 This is Frank Knight. The Adventures of Lawn Jean. In the Adventures of Lawn Jean, there are recorded many interesting events. It's recorded that the longest eclipse of the sun in a period of 1200 years occurred in 1937. This fiery celestial spectacle, which in olden days was fueled with terror, gave scientists a brief opportunity to study the mysterious corona of the sun, visible only during an eclipse. The Hayden Planetarium expedition of the American Museum of Natural History went to Peru to make, and we quote, timing calculations of greater precision than ever before attempted on any eclipse. The timing equipment consisted of Lawn Jean watches, and the timepieces included Lawn Jean chronometers, Lawn Jean chronographs, and Lawn Jean one hundredth of a second watch. It's a great honor that Lawn Jean watches were selected for this and many other important scientific expeditions, but it's no surprise considering the fact that leading government observatories have all bestowed first prizes and innumerable other honors on Lawn Jean watches for their exceptional accuracy. It's a fact that throughout the world, no other name on a watch means so much as Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch. The Lawn Jean Chronoscope each week looks for the truth in the important issues of the hour, and here to discuss these issues are our co-editors. Mr. Henry Haslett, a political economist of respected judgment and contributing editor of Newsweek Magazine, and Mr. William Bradford Huey, editor of the American Mercury. Our distinguished guest for this evening is Mr. Paul Gray Hoffman, former director of ECA and president of the Ford Foundation. In this spontaneous and unrehearsed discussion, the opinions are necessarily those of the speaker. Mr. Hoffman, I gather from your new book, Peace Can Be Won, that though you're now in private life, you're still in favor of the foreign aid program. Now, definitely, yes, Mr. Haslett, I wonder if I can tell you why? Because I believe in peace and because I believe and hope that free society can survive in the United States. I do not believe we can have peace, nor do I believe that free society can survive in the United States unless we play our appropriate part in helping the rest of the free world remain free. Specifically, sir, do you believe you favor the bill now before Congress? You mean the bill that calls for eight and a half billion dollars of foreign aid? Yes, sir. The price of that amount, some six billion, three hundred million dollars, is for military aid, or for Europe. I'm not a military man, have no judgment, but if General Eisenhower says he needs six billion, three hundred million dollars, I'm forgiving General Eisenhower six billion, three million dollars for military aid. Mr. Hoffman, isn't that military aid really at bottom, economic aid? Doesn't come down to this, that what we are saying is that these European nations can't afford to arm themselves and that therefore we have to take that over. And isn't that really an economic question? We'd have to qualify someone, if you'd say that they can't take care of the job of arming themselves quickly enough to make the threat of the Soviets. I go along with you. They can't do that by themselves. And I think we have to help them to arm themselves so that that arming can take place quickly enough. Well, if it's a question of our supplying arms, that's one thing, but aren't we really in effect saying they can't afford to buy those arms from us? We do a lot of things, let's say we need tin, we need rubber, we need wool, but we buy them from the outside. Why can't they buy arms from us? Well, that's a very simple answer because they haven't the dollars, and we won't take any but dollars. But then it does come down to an economic question and not primarily a military question. I think it's very definitely an economic question, as well as a military question. Well now, only two billion dollars of aid, I think there's two billion to recommend for this year. Do you remember how much the recent one was? It was two billion seven or something like that? Well, for Western Europe alone, it was something under three billion dollars. That was for Western Europe, I should say, and I think some very small amount of aid in Asia. This bill is, this two billion two is about a billion six for Europe and about six hundred million for Asia, as I remember. Well now, your successor, Mr. Foster, testified a little while ago, testified this year before Congress, that the European countries had today a 40% increase in production and industrial production over pre-war period and a 9% increase in industrial, in agricultural production. Right. Now, in view of that, why do we continue to need the foreign aid there? Well, I don't think, if it hadn't been, I think it had not been for this emergency, that we, that Europe, except in a few countries, could have carried itself. That is, I think England, you know, all aid to England was stopped last December, I think. I think that several other countries have reached a point where they no longer needed economic aid. Certain countries did. It was our original thought that we'd have this program down, you know, starting the first year at five, that with improvement, it would go down to four, go down to three, and the last year would be two. Well, those figures were, of course, beaten, and we also, and also the European countries, with our help, got recovered more rapidly than we had originally anticipated. Mr. Hoffman, I'm interested in a transition in your own life. You were a very successful American industrialist, and as such, you were interested in balancing books. And then you became one of our firmest advocates of vast foreign spending. Now, do you see anything anomalous in that change? No, I