 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? Mr. William Bradford Huey, editor of the American Mercury, and Mr. Henry Haslitz, contributing editor of Newsweek Magazine. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable James A. Farley. The opinions expressed are necessarily those of the speakers. Mr. Farley, I'm sure that our viewers will be delighted that you are back with us tonight. They remember your appearance here about three weeks ago and the predictions you made then. Now, sir, tonight we'd like you to analyze the developments in the campaign, the more recent developments, and first, I think we'd like to know what you think about the possible effect of the defections down south, particularly of Governor Kennan in Louisiana and Governor Shivers in Texas. Do you think that that's going to be very damaging to the Democratic cause? Well, could I be a bit facetious in my reply by saying that they're serious, but not disastrous, to be serious for a moment, if I may? I have every reason to feel that both Texas and Louisiana will be in the Democratic column. If you remember, in 1948, when the Dixie Crat Movement was on, there were two Democratic governors running on the Dixie Crat ticket. They were running in Texas and it was easier for the nominee, for the people in Texas, to vote for two Democratic governors running on a Dixie Crat ticket than running on a Republican ticket. And for that reason, I have every Mr. Truman carry the state by half a million, and I have every reason to believe that the state will again be in the Democratic column. And I think the same condition will obtain in Louisiana. Senator Carlson on this program told our viewers last week that because of these defections, that General Eisenhower had revised his plans and would campaign extensively in Texas. Now, do you think that that's a wise maneuver on the part of the Republicans? Well, it isn't for me to make any observations on any Republican maneuvers, except to say that I, and I say this very sincerely, I think it's a few of the causes as far as the South and other states are concerned. Well, Mr. Farley, I noticed that Congressman O'Brien, who has been on this program tonight, and was delayed by his airplane getting in late, is here in the studio. And I think it would be very interesting if we could give him a chance to sit down here and talk to you, and I'm going to yield my chair to him, if he may. Well, Leo and I are old friends, and I'm glad to see him. Very glad to see him, Jim. We're very old friends indeed. Well, Mr. O'Brien, we're delighted that you were able to get here after all, and we were just asking Mr. Farley about the more recent developments in the campaign. He was just commenting on the Southern situation. And next, of course, we've had the rather smashing victory of Senator McCarthy. Now, how do you interpret the McCarthy vote? First of all, was it a surprise to you, sir, the size of his vote? Yes, it was, and I think it was a surprise to everyone, and probably to Senator McCarthy too. I think it could be interpreted by saying that he had the support of the Solid Republic Organization. There isn't any doubt in my judgment that a great many Democrats went over and voted for him. Great many people who probably have no political affiliations at all voted for him because of their feeling against communism. And far above and beyond that, I would guess that he got the support of a great many people in the state who resented the interference of people from without the state coming into telling the people of Wisconsin how they should vote in a primary. Would you say that any changes in Democratic tactics are indicated because of the size of the McCarthy vote? Oh, I wouldn't think so. You mean so far as the national situation is concerned? Yes, sir. I wouldn't think so. Well, do you think a large number of Democrats voted for McCarthy in that election? Well, I wouldn't be able to say whether a large number voted for him. There isn't any doubt that Democrats went over and supported him. That's evident by the result itself. There's also been, since then, in addition to the McCarthy development, we've had the meeting of General Eisenhower and Senator Taft. Now, how do you interpret the developments that have followed that meeting, sir? Oh, I would say that that's helpful to General Eisenhower. There's no doubt about that. Senator Taft was highly regarded in the Republican Party. He was one of the followers who put up a fight for the nomination form, and it helps unite the Republican Party. There's no doubt about that. You can't dismiss that lightly. That wasn't, I would expect that Senator Taft went into the convention. He was defeated in the convention. He said he would support the nominee, and he's doing what you would expect Senator Taft to do. Mr. O'Brien, do you generally agree with Mr. Farley in that analysis? Well, I think in the Taft-Eisenhower wedding that somebody surrendered a great deal. I think that they must have surrendered some principle on foreign policy. Now, I happen to have been at the Republican National Convention as a reporter, I might add, not as a delegate. And there were some pretty strong words said on foreign policy by the Taft supporters and by the Eisenhower supporters. And I didn't believe that it would be possible in the lifetime of man for the two of them to get together and say that they disagreed only in degree. Well, now, do you think, and I'd like both your opinions on this, do you think that now the Democrats will center more of their fire on Senator Taft and less of it on General Eisenhower? I imagine they'll spread their fire, won't they, Leo? I would think so, Jim. I think that some of them rather enjoy the entry of Senator Taft as an active participant because they had anticipated, or at least some Democrats had anticipated he might be the candidate. And now they can use some ammunition they stored up and thought they wouldn't have to use. Well, it may be possible too that labor will get out and work maybe a little bit more harder against Eisenhower, General Eisenhower, than they would have if Taft had remained silent. Why is it Taft coming out? This is the thing I would expect you to do. Well, you mentioned labor there. Certainly, of course, the American Federation of Labor is holding a convention in New York this week. Now, and I understand, is it your understanding that they are to endorse Governor Stephen... Well, the papers would indicate that that's what they propose to do. And of course, you think this will be very helpful to the Stevenson cause. Oh, not really. I'd like to ask