 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? Mr. William Bradford Huey, author and analyst, and Mr. Henry Haslund, editor of the Freeman and business columnist for Newsweek. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the honorable Wayne Morse, United States Senator from Oregon. Senator Morse, our viewers of course know you as the Senator from Oregon who opposed General Eisenhower in the election, who then left the Republican Party and became an independent and who's carrying on a rather vigorous campaign against the administration in Washington. Now, first of all, sir, what is at the bottom of your rather fierce opposition to General Eisenhower? Before I answer that part of the question, may I make clear to this audience that I shall continue, as I already have in the Senate, to support any proposal that Eisenhower sends up that I think is in the public interest and oppose those that I think are not in the public interest. And that's the job, it seems to me, of any senator. Now, my two basic points that I would make in opposition to the Eisenhower administration to date is that I fear that the Eisenhower administration is influenced too much by military advice in determining governmental policy. You mean bad military advice? Bad military advice, but I don't think it's wise to have the military advising on policy. I think we ought to keep faith with a very important American tradition, and that is the military must always be kept under civilian control and direction. It's their job to carry out orders. And my second objection to the Eisenhower administration to date is that I think it's given every evidence of a fear I had during the campaign, namely that it was going to be a very reactionary administration. Well, Senator, if Senator Taft had been the nominee of the Republican Party, would you have voted the Party? No, I would not have voted the Party if Taft had been the nominee, and Taft's lieutenants at the Republican Convention when I was fighting hard for Eisenhower knew that to be a fact. What does Taft have that Eisenhower doesn't have in your opinion? Well, let me say, and I want to be very kind about it, I have complete confidence in Taft's sincerity of convictions. And the Eisenhower campaign satisfied me that the Eisenhower group was perfectly willing to do whatever was necessary to win the election. I think they ran their campaign as though it were a military campaign. And of course a political campaign isn't that. I think in a political campaign you ought to come forward with a platform of principles and stand on that platform and say the same things wherever you are in the country, and not appeal to pressured groups on the basis of political expediency. And one of the things that disturbs me about the Eisenhower administration is that I think it yields too much to pressured groups. Well, Senator, here's a very crucial question. You ran as a Republican in 1950. That's right. You were elected as a Republican, and then in 1952 you voted the Party, you repudiated the Party, and you came out for Governor Stevenson. Now, hasn't it been suggested in Oregon that in view of this change, you ought perhaps to resign and ask for a new election and run as an independent and give the Republican voters there a chance to pick a Republican candidate and a chance to pick a Democrat and so on and test whether the people really agree with your move or not. Some of the Republicans suggest that, but my answer to them, and I've been in the state, my answer to them is that when I took my oath of office in the Senate of the United States, I didn't become the property of the Republican Party. When I was elected, I became the senator of every person in the state of Oregon, including those that voted against me as well as those that voted for me. And I take you back to some constitutional history. It wasn't the intention of our founding fathers that a man should sit in the Senate of the United States, the property of a party. My job, as I told the people in my state, in both campaigns, was to sit in the Senate as a free man. And I told them in both campaigns and in the primaries, don't send me to the Senate if you want the Republican Party to cast my votes for me. I'm going to exercise an honest independence of judgment on the merits of issues as I see them. Well, what's your gases to the amount of support or lack of it that you've got since the change? Well, of course, I always run scared, you know, but... Well, Senator... I want to say I'm perfectly willing to go to an election. You've made very clear to our viewers the two reasons why you opposed Eisenhower to the outset. Now, what's happened since the Eisenhower administration has taken over? What's happened since then that you have most objected to? Let me mention a few things very quickly. Starting with the State of the Union message. After hearing that message, I walked over to the floor of the Senate and made the first speech in the Senate in disagreement with some of the points in that message, including what I thought were some of very unfortunate things. That Eisenhower had to say about Asiatic policy. Because he wielded the big stick in the State of the Union message before he ever consulted with our allies. And what the American people ought to be told by the press is that when Dulles and Stossin went to Europe a short time thereafter, their trip in Europe was a dud. They didn't get the support from the allies they thought they were going to get. And listen to Dulles' testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee when he got back. First of all, do you think the President alienated some of our allies? Well, I think he very quickly had a backtrack on his Asiatic policy. What specifically did he say that he had a backtrack on? Well, his proposal for unilateral action in Asia was very quickly modified by Dulles before the Foreign Relations Committee when he got back from Europe. And why? Because Dulles and Stossin discovered in Europe that the European allies weren't going to go with us. On our laying down the rules in Asia and then telling them about it afterwards. Well, aren't we doing most of the fighting, 90% of the fighting and dying on the land forces? And that's why I said during the campaign that the first negotiations we ought to have on foreign policy is with our allies. And that's what