don't, because my approach to foreign aid, I think, is strictly a business approach. In other words, I've never been able to see or believe that we could have peace and prosperity in the United States, unless we were in a reasonably peaceful and prosperous world. Now, as a businessman, I always okayed with, I think, wisdom a budget of around one to two percent a year for promotion that wasn't going to pay off in this year or next, but over the long pull it would pay off. Now, I have looked on foreign aid as promotion by the United States to help bring about peace and prosperity to the world. This spending now is spending a billion dollars, billions of dollars, we've noticed, both of us in Washington. It becomes a rather heady business. Now, it causes a man to adopt a certain social worker attitude. Would you say that it's caused you to change, and if your personal views, that experience? Definitely not. I really think that our administration of foreign aid was very hard headed. I happen to think that the greatest bargain the American people ever got, they got the spending of money under the Marshall Plan. You have no doubt, Seth, that what you've done is this to the best interest of this country. Well, that puts me in a position where I had to be somewhat immodest, but certainly I would not. I've been associated with the Marshall Plan if I had not fully believed in the Marshall Plan from the American point of view. And you would say that your first interest has always been the national interest of the United States. I certainly think that we have every right, I would have said we have every right to determine whether we'll send any dollars abroad, where we'll send them, and to do that on a basis of our own interest, the interest of the U.S., but I say it's got to be a somewhat enlightened selfishness. Well, Mr. Hoffman, we get back away from these generalities down to the specific figures. Secretary Attison said a few days ago that this country was going to have to spend $25 billion in the next few years for the foreign aid program. Now, even some of the Democratic members of Congress are backing up against that, and Mr. Douglas, Senator Douglas wants to reduce it about a billion or so, and even Senator Connolly burst forth tonight. Now, why do you think of these specific figures that are being proposed? Well, I think now an economic aid, talking about that first, the $2 billion that is projected for this next year is in line with what I thought would be necessary to just help build prosperity in the world, and to help promote peace in the world. I'm not in no position to pass judgment on the amount of military aid required. I think that any effort to save what is required three years from now does involve a considerable amount of guessing. The world situation can change from a year or two years if it did. I'm sure that Secretary Attison would be the first one to want to change his estimates. But remember this, the thing that's very important is that we do everything we can possibly do to keep peace in the world. Because if World War III breaks out, according to estimates I believe to be reliant, we'll start spending a billion dollars a day. World War III would cost a billion dollars a day. Now, if I could be sure that I am sure that the expenditure of the money up to this time has helped us to maintain peace. If I was sure that any amount was necessary to maintain peace, I would think it a very good investment. You believe then that communism can be fought successfully with money? No, not money alone. I think it takes money, among other things, to fight communism. That's a long story. But do you believe that communism is an effect that is a result of a declining economy? Or do you believe that it's the result of ideas that are presented by an electorate? I think it's a result of both. I think you have very false ideas. And I think that have had to become better than I do think. I'm sorry, Mr. Hoffman, but I'm afraid our time is up. I'm sorry you couldn't finish that interesting answer, but I appreciate very much for being with us tonight. The editorial board for this edition of the Lone Teen Chronoscope was Mr. Henry Haslitt and Mr. William Bradford Q. Our guest was Mr. Paul Gray Hoffman, president of the Ford Farmer. Throughout the world, no other name on a watch means so much as Lone Jean, the world's most honored one. Honored for excellence and elegance by ten World Fair grand prizes, twenty-eight gold medal awards, and highest honors for accuracy from the leading government observatories of the world. Whenever you have an occasion to purchase a watch for yourself or as a gift, it's well to remember that if you pay certainly one fifty or more for a watch, you're paying the price of a Lone Jean. And you should insist on getting a Lone Jean. World honored for excellence, elegance, greater accuracy, and long life. Lone Jean, the world's most honored watch, sold in service by more than four thousand leading jewelers from coast to coast, who proudly display the emblem, Agency for Lone Jean Witner Watches. Next week at this same time over the CBS television network, the Lone Jean Witner Watch Company will again present the Lone Jean Chronoscope. Honored watch is Lone Jean. Lone Jean watches have won ten World Fair grand prizes, twenty-eight gold medals, and more honors for accuracy than any other time fee. Lone Jean, the world's most honored watch, is made and guaranteed by the Lone Jean Witner Watch Company. It's time for the Lone Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. A presentation of the Lone Jean Witner Watch Company, maker of Lone Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Witner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lone Jean. