 It's time for the Lawn Gene Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, a presentation of the Lawn Gene Wettner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Gene, the world's most honored watch, and Wettner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lawn Gene. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lawn Gene Chronoscope? Larry Lasser from the CBS News staff and August Hector, chief editorial writer for the New York Herald Tribune. Our distinguished guest for this evening is Charles E. Salciman, Undersecretary of State. The State Department has been going through a series of shake-ups, big and little, as far back as this reporter can remember, and this year is no exception. But for a change, this time the most recent investigation has aimed, it seems to me, at building up the morale of the State Department. And our guest tonight has been in charge of carrying out his recommendations. So we'd like to ask Mr. Salciman, just what was the situation as you found it when you came into this job? I came into this job just after the so-called Riston Committee, the Secretary of State's public committee on personnel had made its report and the Secretary of State had adopted its fundamental recommendations. And at that time, recruiting at the bottom of the Foreign Service Officer Corps had dried up almost to nothing. And although the responsibilities of the State Department since World War II had increased enormously, and it had to bear the brunt of the Cold War on behalf of the United States, the Foreign Service Officer Corps had not only had not grown, it had gotten smaller in the last two or three years. And the Riston Committee, Mr. Salciman, had made recommendations for remedying this situation? Yes, they had. The Riston Committee had made recommendations for integrating into the Foreign Service Officer Corps the other people in the State Department who were doing the same kind of work as Foreign Service Officers. One third of whom were in Washington and not subject to serving anywhere in the world like Foreign Service Officers. The other third were abroad like Foreign Service Officers, but administered under an entirely different system so that you had three different groups doing the same thing. Well, one group couldn't go into the jobs of the other group. I take the Foreign Service as sort of the core delete of the State Department, isn't it? And everybody tried to get in that but couldn't get into it? Well, that's right, yes. Did you find the Foreign Service to be full of the sort of people we see in the stereotype what are called cookie-pushers, people who have lived so long abroad that they've forgotten what America is like? No, I'm not at all. I think that idea, if it ever was appropriate, ceased to be appropriate many years ago. Well, actually, didn't you find that some of the members of the Foreign Service were a little bit too Europeanized and had been too long out of the country to know America well anymore? I think that is certainly true. When the Riston Committee made its report, only 125 out of 1200 in some Foreign Service Officers were on duty in the United States. That means about 10 percent. In other words, Foreign Service Officers as a group were practically an exile, and very few of them had had any considerable amount of service in the United States at all. Well, there have been some complaints, Mr. Salsman, that the State Department is full of people who only wear striped pants. I think that stems from a rather an Ivy League tradition, that you have to be a member of the Ivy League colleges of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, or at least an Easterner to get into the State Department. Now, is this true under your new program? One of the major recommendations of the Riston Committee, which was adopted by the Secretary, was that recruiting be in future on a regional basis or a state basis, so that the recruits will represent more completely and proportionately all parts of the country. You didn't have to be an Ivy Leagueer, but there was a disproportionate number of people from the Eastern Coast and from the Eastern colleges. Do you believe that you can build up a Democratic Foreign Service, a Democratic in the sense of a Foreign Service that really is open to all people, regardless of their financial background or their educational advantages? Yes, I do, particularly if Congress supports us in the scholarship program, which is recommended by the Secretary's Public Committee. But what is that, Mr. Salsman? That was a proposal that there be organized a system of scholarships competitive in nature, and given on a regional or a state basis, where young men and women who've done well in their first two years in college would get a scholarship from the State Department for their last two years, provided they agreed to compete for positions in the Foreign Service upon graduation and agreed to serve not less than six years after graduation. Does this mean that anybody who is going to college now could possibly get into this scholarship course to get into the Foreign Service? They possibly could, yes. And does this mean also I take it that there could be women ambassadors as well as men ambassadors? Yes, but that's true now. There is one, yes. Switzerland, isn't it? Yes. Well, actually, Mr. Salsman, what about our Foreign Service men and their ability to become ambassadors? Isn't it true, nevertheless, that it takes a position of wealth or a large contribution to campaign funds to become an ambassador to a large country like the Court of St. James or to Paris? Can we ever get around that or is that a part of the American dynamics? Well, traditionally or by custom, the largest posts have been filled by political appointees, usually ones who had ample means because to do the job properly takes a lot of money. However, the present time, about two-thirds of our missions are headed by career Foreign Service officers and that's a figure which has been increasing steadily. Mr. Salsman, you are, I think, in charge of security in the State Department. Yes, I am. You have overall responsibility for the the firings in the State Department on security grounds. Yes. Has that problem caused difficulties and morale since you've been there? I don't think there's any doubt that the security program which resulted from the executive order of the President issued in 1953, which applied to all the executive departments, was a blow to morale while it was going on because it required a complete