 The Honored Watch Is Lawn Gene Lawn Gene Watches have won ten World's Fair Grand Prizes, twenty-eight gold medals and more honors for accuracy than any other timepiece. Lawn Gene, the world's most honored watch, is made and guaranteed by the Lawn Gene Wittner Watch Company. It's time for the Lawn Gene Chronoscope, a television journal of the vital issues of the hour. A presentation of the Lawn Gene Wittner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Gene, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lawn Gene. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for the Lawn Gene Chronoscope this evening. Mr. Henry Haslett, political economist and contributing editor of Newsweek Magazine, and Mr. William Bradford Huey, editor of the American Mercury. Our guest for this evening is the honorable Burke Hickenlooper, United States Senator from Iowa. In this spontaneous and unrehearsed discussion, the opinions are necessarily those of the speakers. Senator Hickenlooper, what are your committee assignments in the Senate? Mr. Haslett, I'm a member of the Senate Agricultural Committee, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and a member of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Well, you will also go as a delegate to the Japanese Treaty negotiations at San Francisco on September 4th, won't you? Yes, we leave on Friday for the Australian and New Zealand Treaty signing on Saturday, and then for the Japanese Treaty, which be preliminaries and negotiations which begin on Tuesday following. I'd like to ask you, Senator, what you think the Russians' purpose was, and finally, consenting to go. Do you think that their main purpose is going to be to block the treaty? Well, I think Mr. Haslett, the overwhelming opinion is that the Russians will attempt to block the treaty in any way they can and disturb the situation, but it's entirely possible the Russians might sign the treaty in order to keep their finger in the Oriental politics, and especially Formosa. That probably is remote, but I still think it's a possibility. Well, from our standpoint, what does the treaty mainly accomplish? The treaty, I think, is a very generous treaty. It accomplishes the orientation of Japan and the money of the far Eastern countries toward the West rather than toward the East. In other words, toward the free countries of the world rather than toward the communist block. What do you think of the failure to invite the Chinese Nationalists to the treaty? Well, I think that that is a very deplorable thing. Personally, I think the nationalist government of China, which fought the Japanese for years even before World War II began, and that suffered more casualties than all the other nations in the world fighting the Japanese, should have been invited to sign this treaty. That's my personal opinion. Senator, this week in New York, the veterans of foreign war is holding a convention, and a good many of us who were out in the Pacific at Guadalcanal in Iwo Jima in Okinawa, we have rather long memories. Now, we're wondering if this treaty isn't too lenient with the Concord Nation. Well, Mr. Huey, the treaty undoubtedly is very lenient. And I couldn't find it in my heart to blame any of the boys who were out there, and especially those who suffered at the hands of the Japanese if they resented it. Do you think the reparations... We must be realistic about this situation. Do you think that the reparations we're exacting are sufficient? We're exacting practically no reparations, largely because at the moment and for a good many years at least, there's no foreseeable source from which the Japanese can pay reparations. They'll have all they can do to support themselves. Well, will this treaty mean... Will it lessen the burden on the American taxpayer? In my judgment, yes. I think it will relieve the American taxpayers of a large portion of the present amounts we're spending for occupation and the feeding of the Japanese people. Now, I'd like to know this, sir. Is this a nonpartisan or a bipartisan treaty? It's been drawn by Mr. Dulles. Is it a Republican treaty or is it Democratic or is it nonpartisan? I think it is a... Well, it's an nonpartisan treaty. I think Mr. Dulles has been very firm in his stand. I think he's done a very outstanding job. The treaty is not satisfactory. I think Mr. Dulles might say to you, although I don't know, that it probably is not fully satisfactory to him and all its particulars. Certainly it isn't to me, but I think it's a... The best treaty you can get under the circumstances and I think that it probably will receive support from both parties. Senator, does the treaty mention anything about Yalta? No, the treaty doesn't say anything about Yalta except in reverse. The treaty says that no nation that is not a signatory to the treaty can in any way claim any title or advantage from Japan as a result of the war. Well, is that provision satisfactory to you? No. I would prefer to see an affirmative abrogation or a statement that the nefarious agreements that were entered into at Yalta are repudiated by the American people as unauthorized because there was no authority for those unconscionable agreements at Yalta. Do you foresee a time, Senator, on that point? Do you foresee a time when the United States Senate may foreswear the Yalta agreement? I foresee opportunity for that, Mr. Huey, and I earnestly hope that the opportunity does arise before too long for the United States Senate and the Congress, if necessary, and for the American people to say that those agreements at Yalta were not authorized by the American people and have no force and effect and no legal standing whatsoever. I'd like to ask you a question that's a little apart from the treaty, but it's closely involved. Why do you think of the British action in recognizing Red China? Well, the British have been great diplomatic people