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lone Jean Chronoscope? Mr. William Bradford Huey, editor of the American Mercury, and Mr. Henry Haslund, editor of the Freeman and contributing editor for Newsweek Magazine. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the honorable S.T. Kefauver, United States Senator from Tennessee. The opinions expressed are necessarily those of the speakers. Senator Kefauver, the members of our Chronoscope audience, of course, remember you, sir, from your sensational crime investigations. They know that you are the vigorous Tennessean, who now aspires to the Democratic nomination for the presidency. Tonight, our audience will appreciate the views on some of your political views. Now, sir, if you are running for the Democratic nomination, what is your present criticism or what is your principal criticism of the Democratic administration that now exists? Mr. Huey, I think I may make this very clear in the beginning that I'm running on my own. I think that we have had a too great and fine Democratic administration. I have supported the foreign policy and the economic and social program of both President Roosevelt and President Truman. You are a new dealer and a fair dealer. Well, I don't classify myself as one of the dealers, I believe, in progress. And if you want to say a new dealer or a fair dealer, I believe that the American people have made great advancements both in our foreign policy and in our domestic policy under the last two Democratic administrations. If you want to know why I'm running for president, I feel that every American boy aspires to run. I want to do what I can to see that we continue on with an aggressive foreign policy, that we do not abandon our place of leadership in the world. Also, I'm very much interested in seeing that we continue to have our social and economic gains. I want to see who has made effort against corruption. I want us to see the federal government taking more leading part of fear, being something that we do. I'm not trying to draw issues between Mr. Truman and myself running because I feel that I have a lot of patience and I have the ideas for the future and the American people run. Okay. 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. Donald I. Rogers, an editor of the New York Herald Tribune. Our distinguished guest for this evening is Dr. Jules Backman, professor of economics, New York University. The opinions expressed are necessarily those of the speakers. Dr. Backman is one of the nation's leading experts on wages and prices, and as a former consultant of the Office of Price Stabilization, we'd like to explore some of your theories about the present state of the nation's business and the nation's economy. Can you tell me, sir, is it true, as we read in the papers, that we're in a state of recession at the present time? Well, I think that depends on what you're looking at. The answer is yes if you're talking about the civilian economy, that is automobiles, building, textiles, apparel. The answer is no if you're talking about war industries, because war production continues to expand. Well, how about we people who work in neither the heavy industries nor the war industries? Well, you fellows in the financial field, writers are doing just about all right. There's been no special recession or expansion there. Are you telling our audience, sir, that if it were not for war industry now and the demands of the re-armament program that the country might well be in a serious recession? Well, I don't know how serious it would be, Mr. Huey, but I am convinced that we'd have a considerably large amount of unemployment, we'd have lower prices, we'd have less inflation, and we'd have less demand generally. We'd have a condition which wouldn't look as good as it does today. Now, you're saying that in the war industries, things are holding well. Where is business worse in the country now? Well, I guess we get the most complaints and justifiably from the textile industry and from apparel. The television and appliance industry hasn't been doing too well. These days, you know, if you walk into one of these appliance stores, it's almost impossible to get out at any price. Well, very recently they removed the credit restrictions. They removed Regulation W, which means that anyone can go in and charge things and pay for them over a longer period of time. Do you think that that will help the television and appliance industry and perhaps the apparel industry as well? I think it will help the appliance industry a little, but the real reason why appliances have not been selling is that the fellow who bought himself a television set a year ago, instead of waiting until he thought he could afford it in 1952, just doesn't buy it now. In other words, when the war broke out in Korea, many people rushed out to buy. Scare buying. Scare buying. And part of the problem we faced is that people have not been undertaking that type of buying now and they haven't been doing the normal buying. Are the retailers paying now for what they reaped back right after the Korean War? Yes, they are. And I think if you look at the figures, you'll find that the extra amount of selling at that time is just about equal to the smaller amount of selling now. It sort of canceled it. It sort of canceled out. The public demand for goods is now going down. Is that correct, sir? I think the public demand for goods has gone down a little. Whether it's going down at this moment is difficult to say. It seems to be sort of stabilizing at a lower level than we had a year ago. And our audience is particularly interested in prices. Now, what about prices? Are they on their way down? Well, thus far we've had some good hints as to what may happen. Prices at retail usually are the last to fall. But I'm happy to say that at wholesale they