 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 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? Edward P. Morgan and Bill Downs, both of the CBS television news star. This evening's guest is one of the most distinguished ladies in American life, Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt. Mrs. Roosevelt, some nights ago, I had dinner with a man and his wife in Spokane, Washington. Quite sincerely, but quite seriously, they asked me two questions. They said, do these foreigners hate us as much as they seem to, and are they ever going to be grateful for the things that we do for them? Now, you've just come back from one of your latest trips in far parts of the world. Could you answer those questions? Well, I would not say that foreigners hated us. I would say that many of them were a little suspicious that they did not like to feel that everything they wanted to do, they had to ask us for our help, or some of it would come from the United Nations, and they liked that better because they were members, and they felt they got it by right, and there was no one individual nation that they had to depend on. But I would say that it was always hard to be grateful for something which you felt you would like to have be able to do without asking anyone. Well, Mrs. Roosevelt, we've heard a lot about criticism of American policy and what we have done or tried to do. Is this something new or I mean, is this something to do with this administration, the Truman administration, or perhaps even your late husband's administration? Is this? No, I think it began probably when the war was over and we began to have to help people to build up again and we were the ones who had not been bombed and who had no homes destroyed. We had difficulty in getting new homes, but we didn't have to clear away acres of rubble. of old homes that once existed, and we had our whole production unit intact, and practically no other nation in the world was in that fortunate position. In other words, this is history rather than policy. This is history rather than politics, and I think of course that there is some envy in it. There is, when people say, will they never be grateful for what we've done, I think there is gratitude. But gratitude is sometimes swamped by the sense of why was this done? Was it done in the long run so we could, we who just freed ourselves from political domination, be dominated through economics? Now, that's not unnatural because the history of most of these countries in Asia and in some parts of Europe is that people who do things for you expect something in return. And I suppose if we do things as we are supposed to do in enlightened self-interest that we're not necessarily expected to anticipate gratitude. Well, of course, it is enlightened self-interest because getting them back on their feet is necessary for us because we need markets. You spoke of the United Nations, Mrs. Roosevelt, and that brings up a most topical point. And before we get into the heart of it, let's explore a public reaction to it here. There seems to be a great deal of suspicion among our own people about the United Nations and its effectiveness. What is your reaction to that? I think that's easily explained because you see we're a very big country in a very strong country. We have not needed any of the programs carried on by the specialized agencies, which are the action part of the United Nations. We've not needed those programs in our country because we were all right. India has needed to have land cleared of malaria. Other nations have needed help to get rid of tuberculosis. There are a thousand and one things that less fortunate nations can see have happened and be grateful for from the United Nations. We don't happen to have been in that category. It matters to us what the United Nations does elsewhere because again, where people are ridden with malaria, they will never buy our good. Well, Mrs. Roosevelt, do you think that the United Nations as an instrument of world political opinion and operation has lost ground in the last, say, five, six years in this country? I think like everything else that we started out expecting that the United Nations would solve every difficulty right just by being the United Nations. We didn't realize that the United Nations was only all the nations gathered in one place, but all the troubles remained just as they were before. And therefore, we had to work to make the United Nations work and we didn't want to work and we didn't expect to have to do this work. And now we know we have to, which is healthy, I think. That brings up another point, Mrs. Roosevelt. Secretary of State Dulles has just made an important speech before the American Bar Association in Boston, the essence of which was that the United Nations Charter, I think he put it, was a pre-atomic age charter and therefore not flexible to the times and he recommended that the Security Council be stripped of the veto and said that in some future assembly in 55, I believe it was that the United States would consider sponsoring such a move. What do you believe about that? Well, of course, that's a great change for the United States because we felt that unless we had the veto, we would never get the charter through Congress and that was one reason why the veto was put there. Of course, the fact that the Soviets have misused the veto, used it for a great many things that it was not intended for, what it was intended for was to make it possible for a nation, a great nation, to prevent the discussion of domestic affairs, which they considered were no business of anybody else's in the world. Whether we now are ready to submit the discussion of our domestic affairs is a question that the people will have to decide. Aren't we in effect, or isn't Secretary Dulles in effect asking