 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-honored Lone Gene. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lone Gene Chronoscope? From the CBS television news staff, Larry Lassur and Winston Bredett. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Charles R. Howell, representative from New Jersey. The Democratic Party is often called a party of the liberal North and the conservative South. Well, in times of victory, they've managed to overcome their sectional differences, but, of course, in the last congressional elections, the last election year, they did not. But, within recent days in the Senate, the Democrats managed to put together a front on a labor bill, which rivaled the days of 1932. I don't think it had ever been equaled since then. Now, Congressman Howell, what did that unity on that roll call vote on the killing of the Taft Hartley amendments signify to you? Well, Mr. Lassur, I think we have, for some reason or other, being technically at least in the minority now, got more party unity than we have had for a long time. And, of course, the example of the Senate voting solidly to recommit the Taft Hartley revision was the most forceful example of that. And I think there's a lot of that going on now, but I think part of that unity on that vote came about because different segments of the party for different reasons found it sensible to come to the same conclusion on that bill. The so-called Northern, perhaps pro-labor Democratic senators were afraid that whatever came out of the proceedings this time would be worse than the present bill. And many of the Southern Democrats and conservative Democrats didn't like the possibility of the state's rights business getting defeated and some other things getting added to the bill. So it was a natural situation for them to create a unified front on that particular occasion. In other words, you don't think it actually foretold a unity that would be one which would lead the Democratic Party to victory? Well, I wouldn't get away from that. And I think it was wonderful. But I'm not sure that it was completely that good. We had an ideal set of circumstances to bring it about on that particular vote. Congressman Hollow, the other day you told a rally in New Jersey that you thought the Republican Party was hopelessly split. Do you have any concrete evidence of that? Well, of course you got one very a bit of concrete evidence in the present hearings where you have two different segments or two different individuals in the Republican Party fighting against each other. You're referring to the McCarthy army hearings now. And it's Republicans against Republicans there and one wing of the party so to speak more or less against the other wing and it's not the Republicans investigating or trying to belittle the Democrats. And it is a Republican mess strictly. Of course that's the forceful example of it pointed up by the President McCarthy Stevens hearings. I think there have been plenty of other evidences of it on legislative matters where President Eisenhower, even when he has some fairly good program to send down to Congress, he finds that he has to, in order to get the support of the extreme right wing of the party, he has to either abandon some of his legislative program or water other parts of it down or or get it so that it is acceptable to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, which is against most of his program or most of his worthwhile program. Well, incidentally, Congressman Howell, before the hearings took place on the army McCarthy dispute, you that that time called for the resignation of Secretary of the Army Stevens. Now, do you still feel the same way about it now the hearings have taken place? I have a lot of sympathy for Mr Stevens, and I think he's an awfully decent guy. But I think he did make some early mistakes there of placating Senator McCarthy by giving in and granting a lot of favors to shine that the ordinary GI would just never hope to expect. And that sort of thing isn't fair. I think he went too far with it. I can sympathize with him. I can understand perhaps why he did it, but I think he ought to have been able to stand up better than that. I think he's got a tough job and I sympathize with him in these hearings, but he actually didn't look very good then. And he hasn't been as forceful and effective witness and shown the real grasp of things that I would have hoped that he would have shown in these hearings. Do you think that this Republican Party split is reflected in our foreign policy, that it's weakened our leadership abroad perhaps? I would say it has. The old isolationist is applied to Europe crowd and perhaps they might be interventionist in Asia or the same crowd that's giving the president administration the same amount of trouble that they gave the Democratic administration previously. They almost seem to forget that they're in power now and then they're fighting their own administration almost as strongly and creating as much trouble as they did under the Truman and Atchison foreign policy situation. Will Congressman Howell in recent days vary as prominent Democratic spokesmen have opened up with rather vigorous attacks on the administration's foreign policy? And what exactly does this signify in terms of bipartisanship? Does it mean an end of it? I honestly hope not and I don't think many responsible Democrats would want it to be interpreted that way or would want it to work out that way. But I think there's been created here such a vacuum and things have been going so bad diplomatically that they feel a responsibility to speak out and I hope they are doing that in a constructive way. But I think most Democrats realize the seriousness of what we're up against in the world today and very much want to have a bipartisan foreign policy. They want to be called in more. They want more participation. They want Congress to have more information and they want to see a little more specific plan of where we're going and in the absence of that lately I think they've felt that they had to speak out on some of these things. Well