I think Eisenhower ought to be doing now. I think we ought to get the foreign ministers of our allies together and reach some understanding as to what joint action in Korea is going to be. Because I'm a strong critic of our allied policies in Korea, but that doesn't follow. That therefore we ought to follow a unilateral course of action in Asia because I want to tell you, if that war can be avoided with honor, and if we can win an honorable peace in Korea, we owe it to the American people to try to do it. I got a suggestion as to what I think we ought to do about Korea. What does that say? Because the Russians with their vicious lying propaganda are leaving the impression with the world that we're blocking peace in Korea on the prisoner issue. Now I think we have to watch out that we don't make the same mistake on that issue we made during World War II by adopting an unconditional surrender approach to the problem. And I think we ought to keep the initiative in all diplomatic relations in regard to the Asiatic War. And therefore I respectfully once again make this suggestion. A few days ago, Russia indicated to the world that she had great confidence in the Swedish government in that she was willing to vote for a Swedish diplomat as Secretary General of the United Nations. You know what I propose? I think we ought to get together with our allies and say, let's us offer to select two negotiators. And Russia and her satellites select two negotiators and we agree with Russia to call on Sweden to select the fifth and let them lay down a program for the handling of the prisoner issue. And I'm suspicious that if we did that, Russia would find all sorts of alibis for not living up to that. But let's prove it to the world and let's take the peace initiative away from Russia and place it where it belongs. In the field of domestic policy, sir, what do you think has been the principal mistake of the Eisenhower administration? Well, I was the first of course in the Senate to point out that Eisenhower shouldn't have placed a dollar sign on the patriotism of American investors while boys are dying in Korea. How did he do that? I think it's a shocking thing to propose increased interest rates on government bonds in our generation to be paid off by American boys and girls 75 and 100 years from now. Because I think the challenge of our generation is a challenge of economic sacrifice in protecting the value of the American dollar. Senator, you're aware of the argument that these cheap interest rates have led to inflation, have been in fact the chief cause of inflation. On government bonds? Yes, which have reduced the value of the dollar to 50% of its purchasing power in 1939. Now this is an argument which is put forward by the Federal Reserve authorities and by practically every monetary authority. By the bankers? By every monetary authority, whether they're bankers or not. These people are not the bankers necessarily. They own such a large block of these bonds. Well, I would very respectfully say I think it's a very uneconomic and unsound argument. I don't think we can justify this increasing the national debt by this increased interest rate. I think what Eisenhower ought to do is plead with American investors as their patriotic duty to buy these bonds and sink their money in these bonds. And I think it's perfectly obvious that if they did, that would be a pretty good inflation control. I can't reconcile it with the sacrifices we're asking boys to make in Korea and then say, but here at home, we insist on more money for our investment. Senator Morris, you also come from a great agricultural state. And I wonder what you think, sir, about the agricultural policies of the new administration. Well, I'm disturbed about them and I want to see Eisenhower succeed. Many people get the idea that because I'm a critic of Eisenhower, I don't want him to succeed. I want him to succeed with his farm program. And I want my audience to remember that every American citizen has an interest in a surplus food supply in this country. And I'm worried about the agricultural program thus far announced by Secretary of Agricultural Benson, because I think it is likely to undermine American agriculture, throw us into a depression, and also put us in a position where we will not have the surplus food supply that we need to maintain a high standard of living for all of our people. Well, I'm sure that our viewers have appreciated these expressions of yours, sir, and thank you for being with us this evening. Pleasure to be with you. The opinions that you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Lone Jean Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Henry Hathlett. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Wayne Morse, United States Senator from Oregon. Lone Jean is a superior watch in every respect. As a matter of fact, it's one of the finest watches made anywhere in all the world and yet Lone Jean is in a class by itself. Thus, among the finest of the world's watches, Lone Jean watches alone have won ten World's Fair Grand Prizes and twenty-eight gold medals at World's Fair and International Expositions. And in the competitive accuracy trials organized by the great government observatories, the brilliant record of Lone Jean over the years is her surpassing achievement. Yes, Lone Jean is in a class by itself, for Lone Jean is the world's most honored watch. So, when next you buy a watch, either to indulge yourself or to give boundless pleasure to another, by all means, see and examine the Lone Jean watches at your authorized jeweler agency. For a mother on Mother's Day, for an anniversary, a birthday or for a graduation, throughout the world, no other name on a watch means so much as Lone Jean, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift. Premier product of the Lone Jean 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 Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Lone Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Witner, distinguished companion to the world honored Lone Jean. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Lone Jean 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 Jean Witner watches. Give to Kent Conker Cancer, mail a contribution to cancer in care of your local post office. Now see the big payoff weekdays on the CBS television network.