for a showdown, though, when he says, all right, leave us split the United Nations or let people line up on our side or their side with no veto and we carry this by majority vote. Do you think that is a possible consequence? Well, I would hope that perhaps just as we trust our people in the United States, we were trying the experiment of trusting the nations of the world. I hope we would do nothing, however, so definite that we really hurt the United Nations because I think this is the one great hope for eventually building peace and to do anything like making a pronouncement of a policy which you cannot change if you find it is unwise in the future and today, heaven knows, you are being met constantly with new reasons and you ought to be able to be flexible. Mrs. Roosevelt, excuse me, speaking as Bill Downs did a moment ago of lining up on one side or the other, what is your view as to our position regarding India and the issue of her representation at the Korean Peace Conference? Well, last year I was in India and I wrote a book called India in the Awakening East as just trying to explain some of the problems of that area of the world in very simple fashion because I could only give impressions. It's not a learning treatise. My feeling is that when you insist on lining up people, what you do is put our friends, so gets if you insist that that's the only place they can sit. I feel it's very unfortunate. Mrs. Roosevelt, you have become known as the leader of what is loosely called the liberal movement in this country or what used to be called the liberal movement in this country and some people call them do gooders and the rest of it. Could you define a liberal for us? I mean, in your own words. It's very hard to put in a few words what a liberal is but I would feel that a liberal was a person who kept an open mind, was willing to meet new questions with new solutions and felt that you could move forward. You didn't have to always look backwards and be afraid of moving forward. That's what this National Issues Committee is going to try to look at the issues to put them in simple terms so that the people can understand them as objectively as possible and to feel that they can as the liberals do move forward. Quickly a final question, Mrs. Roosevelt. I'm sorry, Bill. We've been told by our experts that we may have to live in this world of uncertainty and indecision short of war in a cold war for X number of years to come. What is your recipe for us to face up to? Well, I think the study of our history. Certainly the people who settled this country didn't have any great security and it's hard for the young to live in uncertainty. They love to be sure of the future but I really think that we have the stamina particularly if we look at what we came from and to live through uncertainty. Thank you very much. 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 Edward P. Morgan and Bill Downs, both of the CBS television news staff. Our distinguished guest for this evening was Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt. There are many, many watches which sell at prices equal to or higher than Lone Gene. So if you wish to be sure of getting a watch of truly fine character, what should you do? Well, just compare the facts you have about any other watch with the facts you have about Lone Gene. And the facts about Lone Gene prove it to be one of the finest of all the world's watches. For, in competition with the world's best watches, Lone Gene watches alone have won for excellence and elegance 10 World's Fair Grand Prizes and 28 gold medals for accuracy, highest honors from the leading government observatories for dependability, a position of leadership in sports, aviation and in science. Yet though Lone Gene is one of the very finest watches made anywhere in the world a Lone Gene watch is not excessively expensive because you may buy and own or proudly give a Lone Gene watch for as little as $71.50 and this is important. Whatever the price, every Lone Gene watch is manufactured to the high standards of quality which have made Lone Gene the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift. Lone Gene, 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's honored Lone Gene. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Lone Gene 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 Lone Gene Wittner Watches. Thursday nights enjoy the Lux Video Theater on the CBS television network. It's time for the Lone Gene Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour brought to you every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, a presentation of the Lone Gene Wittner Watch Company, maker of Lone Gene, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world's honored Lone Gene. Good evening, this is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lone Gene Chronoscope? Edward B. Morgan and Daniel Shaw, both of the CBS television news staff, our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Edward W. Barrett, former Assistant Secretary of State. Mr. Barrett, we want to ask you some questions tonight about propaganda and our information services abroad. We all know that as Assistant Secretary of State, you had that responsibility in running that show, and I must warn you that Dan Shore and I have read your book, Truth Is Our Weapon, not only for enlightenment, but to try to throw you if we can a curve or two. Before we get into the body of the subject, this word propaganda seems to bother a lot of Americans. We dislike the word. Why is it necessary to spend a lot of money, millions of dollars, propagandizing ourselves abroad? First, let me say I'm delighted that you've read the book. I hope you bought the book, too, by the way. Even if you are going to throw some curve. Will you allow me that plug? Why