you, Mr. Farley, whether you think that Senator Morse's defection was a help or a hindrance to the Eisenhower cause. Well, I think it hurts the Eisenhower cause. He represents what, whether you like it or not, an independent element in the Republican Party. And they're, what, called progressive, if you will. I don't care what term you apply to it, but there's an element in the party who might be inclined to follow Morse. Well, won't some... won't his going over to the... Well, he hasn't exactly gone over to the Democrats. Well, he isn't going over. He said he'd vote... He's sitting it out. But may that not encourage some conservative Democrats to sit it out against Stevenson? No, I don't think so. I think that you'll find that the Democratic Party is a party. It's better united behind Governor Stevenson than it has been at any time since Mr. Roosevelt ran in 1936. Well, now, of course, the state of New York is a key state in this election. And Mr. O'Brien, I believe, you're up for re-election yourself there, aren't you, sir? Yes, I waited 30 years to run for a public office, and I had to run twice and six months. Well, uh... You would have any trouble with your district, will you? I hope not, Jim. Is the machine up there? What's the name of that machine? We call it an organization. One of the things that I've noticed that the Republicans always call Democratic organizations machines, and their own, they call them organizations. Well, I'm sure that our viewers would like your and Mr. Farley's analysis of the New York situation. Now, Mr. Farley predicted that New York would go for Stevenson here three weeks ago. Do you agree to that, Mr. O'Brien? I do, and the reason I agree to it, I don't think it's possible that General Eisenhower can run 400 or 500,000 volts stronger than Dewey did in 1948, which he'd have to do, in my opinion, to carry the state. But isn't it true, Mr. Farley, that the Democratic ticket is supposed to have suffered as a result of not being able to find a stronger senatorial candidate in New York? No, I don't think the national ticket has suffered as a result of that. And as a matter of fact, I think John Cashmore is a stronger candidate than has been made to appear by the newspapers. I've known Cashmore since we first... I went to the assembly the same year he did in 1923. He has had a fine record in the city of New York and the state of New York, and he is, by no means, a weak candidate in my judgment. Our viewers, of course, would appreciate a prediction from you as to the outcome of that Senate race. Well, I wouldn't attempt to predict the outcome of that right at the moment. It's going to be a hard race for John. I'm going to be frank enough to say that. It's going to be a hard race for him because the fact that the liberals have endorsed someone else, they could take several hundred thousand votes away, and that would make it rather make the going rough. But I wouldn't go so far as to admit that John Cashmore can't win the election. Mr. O'Brien, don't you think that that liberal situation, though, may affect the way the national ticket runs in New York? I would doubt it because I think the 200,000 who might vote for their independent candidate for the Senate are pretty determined, and I think that they'll find a way of voting for their candidate for president, who is Mr. Stevenson. I think they all will. All that crowd will vote for Governor Stevenson. You, of course, happen to be in the position of being an upstate Democratic congressman. There aren't too many of them. I think I'm the only Democratic congressman between New York City and Ohio. I'm a very lonesome man. Maybe you'll have some Democratic district, wasn't it? It's a pretty strong Democratic district, although you ran extremely well in the spring. That's true. I don't believe there's been a Republican congressman from our district in more than 30 years. Well, now, Mr. Farley, as a final question, before, you made rather detailed prediction for our viewers. Now, sir, has anything happened in the last three weeks to cause you to change any of your views as to how the election will result? No, I don't see that there has been any change. I believe that Governor Stevenson is just as strong now as he was when I made the prediction here three weeks ago. I haven't seen anything that's happened to in any way change the outcome as I view it. Well, now, you predicted, for instance, in New England that Stevenson would carry Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Do you think that's generally true, Mr. O'Brien? Well, from what I hear in Massachusetts, I don't know too much about Rhode Island, but if they're talking about Kennedy being elected to the Senate in Massachusetts, I think that would indicate that Stevenson has an excellent chance of carrying the state president. Rhode Island, there's no question about that, Leo. And Mr. Farley, you think that the South will remain definitely Democratic? Is there any question about it? Well, Mr. Farley and Mr. O'Brien, I'm sure that our viewers have very much appreciated these views, and thank you both for being with us tonight, sir. The editorial board for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope was Mr. Henry Haslett and Mr. William Bradford Huey. We had two distinguished guests tonight, the Honorable Leo W. O'Brien, United States Representative from New York, and the Honorable James A. Farley. The traditional presentation gift to symbolize achievement, honor, and respect is a watch of truly great prestige, and the watch of greatest prestige for every presentation purpose is Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch. Throughout the world, no other name on a watch means so much as Laun Jean, for no other watch has won ten World's Fair grand prizes and twenty-eight gold medals for excellence and elegance, and so many honors for accuracy in fields of precise timing. For your personal use, for any gift occasion, as well as for formal presentation, a Laun Jean watch brings unique satisfaction, for into every Laun Jean watch is built, the greater accuracy and longer life for which Laun Jean watches are world honored, and yet you may buy and own or buy and proudly give a Laun Jean watch for as little as seventy-one fifty. Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, 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 dishes of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion for 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 jewelers who proudly display this emblem. Agency for Laun Jean Wittner Watch. For thrills, see suspense on the CBS television network.