I'd like to press you further on that now that Senator Lyndon Johnson has spoken out and President Truman against the administration's foreign policy. Do you feel that this it presages a final split with the president on his foreign policy program as we head into the congressional elections? I really hope not and I don't believe at this point it does amount to that. I think the broad foreign policy under Eisenhower is the same policy that we had under Truman and to some extent under Roosevelt. But the diplomacy has been weak. We've done things or haven't done things that have alienated or lost the cooperation of our lives in many parts of the world. We're almost down to St. Henry and Chiang Kai-shek now at this point and it's making it very, very difficult. But I think our broad objectives are the same as those of the Republicans and that with a little more consultation, a little more plan of action on the part of the administration, a little more agreement within the administration on what they're going to do that they'll find the Democrats back of them if we can find what to back. Sir, what do you foresee in this immediate Indochina crisis? Do you foresee that the United States Congress will have to take some action this year at this session with respect to United Allied Action or American intervention? Well, of course, we're moving pretty fast now with the end of Jambian Fu and the imminence of a really tough situation at Hanoi. Something has got to be done fairly quickly. It's just the responsibility of the President and Secretary Dulles to tell us what needs to be done. And certainly it's going to take, I don't think we can get enough out of the negotiations at Geneva to accomplish anything very much. The Secretary went there with very little in the way of cards in his hand and then he gave away one of them very early in the press conference before the Pali started. And I think just at this point we've got to decide how far we need to go. We can't afford to one by one surrender those important vital spots in Asia, or we're just starting a series of events that can only wind up in disaster. I think the Democrats, if they know what the policy is and the people are let in on it, that will be really available for help in the bipartisan foreign policy. Well, Congress, I'd like to get back to the home front for a minute and refer to the economic situation. Now, what would you Democrats have done if you had been in the past two years? Well, I think there are a number of things that could have been done fairly recently, should be done now. I don't think we're in a depression. I'm not one of the so-called prophets of gloom. But I think the Republicans have lost the concept that we need an expanding economy. They seem to be satisfied with a second best prosperity. And they don't realize that our population increases. More people come into our working force every year if we just went along and had the same economic level as we had in 1953. By 1960 we could wind up with 14 millions unemployed. We need increased social security benefits, a tax policy designed to give our economy a lift. We need greater unemployment compensation benefits. We need a better manipulation of interest rates and a possible standby shelf of public works, public facilities that could be put into action quickly if the economy shows more signs of slipping. Those are some of the things that I think they've been slow to deal with and slow to recognize. You don't seem to differ very much from the president in his program. Is there any possibility that you think, sir, of the president getting bipartisan support for his domestic program before the congressional elections? Well, that's much more difficult, of course. You've got a more serious sense of responsibility on foreign affairs. It's too vital to us and to the whole world. Economics, you can play a little more politics with sometimes, but without ruining the country, perhaps. But I think there's general agreement, but that the administration has just been a little slow in moving on some of these things even though they recognize the dangers of them. They've been sitting back and expressing the hope, the old prosperity, just around the corner philosophy and the trickle down theory. Both seem to still be existing today. Thank you very much, Congressman Howells. Nice to have you here tonight. Thank you. The opinions expressed on the Lone Gene Chronoscope were those of the speakers. The editorial board for this edition of the Lone Gene Chronoscope was Larry Lesser and Winston Burdett. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Charles R. Howell, representative from New Jersey. When next you buy a watch, either for yourself or as an important gift, in all probability your jewelry will show you models of almost every make of watch that you can name at Lone Gene prices and even higher. Now, what's your best buy in this situation? Let's try and find out. It's very significant that of all the watchmakers of the world, only Lone Gene has won 10 World Fair grand prizes and 28 gold medals. In a word, the highest honors for superiority of manufacture. And what about accuracy? In the grand championship contest for watchmakers, the accuracy trials at the National Observatories, Lone Gene watches have established many records, won countless prizes and honors for exceptional accuracy. And what is the opinion of the scientists? In all fields of precise timing, sports, aviation and science, Lone Gene is everywhere the watch of first choice. Now these facts point to an inescapable conclusion. When next you buy a watch, either for yourself or as an important gift, if you pay 70, 150 or more, you're paying the price of a Lone Gene and you should insist on getting a Lone Gene, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift, premier product of the Lone Gene Witner 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 Witner, distinguished companion to the world honored Lone Gene. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Lone Gene and Witner 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 Witner watches.