is it necessary to carry on propaganda, you say? I recognize as you do that the American people have an inherent distaste for the idea of propaganda, partly because they don't realize that we're talking about truthful propaganda, international persuasion, as I call it. Why is it necessary, I think, for the reasons that both the presidents Truman and Eisenhower recognize, when they said, we can't hope to win the minds of men. We can't hope to win the so-called Cold War unless we win the minds of men. Well, I happen to be one who believes that we can progressively win the minds of men, but it's extremely difficult. What we've got to do is what any intelligent, large American corporation or other organization does, carry on an intelligent and somewhat expensive public relations program around the world. Well, Ed, can I shoot this question at you? The title of your book is Truth Is Our Weapon. Do you think that in our propaganda campaign we ought to tell the whole truth, including some of the unpleasant things that might make a bad impression abroad, the whole story of the book burning controversy, some of the anti-foreign statements made by celebrities in this country? Should that all go abroad? In general and unfortunately in a way, I think all of the important developments in this country should be reported abroad. I think we can afford to do it because the truth is on our side. 85% of the actual facts, I think, make us look pretty good. As a matter of fact, one of the troubles today is that the Europeans have an exaggerated impression of our so-called hysteria. I mean, try truthful reporting of that sort of news and putting it in perspective and reporting the other important news fully, but we do more good than harm. Well, tell me this, if truth indeed is our weapon, to coin a phrase from the Barrett book, how do you explain the spanking fact that the Russians get so terribly far with falsehoods? Well Ed, let's stop and look at that for a minute. I'm not sure they are getting so terribly far with falsehoods. I mean by that, that we seem so constantly to be on the defensive. We're always explaining something after they've done something and accused us of something. Well, we all have to answer misrepresentations in order to keep the record straight. But let's look for just a minute. The Russians have made short-term gains by falsehoods along with a lot of intrigue and treachery and so on. They had their propaganda believed for a long period, but the surveys I've seen indicate that they are less and less believed around the world today. And they were never so overwhelmingly believed as we often give them credit for. Let's remember that I don't believe there's ever been a nation anywhere that has gone communist in a genuinely free national election. They have, by their lying propaganda, in the case of Korea, I think they've set themselves back. They've led millions of people who once tended to believe them. Now to say, well, the Russian propaganda machine is basically a lying machine. Do you think they set themselves back by germ warfare propaganda? Over the short term, no. That is an exception. I think over the long term, though, even that is being less and less believed around the world. But you don't think that as a form of lying propaganda has been very effective? I think it was on the short term. Except in one country, my favorite country of Southeast Asia, which I better not name, where the Russian germ warfare propaganda was not believed because the natives do not believe in germs anyway. Well, let's move, if we may, for a minute to something more delicate, and that is the situation regarding the information program here at home. What I mean by that, what people think of it here at home. Just very recently, as we've seen, the government has released some 2,000 employees from the information program. That's nearly a 25% cut in personnel. There has been a great deal of charges by Senator McCarthy and others that there's been inefficiency and a lot of dead wood, dangerous left leaning, and I'm afraid that the allegations, at least, go back as far as your administration and farther. Can you give us some of your reaction to that? Yes, there have been allegations of that sort all along. There has been some inefficiency in the program as there is in any program of this nature where that involves trial and error, but the charges that have got the greatest headlines have been the most exaggerated charges. The results of the really careful investigations have not got many headlines. Let me just cite two cases. The most responsible job and the most thorough job done in the current Congress and the last Congress was done by the Hickenlooper Committee of the Senate, formerly the Fulbright Committee. They studied the program very, very carefully, abroad and at home. They found on the whole that it was doing an effective job. They found some things that very definitely ought to be modified or changed in their opinion. But on balance, they said it was doing a good job and should be continued at at least a level it was going on at then. Another such case was the Distinguished Committee of Private Citizens set up by Congress itself. That included Phil Reid, the chairman of the Board of General Electric, if you remember, Spike Canham, the former president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. They studied it for five years. They said it was steadily improving, that there were still faults in it, it should be corrected, but that on balance it was doing a good job and should be increased. Well Ed, whatever the fine statements made by some of the committees, there seems to be no doubt now from our observations both in Europe and since coming back to Washington that the morale of personnel in the information program is at the moment pretty