over many centuries. We presume they're intelligent, but from my viewpoint, they did one of the most unintelligent things when they recognized Red China and sent an ambassador to Red China, and Red China hasn't even recognized the British yet and doesn't even recognize their ambassador. I think they did it to save Hong Kong, and in my book, The Minute the Reds Consolidate Their Position in China, they'll take Hong Kong away from the British regardless of recognition. So I think it was a fantastically inept thing for the British to do. To say nothing of what it's done to the diplomatic relations among the people that are trying to fight communism over the world. You've been on the subcommittee, I believe, investigating the MacArthur situation. Well, it was the Foreign Relations Committee and the National Defense Committee of the Senate. The two committees joined together. I see. What do you think of that? I don't remember the Foreign Relations Committee. Do you think that General MacArthur will be at the treaty signing conference? Mr. Huey, I don't know whether he will be there or not. I think it would be a magnificent thing if the conference invited General MacArthur to come. I assume if it did, he would come. But he is probably the most respected and admired man in Japan and in most of the Orient. Now, this latest development in Korea, the latest bombing of Rasheen, do you think that that vindicates General MacArthur's previous conduct of the war? Well, I think the whole record vindicated him long before this. Rasheen was a marshaling point for suppliers for the North Koreans and the Red Chinese has been ever since this war in Korea started. He wanted to bomb it. It's an ordinary, normal military strategy to hit the enemy where it hurts. The State Department refused to permit our armed forces to bomb Rasheen. Finally, they've got around to the necessity of bombing Rasheen because the Reds are building up this great force. I think, of course, it's merely physical proof that MacArthur was trying to fight a war as a military man should fight it to win. Senator, what do you think? What would be your own summary of the most important findings in the minority report on the MacArthur hearings? Well, there are a number of them. Quite a number. I can't go and count them all at the moment. One, of course, is that the hearings proved conclusively that we and have now no plan to implement a program of victory. MacArthur did have. He had a plan how we could win victory over there. I think they proved that there just is no plan. The witness after witness said they didn't know how we proposed to win a victory. I think if you don't think these negotiations are leading us up to a victory. Well, up to now, the negotiations have given a lull of a good many weeks during which the Red Chinese have been able to get new supplies and new equipment from their Red allies, the Kremlin. And they're building up their power so that they will just have power to strike if, as and when, the battle starts again. I mean, in its full fury, it's going on a little bit now, but there is a lull during which they build up their strike. Well, Senator, as a final question, I'd like to come back to what is your overall opinion of the Japanese Treaty and what it will do? Well, my overall opinion is that the Japanese Treaty in the main is a good treaty. It has two or three things that I dislike about it. As I told you, the failure to invite the Chinese Nationalists to sign it. I dislike that. Secondly, it does not repudiate the Russian claims to the Saplands and to Port Arthur and the railroad concessions and so on. It does, however, give Japan a new lease on life as an independent nation. I think it orients Japan toward us more than it does toward Russia and toward communism. And we shall just have to see what the future and future developments work out. It's up to our own good relations with the orient to see that the gains which we have made are retained. To sum up then, Senator, you would say that as the Republican leader, as a Republican member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, you would say that the treaty is generally hopeful for the American people. In my opinion, it's more on the plus side than the minus substantially. Thank you, Senator, for being with us. The editorial board for this edition of the Longing Chronoscope was Mr. Henry Haslett and Mr. William Bradford Huey. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Burke Hickenlooper, United States Senator from Iowa. The opinions expressed were necessarily those of the speakers. And now, let's go to Paris. As you approach Paris in the West, you get your first glimpse of the famous Eiffel Tower. This monumental structure, 985 feet high, was erected for the Great Paris Exposition of 1889. And 21 million visitors from all parts of the world came to see it and the other wonders that were there. Among the exhibits were fabulous displays of watches, products of the world's finest watchmakers. At this Paris World's Fair, an international jury of experts honored Longing with the grand prize, the highest of all awards. Longing watches have been similarly honored by 38 world fairs and international expositions. Garnered 10 grand prizes, 28 gold medal awards, a record unmatched in the watchmaking history. Yes, it can truly be said that throughout the world, no other name on a watch means so much as Longing, the world's most honored watch. This is Frank Knight inviting you to join us again next week for the Longing Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour. Broadcast on behalf of Longing, the world's most honored watch. And Wittner, distinguished companion to the world's honored Longing, sold and serviced by more than 4,000 leading jewelers from coast to coast, who proudly display the emblem, agency for Longing Wittner watches. This is the CBS television network.