proposal and alternative and that has materialized and apparently it is going to prevail. Which will lead to a re-arming of Germany, which is a necessary step, I think, to preserve, protect Europe. Incidentally, I think that we are gaining in the Cold War. That's what I wanted to ask you. You're a man of much wisdom and moderation in the Senate. How do you feel, actually, we're doing in this Cold War now? Are we winning or are we losing? I feel that we are gaining in Europe. Yes, I think definitely so. We make fairly steady progress and another step is about to be taken this re-arming of Germany. To be frank, I think we are losing in Asia. I don't try to put that blame on anyone. I think it's largely the course of events. I don't say we've lost everything, but I think the trend there has been against us. It's a long, long ways off. There's much territory involved. There are many, many countries. There are many, many, many people. Well, Senator, do you think we could actually do anything to stem the tide of communism over there? Well, I feel that communism, of a kind, is on the ascendancy in Asia. It's moving along slowly. I hope it's not altogether the Russian communism. I hope it's a different type. I believe it is, too. But that trend is on the move. And I think we must help retort it, but it's got to be worked out by the Asiatic people. Well, thank you very much, Senator Stennis. It's very kind of you to come up and watch and talk to us tonight. The opinions expressed on the laundry and chronoscope were those of the speakers. The editorial board for this edition of the laundry and chronoscope was Larry Leserre and Louis Banks. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable John C. Stennis, Senator from Mississippi. An important contribution which laundry and watchmakers have made to the science of timing was to originate the idea that sports events should be timed with identical watches of known and proven accuracy. Now, to implement this idea, Laun Jean created a series of new watches, accurate second by second, which timed to a fifth, a tenth, and a hundredth of a second. In observatory tests, these watches show a degree of accuracy greater than that required by all international sports and contest associations for timing world records. The investment of millions of dollars and years of time in the development of ever-finery timepieces has resulted in new watchmaking principles and methods that have made it possible to give greater accuracy and dependability to all Laun Jean watches, including the Laun Jean watch which you now wear on your wrist. So, when next you buy a watch, either for yourself or as an important gift, remember you may buy and own or proudly give a Laun Jean watch for as little as $71.50. Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift, premier product of the Laun Jean Wittner Watch Company since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Laun Jean and Wittner watches are sold in service from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem, agency for Laun Jean Wittner watches. At Laun Jean Wittner Jewelers, see Atmos, the perpetual motion clock created by Lecoultre. Atmos runs without winding, without electricity, powered only by variations in the temperature of the atmosphere. Atmos, product of Lecoultre, division of Laun Jean Wittner.