seriously impaired. Do you think that any effective propaganda program can be carried out by personnel who at the moment feel, aside from the cuts in personnel, personnel who have lost a great deal of morale because they feel they don't have support from the top of the administration? No, I don't think an effective job can be done unless the employees feel that they are getting the support of their bosses and of their bosses' boss. Well, I hope for some steady improvement in that, by the way. Do you have any specific ground for that hope? Only that I think the worst of the hysterical period is over, the worst of the Circus Act kind of investigation. I even have hopes that we'll ultimately get around where we have a continuing responsible system in Congress for handling this. That you almost took the words out of my mouth in reverse, so to speak. I was going to ask you, putting you back in the driver's seat for a moment, what would you do to improve the situation? The new administration has made a great many changes. It's made the agency semi-independent and some other organizational changes. Have you got any further suggestions as to what you'd do? Well, first, I'm not going to let you put me back in the driver's seat right now. I had two years there and I'm enjoying being a backseat driver at this moment. Yes, we'll leave you in the backseat. All right, fine. There's one very important change that I would like to see made. If this field of international persuasion is as important as President Eisenhower indicates, he believes it is, then it's worth a very special set up in the Congress, I think. Therefore, I would set up a special joint single committee of Congress with a good staff to work on this program continually, to cooperate with the administration with a minimum of fanfare and boister squabbling. In other words, one committee to do continually what we've had all sorts of hit-and-run committees doing in years. Would that mean that Senator McCarthy wouldn't be allowed to investigate the information program anymore? Whoever is the chairman of this committee should be the chairman of the only committee that isn't investigating in that field. Not that we don't want to spot too much. Do you think Senator McCarthy would make a good chairman with all his well-experience in the field? I personally definitely do not. A final question, Mr. Barrett. There is obviously a communist menace. We're meeting it in one way or another. Do you think that the present administration is doing enough to meet the menace of communist infiltration in government? I think the last administration did more than it had ever been done before in that field. That the present administration has gone a little further. But I think probably the efforts in that direction should be increased. I think there should be less noise and less name-calling in this field. And there should be systematic effort at tightening it up within the government, preferably by a high-level commission appointed by the president. Thank you, Mr. Barrett, very much indeed. The opinions that you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope was Edward P. Morgan and Daniel Chor. Both from the CBS television newsstand. Our distinguished guest for this evening was the honorable Edward W. Ballott, former assistant secretary of state. There are many, many watches with salad prices equal to or higher than Laun Jean. So if you wish to be sure of getting a watch of truly fine character, now what should you do? Well, just compare the facts you have about any other watch with the facts you have about Laun Jean. And the facts about Laun Jean prove it to be one of the finest of all the world's watches. Four, in competition with the world's best watches, Laun Jean watches alone have won for excellence and elegance ten World's Fair Grand Prizes and twenty-eight gold medals. For accuracy, highest honors from the leading government observatories. For dependability, a position of leadership in sports, aviation and in science. Yet, though Laun Jean is one of the very finest watches made anywhere in all the world, a Laun Jean watch is not excessively expensive because you may buy and own or proudly give a Laun Jean watch for as little as $71.50. And this is important. Whatever the price, every Laun Jean watch is manufactured to the highest standards of quality, which have made Laun Jean the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift. Laun Jean, premier product of the Laun 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 Laun Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world honored Laun Jean. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Laun 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 Laun Jean Wittner watches. Returns this Sunday. You are there on the CBS television network. It's time for the Laun Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, brought to you every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, 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 Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope? Edward P. Morgan and Larry Lusser, both of the CBS television news staff. