 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 Wettner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wettner, 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. Hardy Burt, noted author and correspondent, and Mr. John S. Young, well-known commentator. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable George A. Dondaro, United States Congressman from Michigan. Congressman Dondaro, welcome to the Chronoscope, sir. Now, you have been known as a long-time advocate of the St. Lawrence Seaway, which, if it were built, would link the Atlantic Ocean with the Great Lakes. That's correct. How long have you been battling for the Seaway? About 18 years. It's been a controversial matter for that long. And longer. Now, we first would like to ask you, in your opinion, what are the advantages to your state of Michigan and the people of the United States of having this Seaway constructed as you would like it? Fertiging the cheap cost, water transportation to the ports of the world, making it possible for iron ore to come to the present steel center in the Pittsburgh area, from which Michigan, and especially the Detroit area, receives its deal for the making of automobiles, where we have the automobile capital of the world. The automobile industry is very much for the Seaway, I suppose. They are. I see, sir. Now, Mr. Congressman, every president of the United States since Harding has urged the construction of a Seaway. Now, is this a new hope, or is it still the old dream? I think it's a new hope. Because it's a new approach. By that, I'd like to have you discuss for me the Senator Wiley's bill, I think, which is the latest legislation before the Congress at the present time on the Seaway. Is that right? That's correct. And I've introduced the same bill in the House. I think it should be pointed out that the congressman is chairman of the House Committee on Public Works and, as such, could be very influential in this legislation in the passage of it. We hope that he is. But would you tell us something about the Wiley bill? The Wiley bill and my bill provide for the issuance of 100 million dollars in revenue bonds to be paid from the tolls charged for the use of the canal. In that way, we will prevent money being taken out of the United States Treasury and the canals will be paid for simply by the people who use them. Same as we charged tolls in the Panama Canal. Now, Congressman, the Canadian government has already said that it would be perfectly willing to pay the cost of building this St. Lawrence Seaway project and has even voiced opposition to the United States coming in on it. Now, why should we as taxpayers participate in this project when the Canadian government has come along and said, all right, we'll pay for it all? Why should we spend our money? For two or three reasons. One, if the Canadian government builds its project alone, it will have complete control of the tolls to be charged. We'll have no voice in that. In as much as our commerce will be in larger volume than the Canadian commerce, we'll pay the major portion of the cost of the canal, whereby if we participate with Canada, we go in 50-50 and only pay one half. That's one advantage. Secondly, it'll be further advantage to control perhaps what is one of the most important waterways on the North American continent. The only outlet of the Great Lakes in the interior of our country to the sea and, furthermore, it'll give us something to say in case of war to have some control over that waterway. I know of no nation in the face of the earth which once held a joint control or full control ever yielded that control to another government. Let me ask you this, Congressman. Congress, rather, Canada doesn't see eye to eye with us on all the phases of this bill. What are the disagreements between the attitude of the United States, Congress and Canada? There is no disagreement accepting that we have been unable to vote out legislation in the United States Congress to join Canada in the construction of this work. Therefore, Congressman, I believe there is a disagreement. If for 18 years you haven't been able to get that bill through, I think there is a disaffection between Congress and the Canadian attitude. No, I do not see it that way. The difficulty in our country is the opposition. What is the opposition? Oh, let's have that. The opposition resolves itself into three categories. First, the Atlantic Seaports, and perhaps the Gulf Seaports. Second, the coal miners of this country. And thirdly, and the most formidable, the railroads of this country. I think those three groups are the main opposition to the building of the seaway. What about the steamship companies? We have no great opposition from them, very little, very little. Now, the railroads have been your chief critics, of course, so far as the seaway is concerned. Don't they have a pretty valid argument in that this would mean subsidized transportation, competitive transportation against them, and the form of ships going up down there where part of the cost would be paid by the U.S. government? No, I do not see that it would be a subsidized transportation system against them for the reason that this is being paid for by the people who will use it in the payment of tolls. Therefore, the government is not subsidizing it. Well, it's paid for in the first place, as I understand, by bonds, small government corporations selling bonds to individuals. Is that right? That's correct. But that is supported by the U.S. government. In other words, they guarantee the value of those bonds and the interest rates on them. They do. That's correct. Now, in the Wiley bill, this is unlike the previous legislation, where previous legislation has made estimates about $500 million. Is that right? Yes. And under your bill and the Wiley bill, it's now down to $100 million. $100 million? You have divorced the power projects, the hydroelectric projects from this bill. That's correct, and that's estimated at $500 million alone. Do you feel, then, that there is a reasonable chance, Congressman, because this is very important, is this bill going to be kept in committee, or are you going to get it on the floor of Congress for a vote? I hope that it will be voted out of my committee and to the floor of the House of Representatives where we get a vote on it. We're expecting the Senate to vote first. Now, so you say it's your belief that this is not going to cost the taxpayers of this country very much money, but isn't it true that in addition to that $100 million bond issue that you have to pay for your connecting links in this