 The Long Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, brought to you every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. A presentation of the Long Jean Wittner Watch Company, maker of Long Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Long Jean. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce Mr. William Bradford Huey, noted author and analyst and editor-in-chief of the Long Jean Chronoscope, and Mr. Carl Hess, press editor of Newsweek Magazine. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Harold Valde, United States congressman from Illinois, and chairman of the Un-American Activities Committee. Mr. Valde, it's a pleasure to welcome you to the Chronoscope again, and our viewers of course know you as chairman of the rather highly controversial House Un-American Activities Committee, and tonight we'd like for you to tell us something about your plans for 1953. What will be your first area of investigation? Well, Mr. Huey and Mr. Hess, I want to assure you first of all that it is a great pleasure to be on your very fine program again. As to the first area of investigation, I believe, and I think the rest of the members of the committee concur with me in this, then our first duty is to weed out the communists and fellow travelers and pinkos, as they are properly known, from the executive branch of government. Any particular part now? Well, primarily the State Department and the Department of Defense, and of course after we are able to do that, I think the next important thing is to act as a watchdog committee to see that no commies or other subversives of any kind infiltrate the new Eisenhower administration. The first thing, I suppose, is that you're aimed at the holdovers, the people who were in the previous administration who haven't yet been discharged from government. Yes, naturally, Mr. Huey, it's going to take quite a long while to change over the control of the executive department of government. It's going to be a gradual process. Now, sir, you mentioned that you've been investigating the State Department, I think, is fairly well known, but you mentioned the Defense Department now. Are you directing a major investigating effort at the Defense Department now? At the present time, there is one subpoena out for a very important witness in the Department of Defense, and of course it's impossible for me to say anything more about that at this time. But we do expect to show that several of the people in the last administration were very close to being communists and very close to the Soviet government. Do you feel that any of them had a part in influence and policy? Oh, certainly I do, and I believe that we will be able to prove that eventually. Important policy in the Defense Department? Yes, I think important policy in the Defense Department. And you think these people had access to secret information in the Defense Department? I do believe that is true. We have had, of course, in the past investigations into the Defense Department. We've had investigations in the Signal Corps Intelligence Department, and we've had other investigations. Well, of course, as you perhaps remember, we had General Walter Beedle-Smith, the head of the CIA, who in Philadelphia said that he could give us some testimony in the executive session that is a closed session that he couldn't possibly give us in the open session, who we were having at that time. So we have had some investigations into the Defense Department, which leads us to believe that while it isn't extremely serious, it's something that we have to give our attention to and weed it out before it goes any further. Do you anticipate taking up, for example, the remark that even the CIA has been infiltrated? Oh, certainly. By the CIA, you mean the Central Intelligence Agency? Yes, that's right. Now, sir, you say that you want to protect the new Eisenhower administration from subversives. Do you expect to get a higher degree of cooperation from the Eisenhower administration than you got from the Truman administration? Certainly, but when I say that to protect the Eisenhower administration, I don't mean that in a political way. I think the protection of the Eisenhower administration will certainly be a protection of the American people. But actually, we do expect to, as we in Congress, in the legislative branch, do expect to get a lot more cooperation from the executive branch of government than we had in the past. Specifically, on the matter of our members, our viewers will remember that President Truman repeatedly refused to turn over to you certain executive files. Now, do you think that President Eisenhower will make those executive files available to you? Yes, but understand, I don't believe that President Eisenhower, Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, Mr. Brownell, or any of the cabinet heads should give all of their information to the legislative branch. There is certain... Well, all that you'd ask for... Well, I personally would not ask for anything that I didn't think they could give. What I'm referring to is the loyalty files of the various departments in the executive branch. I believe that they should have access to those. Now, the committee itself, of course, has had a, as I say, a very controversial career from the days that Martin Dias was its first chairman. Now, do you feel that the committee today has a degree of public support that it's never had? Yes, I do, from all of the letters that come into our committee and they come in at the rate of about a thousand a day. We have, by far, a great majority, and I would just guess about 90% of them are favorable to the work that the Un-American Activities Committee has been doing. What problem do you still have in public acceptance of the work, if any problems? Well, there are always a lot of people who will never accept any program that we undertake because it might affect them in the future. We have a lot of black wingers, a lot of fellow