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the honorable Dr. Carlos Evia, well-known Cuban statesman. Senior Dr. Evia, I think it's only fair to warn you, sir, that Larry Lusser and I are going to feel free to ask you a variety of questions, not only about Cuba, but Latin America in general, because we discover not only have you held high office in the Cuban government from provisional president on down, but that you were a graduate of our Naval Academy at Annapolis, so that you have a sympathy for and an experience with the North American point of view. However, it must be said, I suppose, that we North Americans can become very careless in our relationships and our attention to the problems and other matters of concern of our neighbors, and it's probably not an exaggeration to state that we often think of Cuba as the home of the rumba, the conga, and Ernest Hemingway, and perhaps, of course, sugar, and not much more. We learn, however, very recently that the situation as regards politics and economics is intense, to say the least. Will you comment on that for us now and give us a description of your version of the situation? I'd be very glad to. The situation in Cuba today is that of a dictatorship, and it follows the cycle when the evil that is produced when a democratic process is destroyed. The Cuban constitution was suspended, Congress dissolved, and instead of the constitutional government, a dictatorship was established. The situation in Cuba today is that every newspaper and every radio has censored. A law has been passed that is like a public order and creates crimes under which even once the censors are taken from the newspaper, that it be a mockery of the freedom of the press. And in defense of the Cuban newspaper men, I'm glad to say that they have not accepted this censorship without a protest. And that today, most important papers do not publish editorials and columnists are not writing. They're just publishing wires and news as a protest on that situation in Cuba. There are more than 600 people in prison. There is a great movement to recover freedom of Cuba. That creates that the dictator has to increase the repressive measures. That also affects the economy of the country because it's impossible to establish and develop an economy unless you have a fundamental law. That's what is called the constitution of a country. Well, now you're getting in the economy of the country, in any country, you're getting down to the touchy, the sensitive situation, the pocketbook. Perhaps we can take that as our point of departure. Why should Americans be interested in Cuba from that point of view? Well, from that point of view, Cuba is the second largest dollar market for American exporters. Today, Cuba in 1951 bought about $550 million from the United States. In 1952, after this Garrison Revolt, it began to go down, even though the sugar was larger, the sugar crop. And in 1953, that is, the first four months indicate a drop of 30% in the Cuban's ability to buy, mainly due to this strained economic situation produced by the lack of guarantees for everybody. Dr. Avila, if the dictatorship is actually hurting Cuba's economic situation, how would you say Cuba could get rid of this dictatorship? Would it take another coup d'etat to do it? Well, Cuba can only become a stable country again if we put back or establish again the Cuban constitution. This is not a question of personalities, but a question of principles. And everybody, those who live in Cuba, the 6 million Cubans and the Americans who sell problems in Cuba, or the Americans who do business in Cuba, have the same common interest in having a peaceful, democratic, stable country. Now, the only way to obtain that is to bring back into force the Cuban constitution. Now, the overpowering population of Cuba, the whole will of the people, is to bring back that constitution. Whether that will be by a coup d'etat, by a revolt, by the dictator fleeing the country, by any other thing, I do not know, but I am quite sure that everybody in Cuba is doing their utmost to put in force the Cuban constitution. Well, with the decline in trade in Cuba, and from your vantage point in Miami as an exile, do you see any tendencies towards anti-Americanism coming out of the island? I don't think Cuba has always been very friendly to the United States, because there are many historical links. The United States and the Cubans have always fought together. Independence has fought three wars, or a war of independence that you call the Spanish-American War, that you have the link with all of the explosion of the main, General Garcia, the famous message to Garcia in every body study here. Then we were your allies in the First World War and the Second World War. Cuba do not have a feeling against the United States and much less against the American people. Well, Dr. Navia, we should pin things down a little bit more specifically, perhaps. We've been talking about the present regime in Cuba, and obviously we're referring you in terms of dictatorship to the regime of General Batista, who retook the government by coup d'etat, and one was at March of last year. March 10, 52. Now, rightly or wrongly, I suspect that many Americans think of Batista as the anonymous army clerk who after the Machado dictatorship in 33 suddenly came to power, and there may be a certain sentimental attachment to the man. You have your opinions on the other side. What would you say was his motive? What is he driving for? Well, I don't know at this moment what his motive could be. I think when he took the government in 1952 by a garrison revolt in the middle of the night, you see, we were 80 days from one election. Batista was a senator and a presidential candidate. There were three candidates in the field. I was one of them. I was just going to say you were a candidate yourself. The second candidate was Dr. Agra Monti and Batista was the third candidate. He didn't have a chance to win at all and he was a senator. Now, the same week that the political convention nominated the candidates, this revolt took place. Now, in my opinion, he did it because he couldn't win in a democratic way. Now, today his position is that he has everybody against him and he is forced to repress and to apply violence every day more. Now, that's the cycle of tyranny. It's a vicious cycle. Dr. Agra, your favorite trait of military dictators is to raise the threat of communism. You think there is a threat of communism