have declined and we've already had a considerable number of announcements of lower prices for appliances, for clothing. I guess about everything except fresh fruits and vegetable and rents. Now, you say you're happy to say that, sir. In other words, do you regard it as a good omen? Is it good for the American people for prices to come down? Well, Mr. Huey, when you see what the dollar buys, any step in the direction of buying a little bit more is a good omen. In other words, sir, you feel that it is perhaps a good sign if the wholesaler and the retailer do not make so much profit. It's not only a question of how much profit they make. It's a question of what we have to pay when we walk into a store. Now, if they sell a large volume of goods, they can make money even though they don't make as much on each unit. Call that turnover. Now, in this period where the war industries are holding, but where prices are coming down, who are the best-paid people, the best-paid workers in the American economy now? Well, the best-paid workers generally are coal workers, steel workers, construction workers, automobile workers. Are they generally run anywhere from 25 to 50 cents above the average for all manufacturing industries? Aren't these the very workers who create most of the labor strife looking for more higher increases in pay? They're usually in a forefront. Well, now, why is that, sir? Why are these industries? Are they to blame for it? Who's to blame for the fact that they continually seek higher wages? Well, many of these workers are in industries which are essential to the war effort. And when something is scarce, as laborers in those industries, you go out and try and get it. In other words, these are the people that are in the best bargaining position to get higher wages. Well, yes, look at the contrast between the textile workers who are fighting to stay in the same place and say steel workers who are fighting to jump way ahead. The textile industry isn't doing too well. The steel industry moves along with capacity. In other words, it's an effort on the part of the steel industry to take advantage of the war situation to get a higher wage scale for themselves. You mean the steel workers? Yes. I think that that's the case when there's a shortage of workers. They try to get more when there's a surplus. They just don't get more. For example, in 1949, they didn't get wage increases, largely because business conditions were sort of settling down. Supply and demand working on the labor side? Very definitely. Well, don't you feel, however, that the textile, in the textile industry particularly, is just waiting for the steel issue to be settled? Well, it's difficult to talk for the textile industry, but from what I've been able to find out about it, they're hoping they can get the same contracts they had before, because business has been pretty bad in that area. Now, Dr. Backman, our audience has heard a great many experts on the steel controversy. Now, as some of them said, they were speaking for the people, some for the government. We've had disabled spokesmen for industry. You perhaps could qualify as being objective. Now, how would you simplify the present steel controversy for our audience? Well, I'd say one thing we'd want to know is what is the economic position of the steel workers? How much money are they making compared with other workers? How much are their wages increasing? Well, that's one aspect. The other question is, how much have their wages increased recently? Well, now, we've had Mr. Arnold and others have talked about the catch-up that it was necessary for the steel industry now to precipitate a crisis so that they could catch up. Now, what are they catching up to? Well, that's something I have not been able to find out. If you look at the figures, they look something like this. The steel workers run in the top 10 or 15% of workers in terms of wages and the economy. If you go back to almost any date you want, go back to 1939, they made 20 cents an hour more than all manufacturing workers. Go back to the end of the war, they made 20 cents an hour more. After the beginning of 1950, before Korea, they made 24 cents more. You look at the figures today, they're making 24 cents more. I think what happened is this. When the steel industry and the workers agreed to an increase last year, temporarily, steel workers got up to a spread of as much as 33 cents. Then when the other workers caught up to steel, they came back to this 24-cent spread, and that's where they are today. And if steel workers get an increase, I think it's pretty clear as to what will happen when the others will go ahead with them. Well, John L. Lewis seems to be waiting. Aluminum retailers. You can go right down the line. Now, when Mr. Ellis Arnold, the economic stabilizer was on this program, he said that if the steel industry was given its price increases, it would cost the average American family about $400 a year because the prices of other metals and other services, other supplies would go up along with steel, perhaps with logical reasoning. But we never did explore the other side. Suppose the steel workers are given their wage increases. What will that cost the American family per year? Whether the steel industry gets a price increase or not, Americans generally are going to pay for the steel wage increase. If the steel industry gets no price increase, it will mean that the tax collections of the government will fall. And if that increase spreads throughout the economy, that fall in tax collections will run over $5 billion a year. And I might add that that runs well over $100 for every family in the country. In other words, every family in the country will pay over $100 a year for the steel wage increases. They'll have to pay it either