 It's time for the Laun Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, a presentation of the Laun Jean Wittner Watch Company, maker of Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world honored Laun Jean. Good evening. This is David Ross speaking for your regular host, Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope? Mr. William Bradford Huey, editor of the American Mercury, and Mr. Henry Haslett, contributing editor of Newsweek Magazine. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the honorable Herbert R. O'Connor, senator from Maryland. Senator, I'm very happy to welcome you to Chronoscope this evening. As you're a member of the Senate Internal Security Committee, I'd like to begin by asking you what your impression is of this three-man panel report that was turned in by the United Nations, for the United Nations, to Secretary General Lee. Mr. Haslett, I approve of the conclusions reached by the international jurist. These three distinguished attorneys have done a comprehensive job. I regret that it was necessary, really, to invoke their aid, because the questions presented seem to us to be very clear, and that is that subversives, those individuals of American citizenry who are disposed to work against the interests of the United States, we feel ought never to have been employed in the United Nations, and the fact that tonight some 15 of them are either under suspension or have been separated from the service indicates that there was very much to be done. I do think that the conclusions reached by the international panel are to be approved. Well, there were several important conclusions there. The first one, an important, seems to me that anybody who was an active member of the Communist Party could be dismissed. I assume that you agree with that thoroughly. Wholeheartedly. And then there was another recommendation that anybody who admitted that he had been subversive in the past could be suspended until his record was looked into. I think, assume you agree with that, too. That is correct, I do. And third, and I thought quite an important one in view of the public confusion on the point, was this, that anybody who refused to testify on the ground that it might incriminate him could be dismissed and should be dismissed on the ground that he had created a suspicion of guilt by his refusal to answer. Now, do you agree with that final point? I do, Ms. Hazard, but I would like to just add another word or two in respect to that. Our principal difficulty in the hearings up until this very day has been that many of our people, of our citizens, labor under a misapprehension, they feel that having secured a position with an international organization, that they are beyond the reach of a regularly constituted agency of the federal government inquiring into their actions, not as United Nations members, not in relation to the particular work, but prior to their association with the organization or outside of the scope of that work. And we, of course, have been definitely of the belief that the Senate committee has a right to inquire into their affiliation with the Communist Party, for example, or their engagement in subversive activities. And when they decline to answer on the ground that to answer would tend to incriminate them, we feel that that puts them under suspicion to such an extent that they are not suitable persons to be in the Secretariat of the United Nations. Now, sir, to clarify just a bit, many of our viewers, I'm sure, feel that your committee is deliberately harassing the United Nations. Now, number one, the committee is the McCarran committee, isn't it? It is the McCarran committee, a regularly constituted subcommittee of the Senate Union. And you're holding hearings in New York, and who are your colleagues on that committee, sir? Well, Senator McCarran of Nevada, Senator Ferguson of Michigan, Senator Watkins, Senator Jenner, Senator Willis Smith, the former president of the American Bar Association, Senator Eastland of Mississippi, and myself. Now, have you found evidence that there are communists employed, American communists employed by the United Nations? Definitely. And it's your position that you have a right to investigate these people and to expose them? Not only a right, but a duty. Now, are you a supporter of the United Nations, sir? Yes. I'd like to just amplify on that a bit. I am not one who believes that just because these little problems have arisen, possibly not so little, but definitely problems, that that is a reason for the abolition of the United Nations as such. I do not think that. You don't think it'll be necessary to burn down a barn to get rid of the rat? No. I do not think so. I feel that the objectives of the UN are so important in this critical period that we should give support to the UN. And we believe that ultimately our action will restore the confidence of the American people, which I regret to say we felt was being shaken when revelations were brought out that communists, people who had been discharged from departments in Washington for their doubtful loyalty, are found in the secretariat of the United Nations. Well, isn't an anomalous situation created here, Senator? Now, my understanding of this committee report, this panel report, was that Lee, the Secretary General, could fire any member of a non-communist nation who was gilly of being a communist, but that he couldn't fire a communist, of course, from a communist nation. Now, doesn't that create a very anomalous position within the United Nations? It does. And in all fairness to Mr. Trigley, I feel that the responsibility has not been his or the fault, if any, has not been his, because I think he has made a genuine effort to discharge his responsibilities and at the same time to retain the status of the