 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, editor of the American Mercury, and Mr. Robert B. Colburn, an editor of Business Week Magazine. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Irving M. Ives, United States Senator from New York. Senator Ives, it's a pleasure to have you again on the Chronoscope tonight, sir. And earlier this week, we have had Mr. Franklin Roosevelt Jr. and Mr. Abril Harriman, who have summed up the issues for our viewers. And tonight, sir, because we're not on, will not be on the air Monday night because of the large, wind-up programs, tonight is our last program before the election. And we'd like for you to sum up for the Republicans, Justice Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Harriman have done for the Democrats. Now, sir, a great deal of emphasis has been put on the Korean issue in these last few days of the campaign, and our Democratic spokesman have accused General Eisenhower of being a little unfair in injecting the issue that he would go to Korea. Now, number one, sir, do you think that it has been an unfair tactic on the part of General Eisenhower? Mr. Huey, I certainly do not. And at the same time, I want to tell you how much I appreciate being on this program again. I think that General Eisenhower, in undertaking a trip of that kind, is doing exactly what he should do. He is a military man. One of the greatest generals we've had in all time in this country. Do you think it's primarily a military problem? I do not. I think it's political also. But I think it's both military and political, and I think the general probably could get more out of it by going over there than almost anybody else in this country who would not be acquainted with it at first hand. Would that be primarily an information gathering trip? I would assume that's what he intends to find out, what is being done over there, how the equipment is, how the supplies are, how the men are, what the morale is at first hand. Because, of course, he's had this tremendous experience as a few people have had, and he can understand it. Do you think that General Eisenhower would have a better chance of settling the Korean conflict than Governor Stevenson? I certainly do. And one of the things that General Eisenhower injected was the fact that he would step up the training of South Koreans with the hope that he could relieve our own troops of bearing the brunt of the front-line battle. And for that, he was accused of some dishonesty. Now, sir, do you think that General Eisenhower has a valid point there? Well, I think General Van Vleet's letter that was written indicating that he had done, that he, General Van Vleet, had done all that he can do or could do within his capacity, within his ability, within the limit of the supplies and equipment and all that's concerned there would permit, indicated that more can be done, and the fact that General Van Vleet now has stated, as I understand, that more can be done. If he had more equipment, he'd be able to do more. More supplies, he'd be able to do more. It shows that General Eisenhower was absolutely justified in his statement. What would you think would be a reason that necessary supplies and such would be withheld from that? Why would it be against training more Koreans if it were practical? I haven't the answer to that question. I don't know what the answer is. I haven't seen any official statement made on the subject from any source that is confident to offer such a statement. I can't see what it would be. I can't understand why we shouldn't... I don't know. I'm utterly tired, sick and tired of this whole Korean tragedy. And I think the sooner we get the South Koreans in a condition where they can hold the front lines, as far as they're able to hold them, the better off for all of us, the UN and ourselves included. And why the South Koreans haven't been placed in a condition where they can occupy those front lines, I don't know. I haven't seen any excuse of any kind offered for that. Well, sir, you think that General Eisenhower's suggestion that we use more Asians to fight Asians is a sound. That is the fundamental idea on which we were supposed to operate in the Orient from the beginning. We've always understood in this country that if we were going to fight any part of Asia, mainland of Asia, we should not do it with the troops of the western powers. That the very fact that our western troops are doing the fighting automatically gives to our action a wrong impression where those against whom we're fighting or at least those who may be neutral over in that area are concerned. They look upon it as a western invasion of the Orient. Do you think there's Asian power that can deal with the Chinese? Do I think what? There is any Asian power that can deal with the Chinese. Well, yes, I think your South Koreans properly trained can deal with them insofar as it's possible insofar as their numbers are met. There are 20 million people in South Korea. I don't know why they can't provide enough troops to hold them for a while. As a matter of fact, we've got to bring this South Korean thing to a termination one of these days. I understand that these people that say that this is only a peninsula. It's not a part of the mainland of Asia. It says that we're not in a mainland war, but I insist we are on Asia. Korea is a peninsula, yes, but we're on Asia. It's part of Asia. It's not an island. And we've always been led to believe and I know no reason why it isn't true that if we ever get into a mainland war in Asia, we're going to be bled white. And that can very easily happen in Korea. Our casualty is now running, as you know, over a thousand a week. Well, sir, now moving on to what's generally regarded as the second big issue and sort of summing up what's been said about communists and government, do you think that General Eisenhower has been on sound ground there or that there's been anything unfair in his approach to that issue? Nothing unfair that I know of, whatever. The whole record has indicated that the general's position is absolutely sound, absolutely vindicated. In terms of your particular interest, Senator, the FEPC question is one of the, is a major issue in this case. Well, I think, as you term it FEPC, I use a broader term. I think it's a question of civil rights. I think that's one of the fundamentally vital questions today. I believe thoroughly that we've got to begin to practice what we preach in this country. And if we mean what we say and what we profess to believe, it's high time we begin to carry out our convictions. You're the author of the New York State legislation on that subject. I am. I'm the co-author of the so-called Ives Quinlaw. I'm the Ives in the deal. Do you feel that your own views on that matter are in accord with the views of the platform, the Republican National Platform? The Republican National Platform, which was created