in the form of higher taxes if the government must collect more taxes. Well, let me make this point clear. If the government pays for this wage increase out of tax revenues, whether we get a tax increase or not, the American people will pay because the fundamental, the basic source of inflation, this business of somebody reaching his hand into your pocket and taking something out is the government spending more than it takes in. And the major effect of no price increase in steel will be that the government will spend even more than it expects to in relationship to what it takes in. All right, in the face of all this, Mr. Backman, Dr. Backman, we are decontrolling. We are removing controls from our economy. We are allowing credit controls to be removed. We are allowing price controls to be removed. We are permitting steel to be used as much as people want to use it, aluminum, so on and so forth. Do you find any significance in this trend? Well, it's interesting to me to find the administration going to Congress and saying they need a tight price control law at a time when they are lifting controls and at a time when they are getting rid of credit controls, which are really basic to the whole problem of price rises and inflation. Of course, it's an election year that might have something to do with it. Well, Dr. Backman, I'm sure that our audience very much appreciates your views and thank you, sir, for being with us. The editorial board for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Donald I. Rogers. Our distinguished guest was Dr. Jules Backman, Professor of Economics of New York University. It seems like a nice idea. On the wedding day, the bride and groom give watches to each other. If you are planning a wedding, you may be glad to know that recognizing the social acceptance of this custom, Lawn Jean has produced an exciting series of duets. Exquisite Lawn Jean watches in matching styles. Each bride's watch a diminutive replica of the groom's watch. Exchanging watches is likewise a growing custom between husbands and wives for anniversary gifts. To honor the bride and groom, to honor the graduate of the class of 1952, to honor your husband or wife on your anniversary, give a Lawn Jean the world's most honored watch. The only watch in history to win 10 World's Fair Grand Prizes, 28 gold medals, and so many honors for accuracy from the world's observatories. Yet you may buy and own, or buy and proudly give the Lawn Jean watch for as little as $71.50. Lawn Jean duets and other beautiful Lawn Jean watches are sold only, sold only by authorized Lawn Jean Wittner Jeweler agencies. Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch premier product of the Lawn 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 Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world's honored Lawn Jean. I received about $650 million, and he was informed that the ambassador informed him that we would only give about $525 million, and our ambassador also said, or left a note saying, that he expected, or we expected, France to increase its military budget, and that the French Premier objected very strongly to that instead of the principle. Now I'd like to ask you whether, I don't think this leaves the situation. Does it mean that the French would resent the imposition of conditions by us, or does it simply mean that they have this particular condition? I think it's one of those difficulties which happened between the best friends. It was a difference of opinion on the question of the importance of the American help to the French as you rightly said, and also maybe a difference of opinion about the conditions in which such help would be given. But I'm confident it would be straightened out through negotiations both in Paris and in Washington. Many difficulties of the same kind in the past were finally straightened out. We don't think this is inherent in the situation that there's a real dilemma here, that if we don't put conditions on our aid foreign countries, then the money may be wasted from our point of view. But if we do put on conditions, then the conditions are resended. Now that's always seemed to me a dilemma. No, the dilemmas in that matter are never so clear-cut as that. I think there are so many ways to see that the American help is well employed. And I think you have had many testimonies in the past by American authorities that it had been well employed. There are conditions arranged in advance. And I don't think that there was an attempt in France to evade those conditions. It's a question of arrangement through negotiations, you know. Mr. Ambassador, France, like the United States, is fighting our common enemy on two fronts. You're trying to prepare in France and Europe and you're also carrying on a war in China just as we are in Korea. Sir, how long has France been fighting in Indochina? Seven years now, seven long years. And how many Frenchmen are engaged in the war in Indochina? These are native troops of Frenchmen or what are the proportions? The French Union from Africa and native troops from Vietnam, from the three associated states of Indochina. And is this a very expensive war to France? It's a very expensive war, first in human lives, unfortunately. We have had nearly 40,000 people killed or missing in Indochina. And how is that war going now, sir? You saw in the papers yesterday that the Vietnamese, the communists, have started an offensive now and they have had their first success, which I hope is not a very important one. Now that war is, like our own Korean war, is quite unpopular in France. It is an unpopular war because it's a very heavy burden for France, both in human lives, as I said, and in money. But it is realized that it's the way to stop communism in the Far East. Well, here in our