 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 David Ross. 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 Herald Tribune. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the honorable Everett Dirksen, United States Senator from Illinois. The opinions expressed are necessarily those of the speakers. Senator Dirksen is one of the leading Republican spokesmen in Congress and also of the presidential campaign. We'd like some of your current views from Washington. Now, I understand, sir, that you have just recently introduced a bill in the Senate which would limit the powers of the wage stabilization board. And since the WSB is tied so directly with the steel situation, I wish you'd tell us something about it. Well, Mr. Rogers, you're quite correct. As a matter of fact, there is pending in the Senate Banking Committee at the present time an amendment that I offer to the Defense Production Act that springs out of the steel controversy. In essence, of course, it would give statutory authority of the wage stabilization board, which exists today, as a matter of fact, only under executive authority and executive order. And secondly, it would send back issues like union shop and representation to the National Labor Relations Board for administration under the Taft-Hartley Act as designed by Congress in the first instance. You do not feel that these belong with the WSB. That's quite correct. And then there's one other very important aspect of this amendment, and that is that the number of members on the board or public members must exceed the aggregate of industry and labor members, and the public members would be confirmed by the Senate. Why do you insist on this, Senator Dirksen? Do you feel that the wage stabilization board, as it is presently constituted, is slanted toward labor? Well, as a matter of fact, I sat through most of the testimony, including that of Governor Arnold, the Price Administrator, Mr. Roger Putnam, the Economic Stabilization Administrator, and also Mr. Feinsinger. And then later on, of course, we had Charlie Wilson. And I came to the conclusion from the testimony that they were more interested in labor at peace than they were in the principle that was involved, and that you got some rather oblige sentiment. And for that reason, I want to see the public members of the board confirmed by the Senate, because then, at least, we can be sure we are going to get public members who represent the public interest. Well, Senator, now at present, the wage stabilization board has 18 members, hasn't it? That's correct. And six of them are from labor, and six of them supposedly from industry, and six of them supposedly represent the public. That's right. And none of them are confirmed by the Senate. None whatsoever, and all are appointed by the President. And what you want to do is to make most of them public members and to require that the Senate approve them so that you can examine the record and possible biases of each one of those members. As a matter of fact, Mr. Hewitt, I would have no objection to making them all public members because it is the larger public interest that is involved here and then have all of them confirmed by the Senate. As a matter of fact, when Mr. Einal was on our show a couple of weeks ago, he said that it was in the public interest that he made his decision for the President to seize the steel industry. Well, that could be a matter of opinion, of course. And when it comes to my own viewpoint with respect to seizure, I think it was illegal. I think it was unjustifiable. I think it was unwarranted and that there was no constitutional excuse for it whatsoever. Do you think that if the wage stabilization board had a public membership, Mr. Einal would have been able to reach this conclusion? I doubt very much, as a matter of fact, and if he'd had real public representation on the board confirmed by the Senate, the chances are that we wouldn't have this controversy on the national doorstep today. Now, this dirksen amendment, sir, to change or to redefine the powers of the WSB, what chance do you think that has of being adopted? Well, I think it has a fair chance, of course. I think it has a fair chance in sort of polling the committee a little from time to time, and if for any reason it fails in the committee, certainly it will be offered on the Senate floor. And I'm of the opinion, of course, because of the controversy now that it will commend itself to the serious thinking of the members of the Senate. Now, the administration is opposed to it. Oh, very definitely so. And what grounds, sir? Well, they think, of course, the board is presently constituted as doing a good job with the present time. Is there any evidence from your constituency that the WSB is doing a good job? None whatsoever that I know. And as a matter of fact, of course, people back home don't know too much about the operations within the board. I had, however, a chance to read the recommendations of the board many times. I read the dissenting views of the labor members and the industry members, and I come to the conclusion that there was a little bias there. And so in the hope of eliminating that there'll be no recurrence of this difficulty in other industries like oil and rubber and aluminum that involve the national interest in the defense efforts, I want to see the board reconstituted and given statutory authority. Do you fear that that will happen, that we will have similar situations, say in oil, there's a strike in the oil industry at the present time? Well, Mr. Rogers, as a matter of fact, a controversy relating to oil is before a couple of panels and rubber may be there, aluminum might come on, and there might be a good many others and we simply cannot afford it. It could very logically progress to the doorstep of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, couldn't it? Exactly so. Senator, our audience, of course, is gravely concerned in this crisis, and I'm sure that they would appreciate a prediction from you as to how you think this constitutional crisis is going to be resolved. Well, Mr. Hewitt, of course, the Supreme Court is not always predictable, as you know, and there have been so many sharp fives before dissents and decisions by the Supreme Court, they might very conceivably not pass on the seizure issue at all, and simply go on the theory that the Taft-Hartley Act, which was created by Congress and which is, after all, a trustee of Congress operated by the National Labor Relations Board, has a certain authority and certain remedies that have not yet been exercised, and they may very simply say, until all the remedies have been exercised, there is no occasion for them to pass on the major issue. Are you saying, sir, that you don't anticipate