 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. Our co-editors for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope are Mr. William Bradford Huey, editor of the American Mercury, and Mr. Edgar Baker, managing editor of Time Life International. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Styles Bridges, United States Senator from New Hampshire. The opinions expressed are necessarily those of the speakers. Senator Bridges, you of course have had a long and distinguished career in the Senate, and tonight our Chronoscope audience is tremendously interested in all the furor over the President's seizure of the steel mills. I'm sure that we'd like your opinions tonight, sir. Now, is this an unprecedented action on the part of the President, sir? Well, Mr. Huey, I've been in the Senate some 16 years. I would say that there has been a greater revulsion from the country on this in the last few days than on any issue since I've been in the Senate except the court-packing scheme of President Roosevelt and the removal of General Douglas MacArthur by President Truman. I think both of those issues created a greater comeback from the country. But certainly next to those two issues, the seizure of the steel mills and this unprecedented action comes next. You think that the public is genuinely aroused, do you, sir? I think they are becoming aroused as they view the consequences and the full meaning of the seizure. And do you feel, sir, as a veteran of the Senate, do you feel that a grave constitutional issue is involved, that there is justification for the people's being aroused? I do, and I'll tell you why, Mr. Huey, because always before we've had private property seized by the President of the United States before in various cases, but always before it's been based upon some statutory authority. Some basis of law. This is the first time the President has ever taken such a step when we haven't had on the statute books a pacific law in which he attributed his action to. You're telling our audience that in your opinion there is no statute on the books now that would justify the President's activities. Well, Senator, what were the practical alternatives or were there alternatives? Was there another course the President could have followed to have prevented a damaging state? He certainly could have invoked the provisions of the Taft-Hotley Act, but as you know, Mr. Baker, he has so used the Taft-Hotley Act as a whipping boy for a period of years that I suppose he hesitated to use it in this instance. But he could invoke the Taft-Hotley Act, which would have brought on a further stay of 80 days. And then he could have taken a step by asking the Attorney General of the United States to bring an injunction in the courts against a strike. And then, of course, the Taft-Hotley Act and we have other legislation which would provide for him coming to Congress for a recourse action. Well, Senator, now that the President has in effect passed the ball back to Congress by sending his message which some people haven't interpreted as a confession of error and that it concedes that the final decision does rest with the Congress, what action would you expect to be forthcoming from Capitol Hill? I think that, at first, it should be examined very carefully by the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, which is the legal committee of the Senate. And this certainly is a legal constitutional question. And the action that's occurred in the Senate, which we've just seen in the papers tonight about the Labor Committee of the Senate going ahead and holding hearings, is dealing with something which is a side issue. The issues involved in the strike are a side issue. The fundamental basic issue is the President of the United States assuming dictatorial powers in my judgment and seizing a great industrial. You think, sir, that the constitutional issue is overriding and must be decided first, at least, before we decide who's right and who's wrong in the labor controversy? Yes, of course, what may happen, they may reach a decision on these incidental issues which are the wages, the hours, the union shop, the clothes shop, and so on in the strike. But the great issue would still remain. The great issue is still remaining. Now, Mr. Huey, Mr. Baker, if the President of the United States can seize the steel mills, he can also, by the same ferry, seize cattle on the farms and the ranches. He can seize the poultry and the poultry houses of the farms. He can seize private property anywhere because if you remember when he took this stand and issued this order, he said, I am taking this stand by virtue of my authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States and as President of the United States and Commander of the Armed Services, he didn't list any Pacific law or any definite law. It was a very general, broad statement which he made which is an overriding issue. So you're saying, sir, that this is not an ordinary capital versus labor or management versus labor controversy? It is very definitely more than that. When, for instance, the President sees the coal mines during the war, he sees them under a definite statue which was the Smith Connolly Act. When he sees the railroads, he sees them under the Railroad Act of 1916 and so on. When he sees the Montgomery Ward plant, he sees it based upon the Construction Act, so-called. Now, we have none of those on the statute books. We have no law on the statute books, so he's assuming some inherent powers