travelers, a lot of pinkos will object to anything we do, regardless of what it is. What about money? Does your committee spend more money than any other committee in Congress? Yes, we do. While it is the smallest committee in membership, we only have nine members on the Un-American Activities Committee. We have a staff that numbers into the fifties and our appropriation, which we're going to ask for this year, is 300,000. That's more than last year, isn't it? Yes, it's just $15,000 more than we used last year. However, the other committees of Congress do not have the same problem as presented to us. They didn't keep extensive files as we keep. And I want to say here and now that all of our files are open to inspection by the various intelligence agencies of the executive branch. Do you maintain liaison with them? Certainly we do, and we intend to continue maintaining liaison with them, in other words cooperating with them. In addition to your investigation of the Defense Department, I believe that it's the most controversial thing you are about to do. There's some investigation of subversive leds, subversive activities in the colleges. Do you expect to get around to the educational system this year? Yes, some of the first witnesses we will call will be professors and people who are interested in education. I want to say that by and large we have had the cooperation of a great number of universities and colleges throughout the country. They want to know whether there's any subversive influences operating in their individual colleges and universities. But what about the objection to the loyalty of the universities? Well, there is a considerable objection to loyalty oaths that's brought about largely by the American Association of University Professors, I believe, which is a very close organization. They may have some reason to object to loyalty oaths. But I believe that when we have completed our investigation and have our hearings, and I'm very firm in this, that they allow the people who have had objection to signing the loyalty oath will no longer have that objection. Well, are these loyalty oaths workable, efficient? What exactly do they achieve in the university? Well, certainly when a person signs a loyalty oath, which is somewhat similar to a non-communist affidavit under the Tant Hartley Act law, he's going to think twice before he signs that oath for fear of being prosecuted for perjury before he signs it. Now, so you were with the FBI, I believe, before you went to Congress? Yes, I was with the FBI. Didn't you specialize in sabotage? Well, mostly in espionage activities, Soviet espionage activities. Do you feel that there is more or less communist activity in the United States today? Is it growing or is it becoming less? I believe the actual communist activity has become less in the past several years than it has been since 1932. Then quality or quantity? Well, that's in quantity and possibly not in quantity, there's still a very real immediate danger of the infiltration of communist party members, of course, who are controlled by the Soviet in our various fields for institutions. Well, on your investigation of education, do you feel that you will have the cooperation of most of the educational institutions or do you think that teachers' organizations will resist your investigation? Beyond the one you've mentioned? Well, certainly I think that we will have the cooperation of the great majority of our educational institutions. I want to say, first of all, that we're not concentrating on any one individual institution except those direct communist schools. For instance, the Lincoln schools, the California Labor School, the Jefferson School, all those schools which largely teach labor and communism directly and under direct influence of the communist party. And as a final question, sir, you don't feel that you are going to violate civil rights in this investigation? Well, there is a possibility that we might, in some cases, at least it might be made to appear that we are violating civil rights, especially it will be made to appear that way by the communists themselves. Well, thank you very much for being with us this evening, sir. It's been a pleasure, I'm sure. The opinions that you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the launching chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Carl Hess. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Harold Velde, United States Congressman from Illinois and Chairman of the Un-American Activities Committee. How would you go about hiring a man for an important job? Well, in a man or in a watch, the record of past performance is the only yardstick to real value. That's why so many sensible people own Long Jean watches. The honors which Long Jean watches have won are a record of past performance. These World's Fair Grand Prizes and Gold Medals, each a highest award, were bestowed by many men in many lands at many times. Observatory accuracy awards won just yesterday, so to speak, are also part of the Long Jean record. From the record, there could be no doubt that Long Jean watches are above and beyond the ordinary. For almost a hundred years, Long Jean has been shown to be close to the finest watch in all the world, by every standard, beauty, integrity of manufacture, accuracy, and reliability of performance. The Long Jean record made Long Jean the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift. Long Jean, premier product of the Long Jean Wittner 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 Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important dishes of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Long Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Long Jean. This is Frank Knight, reminding you that Long Jean and Wittner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem, agency for Long Jean Wittner watches. History repeated and you are there, Sundays on the CBS television network.