UN as it was originally conceived. It is, of course, an international organization. Its secretariat is not supposed to be under dictation from any member nation. And consequently, he has had to chart a course which would be between that of giving recognition to the rights of the United States, for example, as against the communist countries. But doesn't the very fact that we have communist nations as members of the organization make the organization either ineffective or effective as a sounding board for communism? Exactly so. And it is to be expected that with the international organization, including communist nations, that of necessity, their representatives in the secretariat will be sympathizers with their particular government. Well, do you think Russia should keep the veto power that the president has? Well, I think, of course, that there are reasons on both sides. I do not think, of course, that it should be carried to the extent that it has because, in a way, it demonstrates the fact that Russia is not sincere in their efforts to achieve the objectives of the UN. Senator, is this a fair statement, sir, that our keeping the United Nations in New York, allowing it to meet here? That is a calculated risk on the part of our nation, isn't it? It is, and it calls for this one extra consideration. I think as the host nation, the United States is within its rights in demanding that extra precautions be taken to guard the internal security of the United States. Moving on from the United Nations, sir, I believe your committee found a rather interesting case of communism inside the armed services, did it not? Yes, that was in the Lieutenant Thurman case, and a very disgraceful one. And you found that an officer in the army was actually in charge of prisoners on Koji Island, wasn't it? Actually, he has been commissioned. He's still in the army, although he's under observation by the military authorities. He had been commissioned, had gone to Koji, and had actually been in charge of some 40,000 prisoners of war. Now that your committee has called attention to that situation, do you think that it's being corrected? Well, I certainly think it ought to be, and I have enough confidence in the Secretary of Defense, of the entire military establishment to believe that they are going to the bottom of this issue. What, the circumstance is rather remarkable under which he was taken in, and yet he refused to answer some question of importance. Yes, in the application for commission, in answer to the questions as to whether he is or has been a member of subversive organization, he declined to answer that on constitutional grounds. Well, he was nonetheless accepted. He was nonetheless accepted. And, Senator, we can't, our viewers, I know, wouldn't want you to leave without recalling the fact that you were part of the Keyforber investigation. Now, after looking back in retrospect on the Keyforber activities, do you think that that was useful for the country? I think highly useful, yes. Yes, I do. You were, you were one of those, I think, that made Mr. O'Dwyer enjoy the climate down in Mexico, I believe. Well, at least he has sojourned there for the period since that time. Well, what do you think about the situation as far as crime in our cities now? Do you think that it's still one that, that calls for investigation? Oh, I think undoubtedly so. I do not think the work of any one committee in a limited time would clear up the very unfortunate situation that has existed in America in the large metropolitan areas, particularly. And since you are not to be a member of the new Congress, sir, is it your opinion that the new Congress should continue such an investigation? I think there are many things to be said in favor of some periodic check, whether it would be of a committee set up as the Keith Over committee was, or whether it would be one that would give just a review of conditions in the country. Well, well, thank you very much for being with us this evening, sir. The opinions you've heard our speakers express tonight are entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Laundry and Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Henry Haslett. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Herbert R. O'Connor, Senator from Maryland. The problem of selecting a Christmas gift of great prestige for someone near and dear is most happily solved with a Laundry and watch. Discriminating men and women appreciate the elegance of Laundry and watches, their greater accuracy, their faithfulness and world honors confirm their judgment for among the world's finest watches, Laundry and watches alone have won 10 world's fair grand prizes, 28 gold medal awards and highest honors for accuracy from government observatories. Yes, the problem of selecting a Christmas gift of great prestige for someone near and dear is indeed most happily solved with a Laundry and watch. Yet you may buy and proudly give a Laundry and watch this Christmas for as little as $71.50 and may I add, if you pay $71.50 or more for a watch, you are paying the price of a Laundry and you should insist on getting a Laundry, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored Christmas gift, premiere product of the Laundry and Wittner Watch Company since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. We invite you to join us for the Laundry Chronoscope, a television journal of important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Laundry, the world's most honored watch and Wittner Distinguished Companion to the World Honored Laundry. This is David Ross speaking for your regular host Frank Knight, reminding you that Laundry 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 Laundry and Wittner Watches. Tuesday Night Thrills, danger on the CBS television network.