in Cuba now? Well, I think the threat of communism is produced by the dictator himself because when you take the liberties of the people and create a bad economic situation, that's a breathing ground for communism. On the other hand, the Communist Party had dropped down between 1948 and 1951 from 150,000 members to 55,000 members. That shows that the atmosphere of democracy, of full liberty, is asphyxiating to the communists. Now, that doesn't mean that all those people probably didn't want to be communists anymore. They probably went into other parties. As they did, they infiltrated greatly Batista's party, and through him they are in the government. Dr. Evia, in a contentious and possibly explosive situation of this kind, we must do our very best to be candid. Washington, from all the reports that we can get, doesn't betray any particular anxiety outwardly, at least the State Department or the Eisenhower administration about the Batista regime, although the New York Times recently made a very sharp editorial against General Batista. On the contrary, there is information that Washington officially is concerned about the possibility of Cubans against Batista trying to buy arms. Does that mean that getting back to Larry's question that there is likely to be an attempted insurrection or something of that kind? Well, there is no question about that there will be attempts of insurrection in Cuba as long as the Cubans are not free. Quickly a final question, and broadening it out a bit. You've had a great deal of experience with Latin American American relations. What would be your recipe for better relations between Washington and Latin America? I think as a Cuban I'm going to speak is what I know. I think it is necessary to understand that a Latin American or a Cuban is a human being who wants to be free and to increase his standard of living, but both things have to be together to understand the normal aspirations to live in a democratic and free way, and the normal aspirations to increase their well-being. Both things have to be taken together. Thank you very much, Dr. Evia. The opinions that you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope was Edward P. Morgan and Larry LaServe, both of the CBS television news staff. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Dr. Carlos Evia, well-known Cuban statesman. This year again, as four years past, the official watch for timing the great American air classic, the Cleveland Air Races, is Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch. Now the Laun Jean watch is employed for timing these air races conformed to the exacting standards of accuracy specified by the National Aeronautic Association for timing aviation world's records. Now few watches in the world can meet these standards, and owners of Laun Jean watches may take pride in the fact that Laun Jean watches are official for timing world's records for sports and contest associations the world over, including the National Aeronautic Association, the American Power Boat Association, the Contest Board of the American Automobile Association, and many others. Now every Laun Jean watch, whether for the official timing of world's records or for the daily service of the discriminating man or woman, is made to the self-imposed Laun Jean standards of excellence. The standards, which have won for Laun Jean, ten World's Fair Grand Prizes, twenty-eight gold medals, and highest official honors for accuracy from the great government observatories. So, when next you buy a watch, either for yourself or as an important gift, remember these facts. And remember too, that although it is one of the very finest watches in all the world, you can buy a Laun Jean watch for as little as seventy-one fifty. Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift, premier product of the Laun 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 Laun Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Laun Jean. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Laun Jean and Wittner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than four thousand leading jurors who proudly display this emblem. Agency for Laun Jean Wittner Watches. Watch Youth Take a Stand Tuesday nights on the CBS television network. It's time for the Laun Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 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 Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope? Edward P. Morgan and Bill Schadell, both of the CBS television news staff. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Jacob Javits, United States Congressman from New York. Representative Javits, what are people writing their congressmen about these days? What are they most worried about? Well, people are worried about whether the peace in Korea will continue. They're worried about whether there's any chance to disarm the world and look after the grave problems posed to mankind by the atom bomb and the H-bomb. They're worried about taxes. I think if you add them all together, Mr. Morgan, they want to know how we're going to work this thing out. They know the world's in a tough spot. What are we as legislators and presidents and people who run the show going to do about it? Have the legislators got the answer? Well, every legislator has to have some idea himself, and I think that synthesizing, as I think I explained a minute ago, what the people are worried about and what they're thinking about, my feeling on it is this. First, we've got to have a shield of protection until we can work out some agreement with the Soviet Union and the communist bloc on disarmament and real control, not just word control of the H-bomb and the atom bomb to see that they're not used to destroy mankind. By a shield, I mean military defense of an adequate kind, and we're