 Laun Jean watches have won 10 World's Fair Grand Prizes, 28 gold medals and more honors for accuracy than any other timepiece. Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, is made and guaranteed by the Laun Jean Wittner Watch Company. 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 Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope? Mr. Henry Haslett, editor of the Freeman and contributing editor of Newsweek Magazine, and Mr. William Bradford Huey, editor of the American Mercury, our distinguished guest for this evening is General Kenneth C. Royle, former United States Secretary of War. The opinions expressed are necessarily those of the speakers. General Royle, you were Secretary of War in 1947 when the Unification Program was under discussion. I was wondering what you thought of that program now in the light of the experience, what its shortcomings were or what its achievements were. Well, as long as I remained in the defense establishment, I was convinced that unification neither saved money nor promoted efficiency. And I'm still of that impression, but we can't reverse it. We've got just to try to improve it, and I believe it is being improved. Do you believe that we could improve it by having a greater degree of unification, sir? I do. I think a more complete unification, a single department in every sense would be the answer. Well, I'd like to ask what you think about our spending in general now. I mean, not only on the defense department, but our overall spending. Do you think that there is a real probability within the next year or two of a war with Russia? No, I don't think so. I don't think war is imminent in any sense. That's my impression. Well, do you think a view of that at our general spending level is too high for the present? Well, it may not be too high if we look at defense alone. But if we look at defense in light of the nation and national economy, I do have a feeling that it is too high. You are a Democrat, of course, sir, and I believe you campaigned strenuously for President Truman in 1948. Now, as an American citizen and a thoughtful one, are you concerned about the fact that our government seems to be getting bigger and bigger each year? I am, sir. I'm worried about the financial aspects, and I'm worried about the administrative aspects and the chaperonage of the people. What do you think can be done, General Arroyo, to cut expenditures, if you have any particular ideas in mind on that line? If you mean, can I specify certain expenditures that I think might be eliminated? I don't believe I qualify to give you that answer. But I do feel, in general, that Congress should exercise its constitutional duty of supervising expenditures more closely and more accurately than they do today. Well, how could they do that? Would they have to have more help for the committees, more larger permanent staff or investigators, or what would you have in mind? I think it's probably a detail whether the committee had it or some other agency provided it, but I do think they need considerably more information. As it is now, a department may know all the facts, but it's utterly impossible for a congressional committee under the present circumstances to know whether a request is sound or not. In your concerns, sir, over our governments getting bigger and bigger, do you see certain danger signals developing? For instance, are you concerned over savings in the country or life insurance policies and their value? I'm very much concerned. I think one of the essences of the capitalistic system is the desire to earn and save in a quiet property. And if you find that the savings are being reduced in actual value, you are seeing the first signs of a very real danger from inflation and excessive expenditure. I think the government's spending is one of the main causes of this fall of the value of the dollar. And specifically, sir, you're concerned about thrift in our country, and you think, of course, that it must be encouraged, and you see signs that it's being discouraged. That is correct. And specifically, one, you say that life insurance policies are losing some of their value. Other forms of savings, securities, even government securities are being depreciated on the night. And their actual purchasing power, yes. A good example of that was war bonds sold in the Second War, isn't it? That's right, sir. The people who bought war bonds in 1941 expected to make money off of them. As a matter of fact, they didn't get back what they invested, did they? Probably not quite. I'd like to ask you a question a little bit off of this, general. In view of your experience as Secretary of War, and I'd like to ask how you feel as a citizen, do you believe in universal military training? I've never believed in it. I believe in the draft when you need it for national defense or for national preparedness. But I think universal military training goes directly against the fundamental principles of American freedom. And while you were in the government, sir, did you express your opposition to universal military training? At all times. Now, you've had, you're a Southerner, of course, and you've had a great deal of experience with the top brass of our country. And you must have reached some conclusions about our professional military. Now, do you think that we have the most capable professional military in the world, sir? I do. I think American military leaders are the greatest that the world has ever produced, and they deserve a very large part of the credit for winning World War II. Do you think that there is any potential danger in the professional military mind? Specifically, do you think that we should look for presidents as a rule among professional military men? Well, you said as a rule, I believe. Yes, sir. As