recheck of all people occupying sensitive positions on security, from the security point of view and Secretary of State quite rightly decided that all the people in the State Department would be deemed to be occupying sensitive positions. Therefore, all of our people are 11,000 American employees, had to be rechecked. I'm glad to say that's practically over now, but while it was going on, it undoubtedly was disquieting to the personnel. Mr. Salsman, I think the public is a little bit confused on the difference between question of loyalty and a question of security. I certainly am confused. I wonder if you'd explained the difference between loyalty and security when it comes under question. Well, loyalty has to do with loyalty or disloyalty to the United States. A person can be a security risk without being disloyal. If I'm an employee and I'm an habitual drunk and I have to do with confidential and classified matters, I think you might find I'm a security risk, though I might never have dreamt of being disloyal to the United States. So in your program, you really don't have to seek or prove disloyalty in any way, do you? No. Well, is this the first time that this sort of man has been weeded out of the State Department? Surely there must have been some questions of people's aptitudes and abilities before the recent committee was established. Oh, of course there has. The State Department as an employer has been like most employers, I suppose, since it was first organized, and people have been weeded out because they were unsuitable for their job through the years. Wouldn't it be better, though, just to fire a man as a drunk and not confuse the issue by calling him a security risk? I don't know. I think you have to have an order about security risks. Well, Mr. Salsman, isn't it a fact that since the State Department has been a whipping boy for a number of years now by politicians that morale has been damaged now? Has it been damaged irreparably? Certainly not. I'm sure of that. When I came in the State Department, I'd heard a lot of talk, as everyone else has, about morale being bad. I don't believe the morale is bad. I'm quite sure it isn't in the headquarters in Washington because I'm there most of the time. I've just come back from visiting nine of our posts abroad in Europe and North Africa, where I saw a great many of our people in groups and individually. On the whole, I'm sure that the morale is generally very good. Well, I wonder if it's possible for our foreign servicemen to report to the State Department of Washington as accurately as they feel they should report without falling into the position of being thought to be traitors because they weren't reporting what the politicians at home wanted to hear. Now, does your new program take care of that sort of thing? Danger, isn't it? Well, our new program didn't have occasion to address itself directly to that, but I'm sure that the judgment at the Washington end is not based on what people might want to hear and I have every confidence that our foreign service people abroad have enough character to report the things as they see them. But are you rewarding initiative and courage, both physical and moral? Are you promoting people faster in proportion as they are independent and show this initiative? Yes, I think so because our promotion is on a selection basis on merit and the people who show the most merit, including the people who do the most accurate and careful reporting, are more apt to be promoted than ones who don't. Mr. Salsman, we're in for a long haul now, but we presume that the Cold War will be of long duration. Do you think the State Department and its men who are in the forefront of the Cold War and the struggle for allies are fit for this battle of our lives? Yes, I do. I think they're a splendid group of men and women. I think if this program that the Secretary has directed be carried out is carried out promptly and effectively, as I'm sure it will be, they'll be even better. It's obvious to everyone that the State Department must be as effective as it possibly can in the Cold War because the Cold War is essentially a State Department war. This program will give it a better personnel organization and a better personnel management for that purpose. Mr. Salsman, I don't know if you have any sons, but if you did, would you encourage them to go into the Foreign Service? Yes, I would. Because you think they would be rewarded in service and with promotions possibly? I think they would, particularly if the things now planned are putting to effect. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Salsman. It's very kind of you to come up from Washington to talk to us about this. The opinions expressed on the Longeen Chronoscope were those of the speakers. The editorial board for this edition of the Longeen Chronoscope was Larella Sir and August Heckscher. Our distinguished guest was Charles E. Salsman, Undersecretary of State. To watchmakers of the old school such as Longeen, Pride of Workmanship is a traditional attribute of every detail of every operation. In a watch in truth, the smallest cog is just as important as the biggest wheel. Pride of Workmanship made Longeen the world's most honored watch. Honored at world fairs by 10 grand prizes and 28 gold medals. Honored at government observatories with countless prizes and citations for accuracy. Honored as official watch by sports and contest associations the world over. For all who have an appreciation of the fine and the beautiful, the pride of workmanship so evident in every Longeen watch makes an irresistible appeal. Our particular message at this time is an important one. If you're planning the purchase of a watch as an important Christmas gift and you want to give just about the finest watch made anywhere in the world, your choice might well be Longeen the world's most honored watch. And do you know that there are many beautiful Longeen watches for ladies and gentlemen priced as low as $71.50. Longeen the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift, premier product of the Longeen Whitney 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 Longeen Chronoscope, the television journal of the important issues of the hour broadcast on behalf of Longeen, the world's most honored watch, and Wettner, distinguished companion to the world honored Longeen. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Longeen and Wettner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem. Agency for Longeen Wettner watches.