putting up a good deal of money and have a lot of alliances for that. And behind that, behind this shield, we've got to integrate the whole free world, east and west economically, socially and morally. And if we set our feet upon that path, I think we can make it work, have prosperity for the world and a reasonable feeling of well-being without feeling vulnerable at the same time. This is the best compromise I can see in the present cleavage between the free world and the communist slave world and the best way I can see in the next 10 years to reconcile the two. Mr. Javits, you're chairman of that subcommittee on foreign economic policy in connection with the stabilization trade between the east and the west. What are the chances of ending the foreign aid as far as the economic side is concerned? Well, there's quite a good deal of disagreement in the Congress on that. I'd like to tell you very briefly first what I think, second what I feel is the general opinion in the Congress. I feel that 0.4, that is technical assistance, is extremely important enabling people to use their own resources to the greatest possible effect. We spend around figures about $200 million a year on that. I think that's a very cheap buy for the value it gives the free world. That's on 0.4. That's on technical assistance. Now on economic assistance, it's pretty much boiled down to a couple of special economic programs in India and Pakistan and in the near east, including the Arab states and Israel. And these take in round figures about 225 to $250 million. Other than that, everything is military aid. Now I think we're cutting down economic aid too fast considering our own best interests. I think that the 0.4, the technical assistance program, is too limited considering our own best interests. But nevertheless, that's the prevailing view of the Congress and it's going to be a fight to hold even that. And my guess for the future is that you're going to see military aid plus a very modest amount of special economic aid and technical assistance somewhere in the area of the amounts that I've just mentioned. Well, let's, if we may, develop Shaddell's question for a bit as to what you found were the most practical ways if our foreign aid is not going on in perpetuity. What we can do? What about American investments abroad and that sort of thing? Well, Mr. Morgan, may I first say why we have to do it and then say what we can do? The reason we have to do it is because we are, by all odds, the richest and most fruitful country in the world to give one little comparison. The total amount of American production and output runs to something in excess of $370 billion a year. The total output and production of all of Europe, which has 200 million people and round figures as against $155 million, comes to less than half of that. We are, by all odds, the greatest creditor nation. The world can't live economically, the free world, unless it's in cooperation with the United States. The world just can't make the grade economically, standards of living are too low, too much of an invitation to communism. Therefore, we've got two things to do, one trade and the other investment. Let me just interrupt for a second and I hope it's not throwing us off. We can't operate independently ourselves. We can't possibly operate independently for many reasons, one militarily. Nobody in our country, in his right mind, with the exception of a few on the fringe, think we can go it alone, 155 million people standing off the whole world. That's, I think, pretty silly in terms of actuality. Secondly, there's so many scarce materials that we ourselves need to get from the world, like tin and rubber and antimony and incidentally, uranium, the very essence of our defense today, which comes out from outside the borders of the United States, that we can't go it alone, either militarily or economically. Now, to refer to our previous subject then, we've got to, one, open up trade in the whole world and in the United States. We do a foreign trade now of about 25 billion dollars. We've got to double it in order to put the whole free world on a really sound basis. I think we do it very largely in two ways. One, by helping other nations with their problems in the technical assistance field and in the economic aid field, which we referred to a minute ago. Secondly, by helping other nations to make their currencies convertible. In other words, making trade in the world based upon currencies which can be interchanged. That isn't the case today. And finally, by giving a little bit, giving a little bit, giving the markets of the United States which are unduly closed to the world considering our very powerful financial influence in the world and the fact that we are, by all odds, the greatest creditor nation. Mr. Javits, can you convince your Republican colleagues that tariffs should be lowered? You have that issue coming up very importantly in the next session. Exactly right, Mr. Shaddell. We have the issue coming up. We're going to have the benefit of the report of the President's commission uploading our own jock Whitney from New York and a great many very distinguished people and I'm rather hopeful that they will make the facts so eloquent and the facts are eloquent that many of my ultra-conservative Republican colleagues whether they like it or not will have to be convinced. This is just the facts of life. Congressman Javits, do you feel or as a result of your investigations on the committee, is it possible that private venture capital can supplant government grants to a broad and do a better more healthy, healthful economic job? Well, there's certainly no question about the fact that we can do a better economic job. They're more flexible and not tied to political considerations. They move right into the heart blood