as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy and to be consistent. Mr. Baker and Mr. Huey, what he should have done instead of putting the Secretary of Commerce in charge of the steel mills, if he assumed him as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy should put the Secretary of Defense in. Well, so now what is it? In this case, Senator, even in the very, very few days which elapsed between the time of the decision of the Union to strike and the President's action, we lost a half million tons of steel. Now, the President was faced with a very practical situation, a practical threat to the National Defense effort. And he cited his inherent powers, which I believe the courts have on a number of occasions in the past, in different situations held that there are inherent powers of the presidency. Now, what is your feeling? Are there no powers that the President can use in a situation of this nature where the National Defense may be endangered? Surely. He could invoke. We have the Taft-Hartley Act, as I said, 80 days waiting period. He could provide for the Attorney General to bring injunctions in the courts. And then it pacifically says that he shall make a report to Congress and for action by the Congress and ask for definite authority. There were plenty of things for him to do. Well, sir, now this is a political year. And so what are the political implications here? Specifically, as a practical politician, do you think that this was smart politics for the President? Well, I don't know. I think a somewhat question that the President was going to run again if he'd done it, but he's apparently not a candidate. May I point out also, he was handicapped for the fact that he's conducted this fiction of a non-war in Korea. He says this is a police action. I think we're in a war in Korea. But the President has avoided that issue. And so he couldn't resort to the fact that we're in a great war. He's had to assume some powers which are somewhat unknown. Well, now, sir, do you think this business is an overriding issue? I mean, do you think that the American public should be gravely concerned? In short, is this a step along the road toward a possible dictatorship? Is it that serious? Yes, I don't believe that we're on the road to dictatorship here yet. But I say that we could be starting on the road. Now, for instance, in all of these socialistic countries where we are afraid of socialism and so on, there's no socialist country that has seized by order of the ruling power. The mills, for instance, when they go to nationalize the steel mills in Great Britain, they proceed in a not only manner according to the law of the land. You're saying that not even in the socialistic countries has there been so aggressive an action on the part of an athlete. No, you've got to get into the dictatorship powers where either the communists have this, somebody's run, where you see examples of this. Would you say that this is a step toward possible nationalization of the steel industry in that kind of country? Well, it could be, yes, I hope not, but it could be. But the final power to prevent that rest with the Congress? Yes, it should rest, Mr. Baker, with the courts. And if we had independent free courts, as I hope we have in some instances, certainly it might be in the courts. But in any case, the final result would be the balancing according to our constitution and the legislative against the executive. Well, Senators, we understand it. It is, then, a fight between the Congress and the President, and we very much thank you for being with us tonight, sir. The editorial board for this edition of the Laundry and Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Edgar Baker. Our distinguished guest was the honorable Stiles Bridges, United States Senator from New Hampshire. One of the virtues of our free enterprise system is the benefits to the public in better quality and lower prices, which spring from free and open competition. Certainly, the stimulus of competition has resulted in ever-finer and finer Laund gene watches, and it was in free and open competition that Laund gene became, in fact, the world's most honored watch, honored for excellence and elegance by 10 World's Fair Grand Prizes, 28 Gold Medal Awards, honored for accuracy by innumerable prizes and bulletins from the great government observatories, honored for honesty in sports, aviation, exploration, science. For superlative quality and true investment value, Laund gene watches have become first choice of discriminating men and women in every country of the free world. So if you wish to purchase a very fine watch, either for yourself or as a gift for a coming graduation, for an anniversary, for any important occasion, look for the true quality in the watch you buy, and your choice will be Laund gene, the world's most honored watch. Premier product of the Laund gene Wittenor Watch Company since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. This is David Ross speaking for your host, Frank Knight, inviting you to join us every Monday, Wednesday and Friday evening at the same time for the Laund gene Chronoscope, a television journal of important issues of the hour. Broadcast on behalf of Laund gene, the world's most honored watch, and Wittenor, distinguished companion to the world-honored Laund gene, sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display the emblem, Agency for Laund gene Wittenor Watches. For Tuesday Night Thrills, watch Suspends on the CBS Television Network.