a rule, no. I think the average military man is adept and capable in his own work, but that he cannot, consistent with his military training, acquire the broad point of view that is necessary for a good president. But now you have implied, certainly, an important exception to that, sir. I intentionally did. And what is that exception? Well, I think everyone can guess the exception is generalized now. Well, do you think General Eisenhower will be the nominee of the Democrats or of the Republicans? Well, I should certainly hope that he'd be the Democratic nominee, but I'm afraid that if he agrees to run at all, it will be on the Republican ticket. Do you believe that President Truman will be the candidate at all? Well, I have absolutely no information, either as to the plans of President Truman or the plans of General Eisenhower. None whatsoever. But my guess would be that the question of whether President Truman would run or not would depend largely upon whom the opponent would be. Well, now, do you think if the opponent were Senator Taft that he would want to run? I would think so. How about Warren? Do you feel the same way? Or do you have any ideas of what he would do? I really have not analyzed that. I don't know just how Warren would...Mr. Governor Warren would be evaluated. You're a Southerner, sir, as I mentioned a moment ago, although I believe you operate in New York now, up here in this alien country. And I'd like your opinions on what you think the South may do in 1952. Senator Smathers last week said on this show that he doubted that the South would vote toward Truman in 1952. Do you share that view? Well, as what they call a Wall Street lawyer, I'm not really entitled to express an opinion on it at this time. But I do believe that if Eisenhower were a candidate that a considerable number of the Southern states would vote for him, it'd be doubtful about North Carolina that gave Truman the fourth biggest majority in the country last time. That might be reduced, but I'm not sure it'll be overcome. Now, from what you've said, sir, about your concerns as an American citizen, what do you think should be the principal issue in the next campaign? Well, I think there are two issues in general. One is whether the foreign policy, the general foreign policy is sound, and the other is whether our economy is being adequately taken care of. Now, on the question of foreign policy, are you one of the administration's critics on foreign policy, or have you generally favored the foreign policy of the present administration? Well, I've been critical of some aspects of it, but I think the general approach of the administration has been sound. That is that we must do something to build up Europe and the friendly nations, and that we must help them in providing a defense. Sometime in 1949, I think a considerable to-do was kicked up by a remark that you were alleged to have made about Japan. I'd like to ask you now whether you believe that Japan would be a good ally in a war against Russia, or whether if Russia were to make a war, whether we would be able to defend Japan. It was my view then, and it is now, that the chances are Japan would be a good ally. You are in the government in 1947. Did you support our Asiatic policy at that time, sir? Well, in 1947, I was there also until 1949. I think you'd have to define the Asiatic policy more clearly. What about the Chinese Ritz? Well, that never came under our department. We never had any authority or responsibility as to China. I thought our policy towards Japan was an excellent one. I see, sir. Well, as I understand what you've said tonight, sir, to our Chronoscope audience, you're an American who's deeply concerned with some of the things that are happening in the country, such as a getting away from thrift, and that you think that General Eisenhower has an excellent chance of being the next president. Thank you very much for being with us tonight, sir. The editorial board for this edition of the Long Gene Chronoscope was Mr. Henry Haslett and Mr. William Bradford Huey. Our distinguished guest was General Kenneth C. Royal, former United States Secretary of War. Apropos of your Christmas gift problem, you may have heard us make the statement that the experience which Long Gene Watchmakers have gained in the production of complicated and technical watches of the highest character has contributed to the betterment of Long Gene watches of all types. Now, here are some of these Long Gene technical watches. Each one was created in the Long Gene laboratories by Long Gene engineers. It's made in its entirety in the Long Gene Watch factory. It's an exclusive Long Gene creation. These watches are of vital importance to aviators, sports timers, navigators, astronomers, explorers, and many others. And quite naturally, the exacting watch buyers who use these Long Gene technical watches choose for their personal use Long Gene watches like these beautiful examples of the Watchmakers art, which are now being shown by your Long Gene Witner Jewellery Agency. Honored for accuracy in fields of precise timing, honored for excellence and elegance by ten World Fair Grand Prizes and twenty-eight Gold Medal Awards, truly no other name on a Christmas watch means so much as Long Gene, the world's most honored watch. Premier product of the Long Gene Witner Watch Company since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. The Long Gene Chronoscope, a television journal of the important dishes of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Long Gene, the world's most honored watch, and Witner Distinguished Companion to the World Honored Long Gene, sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem, Agency for Long Gene Witner Watches. This is Ranked Night Speaking.