there, you're talking about now, the plank on civil rights, I assume. That plank is created in such broad terms that we can push ahead for a federal FEPC, if you would desire to call it that, with enforcement provisions at any time that we can possibly get a chance to go ahead with it. There's nothing in our platform which prohibits anything of the kind. In fact, it's left-right open. Actually... You anticipate such a chance next year? Well, let me just point this out, if you don't mind, because this is important. Actually, during the course of that convention and during the course of the committee action on the matter in the convention, a proposition to limit FEPC activities to the level of the states and not to permit it on the federal level was defeated in committee by a vote of 39 to 30, demonstrating definitely that the position taken by the Republican Platform Committee, their Resolutions Committee, was definitely opposed to limiting FEPC operations to the state level and thereby leaving the door wide open for the federal approach. Well, now, those of our viewers who are concerned with civil liberties, civil rights and who want during the next four years to see more and more done in that direction, do you think that they can safely go with the Republicans in 1952? Well, I can't for the life of me see how they can have any hope of getting anything done through the Democrats. I mean, the very idea back of that is utterly ridiculous because the history of civil rights, at least during the last 20 years, shows that the Republicans, from the standpoint of the filibuster and the attempt to get closure, from the standpoint of activity and behalf of the legislation itself, and from the standpoint of the record all the way through, the Republicans have done far more in favor of civil rights. The legislative standpoint doesn't have the Democrats in that same period. I won't go into the details of that because it's rather long and exhausted, but actually, the Republicans have done just about 20 times as much in the Senate. If the Republicans control Congress next year, would you expect that some civil rights legislation would pass? No, you can't pass civil rights legislation until we can conquer the filibuster. That's our first hurdle that we have to make, and that's where the drive should be made, directly on getting a closure provision. Rule 22, as it's called, changed in such a way that we can put a limit or stop to the filibuster by a majority vote of the members of the Senate. When that's done, then we can go ahead with civil rights legislation, and that's going to be a big hurdle to get over, and we've got to get over it, and we've got to use every ounce of energy we have in that attempt. Moving to the other big issue, sir, a labor legislation. Many of our viewers, of course, are interested in labor legislation, and I believe that Mr. Stevenson has promised to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act outright. Now, what can you say on that subject, sir, in summing up? I'm talking about Mr. Stevenson's position. I just didn't start with that because, as I recall, Mr. Stevenson's position prior to his nomination was not in favor of repeal. He was opposed to repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act and in favor of its amendment. The minute he got the nomination or immediately thereafter, almost, he changed his position and came out for repeal of the Act. Well, now let me just point out what repeal amounts to as compared to amendment. The only thing that one gains by repeal is a change in the name of the Act. What is needed are very broad amendments to the Taft-Hartley Act to bring it into line with current conditions and also to take out of it, remove from it those particular sections which are not fair and which are not workable in a large measure. That should have been done back in 1948. We who were trying to get sound labor relations legislation through the Taft-Hartley Act in the first instance expected that in 1948 we would finish the job by correcting the defects in the Act. Unfortunately, the President of the United States thought he had a wonderful political argument there and a wonderful political issue, and he did all he could to block it and due to his control over the members of the Congress, the leaders anyway, and his party in the Congress, he was able to prevent any effective legislation being passed by the Congress during the period of time from 1948 to the present. That's what happened. I see. As a final brief question, sir, since you yourself are running for reelection in New York, how do you think New York will vote in your race and I'm for General Eisenhower on Tuesday? Well, I'm not going to predict regarding myself. I hope to win. I certainly shall do everything I can if I'm elected to carry on the work I've been doing down in the Congress and work to the best of my ability and I shall appreciate winning if I can get there. As far as the state's concerned, the state's going Republican for Eisenhower. Well, thank you very much for being with us, sir. The opinions you've heard our speakers express tonight are entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Lawn Gene Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Robert B. Colburn. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Irving M. Ives, United States Senator from New York. Next Tuesday, millions of Americans will go to the polls to exercise their right and privilege as citizens. Don't let your vote be lost, my friend, for freedom of choice is a very precious freedom. It extends throughout our life in this great republic, even to the things we buy. And it's to help you make your choice, to give you freedom of choice in the watch that you buy, that we tell you on this program the facts about Lawn Gene. It should mean something, and it does mean something, that in competition with the world's best watches, Lawn Gene is the only watch to win 10 World's Fair Grand Prizes and 28 Gold Medal Awards. It should mean something, and it does mean something, that in competition with the world's most accurate watches, Lawn Gene has won countless prizes in competitive accuracy trials at the great government observatories. So if you wish to choose for your own or to select as a gift, just about the finest watch made anywhere in the world, the facts about Lawn Gene should convince you. From personal experience, millions of discriminating men and women the world over have made this statement true. No other name on a watch means so much as Lawn Gene, the world's most honored watch. Premier product of the Lawn Gene 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 Lawn Gene Chronoscope, the television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Lawn Gene, the world's most honored watch, and Witner Distinguished Companion for the world Lawn Gene. Make your election headquarters the CBS television network.