own country, we are trying to find ways to end the war in Korea. Does France have any hope of ending the war soon in Indochina? We are doing our best. We are hoping that the nationalist, the sincere nationalist in Vietnam, in Indochina, will desert the camp of Ho Chi Minh, of the communists, and come to the camp of Baodai. And we are organizing a Vietnamese army. Any evidence, Mr. Ambassador, that the Russians are supplying them with equipment or that the Chinese communists are supplying them with equipment? No doubt about it. The heavy equipment they have, the recoilless guns and mortars, and guns and shells, all that comes from other lands. They are unable to manufacture anything, but the very light weapons or ammunition, it comes from China. Here in our own country, we are talking a great deal about the possibilities of being able to train the South Koreans so that asiatics can oppose asiatics. What success has France had in training the native troops in Indochina? Real success. We have now six divisions of the Vietnamese army plus smaller Cambodian and Laotian armies, full of trains, good soldiers, good young officers. But it takes time, it takes time, of course. Well, one other thing I'm sure that some of our viewers would like your view on. In America, there has been some feeling that in Indochina, we are being handicapped a bit by some of the hangover of French colonialism. Now, sir, are the French in Indochina fighting for the independence of the native peoples? Are you fighting to hold a colony? We are fighting for the independence, for preserving the independence of the native people, for preventing them to fall under the Bolshevik yoke. They have received their full independence. They are independent now. Unfortunately, they are not still able to protect themselves so that independence. Well, you contend then that France is fighting the same sort of war in Indochina that we are in Korea. Yes. That we're both trying to free peoples from the communist mass. Exactly. Well, Mr. Ambassador, I wish you could throw some light for us on this thing called neutralism in France. Yeah. What is neutralism? What do they feel and how many people feel it? I'll answer first about how many people, very few people, very few people, is the fact of very limited circles in Paris. There is no party in the French parliament, no group. And you know we have various groups and several groups. There is no groups which are called neutralists, no group which pretends to be neutralists. In fact, I don't think there are any members of the French parliament who are neutralists. Well, there's a good deal of neutralist sentiment in the French press, isn't there, that finds expression in the French press? Not much, not much. Well, now the neutralists feel, more or less, that here are two giant imperialisms against each other, the Russians on the one side and the Americans on the other, and that it would be better for France to let these two imperialisms fight each other and to sit it out while this fight goes on. Isn't that more or less the neutralist position? I don't know, I'm not very competent for defining the neutralist position, you know. And I think it varies with individuals and it's more vague than you said. Some of them probably would like to see France using her influence for preventing a clash or diplomatic difficulties between the two camps, including even France, fortunately in the camp of the free people. It's something which is not very well defined. Mr. Ambassador, of course, France is a traditional great friend of America. It goes back to your helping us in our revolution. And of course, great many Americans have fought on French soil in the last two world wars. Now, sir, what about anti-Americanism? Are there any Frenchmen today who are hating America as the Russians want them to? I think all that comes from the Bolshevik communist propaganda. There is no other source, you know. Well, is communism on the decline now in France in your opinion? I think so. Well, what evidence is there in your opinion? Well, an evidence, for instance, in the fact that the big communist newspaper, the Humanité, you know, had two or three years ago 600,000 circulation, and now less than 200,000. The fact that during the last elections they lost half a million votes. And it was at a time when the prices were very high, the wages were low. It was really a favorable period for them. Nevertheless, they lost. And since then, we are convinced that they have still lost more votes than them. Have they been able to make any trouble on the labor front? They are unable to make a real political and a political trouble now. As a final question, Mr. Ambassador, I'm sure that viewers would like your opinion as to whether we can expect peace, whether you believe that we will have peace in the world during the next few years. I think we are doing exactly what is needed for having peace. We are making sacrifices, all of us, which are heavy for the American taxpayer, heavy for the French taxpayer, but we are building a strength for the free world which will prevent war and to maintain peace, a peace which will become a lasting one, I hope. Well, thank you very much for being with us tonight, sir. The opinions you've heard our speakers express tonight are entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Henry Haslett. Our distinguished guest was his Excellency Henri Bonnet, Ambassador from France to the United States. Laun Jean watches appeal to particular people, to men and women of discrimination who look for faultless appearance and performance in a watch, as well as in the other things that they buy. For does solid worth appeal to you too? Then for excellence and elegance, Laun Jean is the only watch in history to win ten World Fair Grand Prizes and twenty-eight gold medals. For accuracy, Laun Jean watches have won countless honors from the world's great government observatories. In a Laun Jean watch, discriminating men and women find faultless appearance and performance. So remember that if you spend $71.50 or more for a watch, you're paying the price of a Laun Jean, and you should insist on getting a Laun Jean, for throughout the world, no other name on a watch means so much as 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 issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world's honored Laun Jean. This is Frank Knight, reminding you that your mark as an American is X on the ballot. Vote for whom you please, but please vote. Enjoy Arthur Godfrey Time Daytimes on the CBS television network. 