of a country's economy. The question is whether they can be made to move abroad and we've taken a lot of testimony on that. Incidentally, the amounts involved are not great. Today we're investing abroad something under $2 billion. If you made that $4 billion, it would make the most enormous difference in the whole world in terms of prosperity. That is in the free world I'm talking about now. Now, how do you do it? The people who do the investing say you've got to concentrate on giving them some tax advantages for investing abroad, on making treaties with foreign countries so that they aren't going to be discriminated against as between themselves, that is Americans who are investing, and local people who are investing, and finally on seeing that currencies are convertible the subject that I talked about before I think we certainly ought to be able to do that in an administration which has such strong support in American business. Well, of course this whole pattern affects our economy and it affects the working man and labor, and that brings up another point that I want to switch to if I may domestically. By reading the papers one gets the impression that the administration so to speak has a labor problem. Mr. Durkin has resigned as secretary of labor. There's a great deal of talk about the administration's pledge. If it was a pledge on the Taft-Hartley Act, what are your views on that, sir? Well, the administration hasn't the problem yet. It may have one, but it hasn't one yet. Mr. Durkin has resigned. I'm very sorry to see him resign. I think it's a very good thing to have a labor leader in our cabinet. Very useful. But he has resigned. Now, the important thing is whether or not the administration will follow through on recommendations of amendments to the Taft-Hartley law, which was something the president said he would do and which is something that Senator Taft considered the leader of the Republican Party in terms of the Congress was very much for and actually put in a bill to make a great many amendments. Now, the important thing is the American trade unions are for the first time since the Taft-Hartley Act was passed, willing to see amendments to the law with their cooperation. Here to the law, they have just said they want the law or appeal. They want no part of amendments. This, I think, is a very great game for the country in terms of the relations between management and labor. And I would like to see very much, and I'll do everything I can, to see that the administration follows through with its amendments on the Taft-Hartley law exactly as originally outlined as in the best interests of the administration and in the best interests of the country. Mr. Javits, you're probably aware of an oppression in Washington prevailing the last few days. It seems that the Republican administration has given up on any amendments to the Taft-Hartley law. They'd like to avoid that subject in this next session and that the labor unions are out in the cold. Well, I notice that the administration is very carefully refrained from confirming any such thing and I shall certainly move heaven and earth myself and I think there are many who will join with me who are in positions like my own and respected the administration to see that they do go through on recommending these amendments to the Congress and that we put up the fight to get them. As a last question, Mr. Javits, it's quite a long time till Congress reconvenes in January but people are still talking politics. What in your opinion are the main issues that will face the Congress when it gets back to work? Well, I think I would say there are four issues. First and foremost I think is the issue of taxes and policy. We're going to hear a lot about that in the new Congress. Then this very labor point that we've just been discussing I think is going to come in for a lot of discussion. Also, farm policy and finally the whole foreign economic policy of the country which we talked about a few minutes ago. I think those are about the major issues which will face the Congress in the next session. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you. The opinions you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope was Edward P. Morgan and Bill Shadell. Our distinguished guest was the honorable Jacob Javits, United States Congressman from New York. If you're contemplating the purchase of a very fine watch, it would be profitable to compare the facts about Laun Jean watches with the facts you have about any other timepiece. And you'll find that the facts about Laun Jean are convincing proof of surpassing quality, factual evidence, that in a Laun Jean watch you have one of the world's very finest timepieces. In competition with the world's best watches, Laun Jean watches alone have won for excellence and elegance, 10 World's Fair Grand Prizes and 28 gold medals, for accuracy, highest honors from the leading government observatories, for dependability, a position of leadership in sports, aviation and in science. Yet though Laun Jean is one of the very finest watches made anywhere in the world, a Laun Jean watch is not excessively expensive, for you may buy and own or proudly give a Laun Jean watch for as little as $71.50. And this is important, whatever the price every Laun Jean watch is manufactured for the high standards of quality which have made Laun Jean the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift, premier product of the Laun 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 Laun Jean Chronoscope, the television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch and Wittner distinguished companion to the world honored Laun Jean. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Laun Jean 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 Laun Jean Wittner watches.