an early decision by the Supreme Court in this matter? Oh, not necessarily. They may pass on this very shortly, as a matter of fact, because of the high public interest. We'd like one other observation from you, sir. Do you think that anything has happened to the judiciary that the American people should be concerned about? What is the judiciary still an adequate check and balance on executive power in this country? Well, I don't like particularly to pass on that question, except to say that I can find you a lot of people in the country who have their fingers crossed on that one, and are beginning to wonder whether a political note has intruded itself into the judicial findings in the country. Well, speaking of crossing the fingers and the intrusion of political notes, Senator Dixon, this afternoon, or late this afternoon, Federal Reserve Board in Washington announced that it was withdrawing controls on installment buying, an announcement which I'm sure will have some profound effect around the country. Now, do you notice any political influence in this decision? It means, essentially, that the last holdout on controls over the purchasing, over the vast spending that went on in this country following the Korean incident is now lifted. Well, now, Mr. Rogers, if you'll bear with me just a minute, I'll give you what I think is a rounded answer. First of all, I shared a view that has been expressed by a number of people in Washington and in the Senate, that by means of control, by means of credit controls, by means of taxes, and by means of reduced public spending, we might have kept this thing in balance without the necessity for the kind of physical controls that we have today. Now then, I'm beginning to think as this thing softens up, and I see a softening of business in a good many sections of the country, that the administration seems to be interested in keeping this fake prosperity, as I call it, going until Election Day. And if you need authority for it, we look at the President's message on the State of the Union to the joint session in which he said, the domestic economic issues and the international matters cannot be separated. That's just another happy way of saying that you can't separate the cushy jobs from the corpses. In other words, you feel, sir, that the administration is endeavoring to maintain inflation and to maintain what you call a fake prosperity until November 4th. Well, when you see the administration candidates and the candidates for the presidency around the country talking about the prosperity that the Democrats have brought to the country, obviously that's going to be one of the key issues with them in the campaign. They're going to utilize it and cash in on it. They've got to maintain it. And to maintain it, you've got to do certain rather peculiar and queer things. And maybe this is one of them. Now, sir, what do you mean by fake prosperity? Why do you call it a fake prosperity? Well, Mr. Huey, whenever a prosperity is drenched with young blood, I call it fake prosperity and I've got a better name for it than that. I call it blood and graveyard prosperity. You are, I suppose, referring to Korea, sir. Well, as a matter of fact and may I mention this now that you raised Korea, what a singular thing it is that we're observing the 7th anniversary of VE Day and here we are immersed in a struggle 7,000 miles from home where the casualty list has piled mountain high and it almost aggregates 109,000 American casualties at the present time. But here you've got surplus labor going into the defense plants of the country. Here, under mutual security and a special plan and that sort of thing, we are exporting some of the surpluses from America. That is not a durable prosperity. It's got just a little touch of holy young blood upon it and that's why I call it a piece of fakery. Senator Dixon, you, of course, have been very active in the presidential campaign and I'm sure that you're a great leader in the protest movement against the administration. I'm sure that our audience would like to have your prediction now about the fight against the government this year is going. Well, Mr. Hewitt, are you referring to the campaign on the Republican side of the campaign? Yes, I mean... Well, as the world so well knows I've thrown my marbles in with Bob Taft. I'm always heartened by the fact that as I get around the country they say he's the best that the Republican party has and then, of course, they condition it a little by saying, but of course, as you know, he can't win. Well, as a matter of fact, I managed his campaign so he gave him a little over 900,000 votes as a demonstration that Bob Taft can win. Well, thank you. And so I'm very much in Bob Taft's corner because I think he would make a great president and he may not make the greatest president that Europe ever had, but he'll be one of the greatest that America ever had. Well, thank you very much for being with us tonight, sir. The editorial board for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Donald I. Rogers. The Honorable Everett Dirksen, United States Senator from Illinois. Do you have the problem of selecting a gift of great prestige for someone important to you? Well, that problem is most happily solved with Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch because of the fine quality of the watch itself and because of what the name Lawn Jean stands for. To the whole world, Lawn Jean stands as the only watch in history to win the highest of all awards 38 times at world's fairs and international expositions including 10 grand prizes and 28 gold medals. Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, stands for the watch of first choice in sports, aviation, science and other fields of precise timing. Lawn Jean stands for the only watch to be classified first at the four great government observatories, Washington, Geneva, Huey-Teddington and Neuchâtel. The gift of great prestige for graduation and anniversary for any important occasion is Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch and throughout the world no other name on a watch means so much. Yet you may buy and own or buy and proudly give a Lawn Jean watch for as little as $71.50. Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, premier product of the Lawn Jean Witton or Watch Company since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. This is David Ross speaking for your regular host Frank Knight, inviting you to join us every Monday, Wednesday and Friday evening at the 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 Witton or distinguished companion to the world honored Lawn Jean sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem. Agency for Lawn Jean Witton or Watches. This is the CBS television network.