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's honored Laun Jean. Good evening, this is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this evening? Mr. William Bradford Huey, noted author and analyst, an editor-in-chief of the Laun Jean Chronoscope, and Colonel Elson Talbert, an editor of the New York Herald Tribune. Our distinguished guest for this evening is Mr. Miles J. Lane, United States Attorney. Mr. Lane, you, of course, are now one of the most famous crime fighters in the United States since your office has handled the Hiss case, the Frank Costello case, the Remington case, the Rosenberg case. So I'm sure that our viewers would like you to tell us something about these cases tonight, sir. Now, first of all, the Rosenberg case, where this man and his wife were facing electrocution, just what is the crime for which the Rosenbergs were convicted? Well, they were convicted for conspiring to violate the espionage laws in the United States, in that they had conspired to, among other things, to turn over the secrets of the atom bomb to the Soviet Union. And both this man and his wife are now facing electrocution unless the president intercede. Is that correct, sir? That's correct. I'm wondering if the Rosenbergs have given the government any help since their conviction, or given any indication that they would like to help the government in uncovering the Soviet spies? To this moment, the Rosenbergs have not cooperated at all. They've given us no information, and they've been very adamant as far as cooperation is concerned. Could they save their lives if they taught? Well, let me say this. I think the American government is quite reasonable, and if they were to cooperate to the fullest extent, I'm quite sure that that would be taken into consideration with respect to what might happen to them in the future. Well, now, with all of your experience with them and in the trial, sir, do you have any theories as to why they have refused to give the government any information at all? Well, I'm certain from what I've seen of them that they are died-in-wool communists and that they are completely devoted to the Soviet Union, and to them, it's more or less of a cause, and they probably believe that they are modest to a cause or something of that effect. Now, do you think that it's terribly important that our government force them to talk or else execute them? Well, you put that question rather an odd way. I think it's very important to this government that we take a firm attitude, not only towards the Rosenbergs, but towards anybody that conspires in any way to overthrow this country or to commit acts of espionage against it. You think that perhaps it might have some effect on future cases if these people do not talk on how much information we might get out of future cases? Well, I think it will have a direct bearing upon future cases if we don't take a very firm attitude. Now, could you illustrate for our viewers just how extensive was their knowledge about some of our secret activities? During the course of the trial, there was testimony that the Rosenbergs had information respecting such things as our fire control system, atomic energy for airplanes. They also had some knowledge of this rocket that was in contemplation one time called the Sky Platform, which was a huge rocket, which was to be sent into space and held there and through a system of electronics that could come down and destroy a city. They also had information as it was developed at the trial respecting our fire control and our underwater detection of submarines. Then it isn't true, sir, that they were very small fish. A great many Americans, I'm sure, are wondering if they weren't inconsequential people. From your experience, that is not true. They were relatively high up in the apparatus. Well, I don't know just how high up they were, but I think that the Rosenbergs were very important in the apparatus or one of the apparatuses. Well, now, you've just secured the conviction of William Remington, I believe, for a crime somewhat similar to the crime of Alger Hiss. Isn't that correct, Mr. Lane? Both Hiss and Remington were convicted for perjury. And one of the counts upon which Remington was convicted was for having given over secret a classified information to a representative of the Communist Party who was also a Soviet courier. Hiss was convicted for perjury and denying that he had ever given over any information or classified a secret information from the State Department to, I believe, what it could chamber. So in both instances, although they were both Remington and Hiss were convicted for perjury, it was perjury for lying, in effect, when they were asked whether or not they had given over any classified information to others outside of the government departments. Well, there's no doubt about the fact that both of these men were members of this apparatus, which you've just described, is there? No, well, I wouldn't say that. They certainly knew people who were communists, but whether