canal system and pay for the improvement of your Great Lakes? If that is desirable in the years to come due to increased transportation or use of the canal, where they want deeper channels, yes. And that'll cost about another $100 million. That's the connecting links or the connecting channels of the Great Lakes. But on the present basis, can the first line flagships of this nation sail at the 27-foot depth that this canal is projected at? If you mean the deep draft vessels, I would say no. But testimony before our committee shows that about 75 and 3-tenth percent of the ships can use the canal. Well, don't you get some opposition to that in what you just said that only about 4% of our first line ships? I've heard that and I think it's a mistake. I think people with naval training know that foreign ships have a shallower draft and they can get into these things much easier than our great ships. Already, I think you'll admit that you have foreign ships already in the lakes up far as Duluth and Chicago in your own state, haven't you? That is correct. Even at Detroit, Michigan. And what countries are they? Michigan countries, Belgium, that's Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and even to France and ships to Italy, one or two to Africa. Now isn't it another important thing strategically that you are offering a submarine-free lane in this new development, the Seaway, to take an ore from Labrador and bring it into the United States in case of an emergency? That is correct and in case the ores of this country dwindle to a point where we'll have to get what they call the open-pit mine. There are two questions on this issue. I'd like to ask you Congressman, number one, isn't it true that if the steel industry wanted to develop its tachanite in the mountain ranges out there in the Midwest, that would be an apple supply of steel ore? If you can find money enough to develop the tachanite and grind it up because it takes three tons of tachanite ground to the finest of flour to make one ton of steel. That means a tremendous expense. When that steel would be cheaper than building the St. Lawrence Seaway? It would not. The cost of hundreds of millions of dollars? It would not because the cost of the Seaway is not so expensive as we are led to believe by the opposition. Well number two, suppose you did have a war, aren't these locks in the St. Lawrence Seaway very, very much susceptible to bombing from the air? Not anymore so than the locks at the Sue Michigan in my state where one bomb would destroy the entire canal system bringing the ore from the Masaba range to the steel industry of this country. And about 85% of the ore comes from that area. Mr. Congressman, I'd like to get back to some of these from my long experience in Washington, some of the practical phases of this. Now for 18 years you haven't been able to get this legislation through. If Congress fails to act, can non-federal parts of our United States take on this job such as the state of New York and the province of Ontario? If Congress refuses to pass the legislation? I think not because of the international situation and no state in the union has a right to enter an agreement with a foreign country or a foreign government. But the state of New York already is proposing the development of hydroelectric energy in cooperation with the province of Ontario? That will be under a license granted by the Federal Power Commission of the Federal Government. That's right and that's before hearing, before the Federal Power Commission in Washington right now. That's correct. Well to sum this up it looks as if the St. Lawrence Seaway for the first time in its history has a very good chance of passing Congress this year, is that correct? Well I think a greater chance than it has ever had before. But it still has considerable opposition. Yes it has. Now there's one final question I would like to ask you Congressman, of course you are chairman of the Committee on Public Works of the U.S. House of Representatives. So you hold a key position in respect to this question that I'm going to ask you. Do you believe that we should have more public power in the United States and less power conducted by private enterprise as is advocated by a great many Americans? I believe that we should have all the power we can get developed by private enterprise rather than public power by the Federal Government because that in my judgment borders on the question of socialism. Where private enterprise and private investment can do it, they should be permitted to do it. Well after all, private enterprise built this country. Thank you Congressman for a very interesting interview. The opinions that you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Lone Gene Chronoscope was Mr. Hardy Burt and Mr. John S. Young. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable George A. Dondaro, United States Congressman from Michigan. We're pleased that the Lone Gene Chronoscope is one of the television programs selected by Washington for rebroadcast to our armed forces around the world. And wherever in the free world the Lone Gene Chronoscope may go, it's virtually certain that Lone Gene watches are already there. On the wrists of many members of our armed forces, on the wrists of citizens of these foreign countries and in the windows of their fine jewelry establishments. Such is the fame of Lone Gene, truly the world's most honored watch. For among the world's finest watches, only Lone Gene watches have won ten World's Fair grand prizes, twenty-eight gold medals, and so many honors for accuracy from the great government observatories. And Lone Gene watches are sold and serviced in the capitals and major cities of more than a hundred countries throughout the world. Now, someday soon you may wish to purchase for yourself or as an important gift, just about the finest watch made anywhere in the world. Then, you'll choose well to choose Lone Gene, the world's most honored watch. And, unbelievably, you may buy and own or buy and proudly give a Lone Gene watch for as little as seventy-one fifty. Lone Gene, the world's most honored watch. The world's most honored gift. Premier product of the Lone Gene 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 Lone Gene Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour. Broadcast on behalf of Lone Gene, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lone Gene. This is Frank Knight, reminding you that Lone Gene and Wittner watches are sold in service from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem, Agency for Lone Gene Wittner Watches.