or not they, actually members of the Communist Party, it's difficult to say. Remington, of course, was also convicted for having lied when he said that he had no knowledge of the young Communist League at Dartmouth. And in the course of the trial, we developed that he had many contacts with communists, and he attended Communist Party meetings and so forth. Well, incidentally, that young Communist League at Dartmouth had ejected a rather human note in the trial. Well, I believe you're an alumnus of Dartmouth, aren't you? Well, I happened to be the president of the general alumni at Dartmouth, and naturally with so many Dartmouth men being needled and ribbed a little bit, respecting the fact that they were communists at Dartmouth in the late 30s, I was most anxious that Remington be convicted, not only because I felt he was guilty, but also because of the fact that I was a Dartmouth man and as a prosecutor of Remington, I don't think it hurt the college too much to have a Dartmouth man put Remington away. Would you say that you had the full support of the Dartmouth alumni in this matter? I would say without fear of contradiction that I had the 100% support of every Dartmouth alumnus in existence. Well, sir, I'm sure that our viewers would expect to hear from you the latest report on the Costello case. What's Costello doing now? Well, Costello was convicted, as you know, for contempt of the Senate, and he is now in Mylan prison. Yesterday, we started an action against him in connection with a lien on his income taxes for roughly $480,000. And we also have a denaturation case against him in the office, which should come on before hearing a trial in the not-too-distant future. Well, in all of this very interesting experience that you've had, sir, the one that's in the news most tonight is the waterfront situation in New York. Now, can you give our viewers outside of New York some indication of how extensive graft is on the waterfront? Well, we have had, as you know, there are several, there's a state crime commission working here on the waterfront and doing an excellent job. And I have had a grand jury working for the past 10 months. And that has done a magnificent job also. In the course of their deliberations and probings, we have found extensive evidence of, or rather, evidence of extensive corruption and kickbacks and all that sort of thing. And does this corruption affect every American family in some way, would you say? In view of the fact that New York is the greatest port in the world and the commerce of New York way out of the distance is that of any other, I would say that the corruption and the kickbacks and all that sort of thing in New York City affects the life of every single American. And I think it is a particularly interest to every housewife in America because the graft and the kickbacks will affect the price of every commodity that's being used by every family in the United States. Mr. Lane, you've prosecuted successfully gangsters, communists and racketeers. I'm wondering what you think is the nation's greatest menace. Well, if I were to pick out any one thing as the greatest menace that this nation faces is the complacency of a lot of our citizens. I mean, I think the American public is sufficiently intelligent, probably the most intelligent public in the world and I have all the confidence in the world in it. However, I think that we've got to realize that it's time for us to accept the responsibilities as citizens and by that I mean this, that we should have more people interested in doing jury duty and also taking an interest in parent-teachers clubs and taking a very intense interest in the future of the younger people of the country. Well, as a final question, Mr. Lane, a great deal has been written and said about the part that labor unions may have had to do with the waterfront scandals. Now, are you going, do you expect to get the cooperation of the American Federation of Labor in the investigations? Oh, I think the American Federation has shown that it's with us 100%. I don't think that labor itself is at fault a bit. I think labor, in labor they have a few unscrupulous leaders and the management also has a few in its ranks. Now, I have every confidence in labor and I'm sure the American Federation of Labor will do everything it can to cleanse itself of the wrong elements. Well, thank you, sir, for being with us this evening. Thank you. 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. William Bradford Huey and Colonel Elsall Talbert. Our distinguished guest was Mr. Miles J. Lane, United States Attorney. Lone Gene is a superior watch in every respect. In fact, it's one of the finest watches made anywhere in the world. Yet Lone Gene isn't a class by itself. Thus, among the finest of the world's watches, Lone Gene watches alone have won 10 World's Fair Grand Prizes and 28 Gold Medals at World's Fair as an international exposition and in the competitive accuracy trials recognized by great government observatories, the brilliant record of Lone Gene over the years is a surpassing achievement. Yes, Lone Gene is in a class by itself, for Lone Gene is the world's most honored watch. So we're next you by a watch, either to indulge yourself or to give boundless pleasure to another. By all means, see and examine the Lone Gene watches now at your authorized jeweler agency. In style, they're the last word in good taste. In construction, they are worthless. In performance, they'll satisfy your every need. Among the finest watches of the world, there's but one 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 and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem. Agency for Lone Gene Wittner Watches. This Sunday night, Ed Sullivan presents The Walt Disney Story on the CBS television network.