 Time for the Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important dishes 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. Elliot Haynes, an editor of United Nations World. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the honorable Scott Lucas, former United States Senator from Illinois. The opinions expressed are necessarily those of the speakers. Senator Lucas, our viewers, of course, remember your many years in the Senate down to 1950, and they know that you come from Illinois, where you've been a longtime friend of Governor Stevenson. So tonight, I'm sure that our viewers will be particularly interested in your analysis of some of the developments in the campaign. Tonight, sir, the most sensational development is the revelation that Senator Nixon has received certain financial aid from some of his backers. And now, sir, from your long experience in the Senate, first, do you think that there has been some violation of the law in the Nixon matter? Well, Mr. Huey, I should like to answer that question in this way. I believe that I understand something about the revenue section of the statutes at the present time, having served a number of years on the finance committee of the United States Senate. And it is my considered opinion, sir, that any money that is used by any senator for the purpose of paying employees in his office must be considered as gross income. And as I understand from the press and from Senator Nixon's statement in the press, that part of the $16,000 that he has received from this group of private friends in California was used for that purpose, along with the payment of postage and other expenses around his office. Well, now, was it a violation of the law for these men in California to spend this money in this manner? I do not know what the setup is in California with respect to the fund that's involved. Obviously, if they set up a tax free corporation, there might be some question about that, but I've seen no evidence to that effect up at the present time. Now, it would be interesting to know whether or not these individuals who contributed to this fund deducted it in their income taxes. There is a law, however, which is, I think, elementary and one that everyone can understand on the contributions that are made to a United States senator. Do you recall the exact... Well, I have a... Well, I have a... Yes, Mr. Huey, I have a copy of that law and you can find it in the United States Code Amitated of 1914. I'm sure that our viewers would appreciate your reading just exactly what the law is. Well, I'm going to read the part of the section which I think definitely applies to any individual who makes a contribution to a senator, and here's what it says, under the caption of salary of government officials and employees payable only by United States. Whoever, whether a person, association, or corporation, makes any contribution to or in any way supplements the salary of any government official or employee for the services performed by him for the government of the United States shall be fined not more than the thousand dollars or in prison not more than six months or both. Now, that sounds pretty serious, Senator. I wonder what effect you think this will have on General Eisenhower's campaign. Well, I don't know what effect it's going to have on General Eisenhower's campaign. That's a matter, of course, for the public to decide. But it does seem to me that this collection of the sixteen thousand dollars and by a group of private people for the benefit of a senator is a very dangerous precedent. And one, if it were followed by every senator and every congressman in the United States would destroy representative government in this country. Well, now, sir, you're, of course, a distinguished attorney as well as a former member of the United States Senate. Now, has someone been guilty of a felony here in your opinion? If they meet the provisions of this section and I can only tell you what the press has said. If the people in California have violated this section, which according to the papers they have, then in my judgment they have definitely committed a felony. Senator, why do you think that this is a dangerous precedent for a U.S. Senator's set? Well, I'll tell you why. In the first place, I think that the money that was used in that way should have been used as part of the growth of the senator's receipts during that year. And if every senator and every congressman were permitted to do this, if the standards for ethical acceptance of expense money from private individuals tax-free is, for instance, under the Nixon formula, $800 per month, then do you realize that the member of, each member of the Senate would accept $800 per month from private individuals he would receive during these six years, $57,600. And for a total of six years, the senators would receive $5,529,600, all tax-free if the theory of the contributors in California and Senator Nixon's theory is correct. On the House side, if you want to go into a little more mathematics, the House members accepting that same proposition would receive $8,352,000 during a two-year period, all tax-free. And in addition, you think that would put them in the pockets of the private individuals that gave them the money? Well, I don't know about that. I'm not going to say that, but certainly if a group of individuals contributes to a United States senator the tune of $800 a month, he must feel somewhat obligated to them to perform services of some kind for them. And I don't say that Senator Nixon's done that at all. On the question of political tactics, sir, up till now, Senator Nixon and General Eisenhower have been making quite a case against the Democrats in the matter of corruption, I believe. Now, this issue is, this being handed to the Democrats is almost providential, isn't it? Well, I, you could call it that if you want to, Mr. Huey. You know, they're good men and bad men in every political party and in every walk of life. And I don't think any political party's ever had any monopoly on honesty in government. There's a few fellows in government, of course, that have been bad. And they ought to be out of the doubt of government. I agree with all of those who believe that men in government that are dishonest should be punished and put out. But after all, you're getting some pretty big face around here when you talk about a vice president doing the thing, candidate doing the thing. Well, I'm sure, Senator, that that's very interesting. But I viewers wouldn't want you to leave without reminding, without telling them something about Governor Stevenson, whom you've known so well. I should like to make one more comment on the Nixon affair. If these individuals who have made the contributions to Mr. Nixon are telling the truth about the situation, then any employee to whom they have made payment, they should have a with, they should withhold social security tax. And I'm wondering whether they've done that or not. It's a very important matter and a very important point in this whole thing. Senator Lucas, talking about men in government, I understand that you had a lot to do with getting Governor Stevenson into politics, didn't you? Well, I have never said much about it. I think I did have some made some contribution towards getting the governor into politics in the early days. I was chairman of the tax commission under the late Governor Horner and he and I used to discuss it along with the late Lloyd Lewis, who was one of the most forensic and one of the finest political editors in that section of the country. We were all great friends of Stevenson and we used to talk about the potential possibilities of Adley Stevenson going into politics. And Lloyd Lewis and I begged him several times to get into politics because his father was Secretary of State under the Dunn administration, his grandfather was vice president under Cleveland and he just had it, politics. In his blood it seemed to me and with his unusual ability and his great attainments and his high standards of political morality told me that he ought to be a fine man for the political field. Well, sir, now how do you how well do you think he's he's acted as a political candidate thus far? I think that Governor Stevenson has carried on a very constructive and magnificent campaign up to date. And many, many individuals whom I have talked, both Democrats and Republicans are very confident that this man has what it takes in connection with operating as an executive of this great government. Well, as a final question, Senator Lucas, I'm sure that our viewers would like you to predict exactly how you think first the farm vote will go and how they how the nation will vote on November the 4th. Well, it's pretty difficult to predict how the farm vote will go. Farmer told me who lived just across the river in the last election four years ago that he and he was strong Republican. He told me that he changed his mind after he got into his automobile going to the polling booth. And I think that in these unusual critical times where the world is in a turmoil like it is that people are not going to make up their mind overnight. But you do. But you do expect a democratic victory. I do expect a democratic victory and the 19 million independent voters of this country are bound to go along, not all of them perhaps, but I say the majority are bound to go along with with Adley Stevenson. Well, I'm sorry, sir. I'm afraid our time is up and thank you very much for being with us tonight. Glad to be with you, sir. The editorial board for this edition of the Lone Jean Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Elliott Haynes. Our distinguished guest was the honorable Scott Lucas, former United States Senator from Illinois. This is New York, 1866, when the laundry with no much company first opened its doors for business. They were sailing ships on the Hudson River, no bridges, no subways, no tunnel. And yet two million people already lived on Manhattan Island. This was the scene when our company's travelers first brought laundry and watches to find jewelers throughout the land. It has been said that what's passed is prelude. Well, this was the prelude to 86 years of leadership in the art of fine watchmaking, a leadership symbolized by 10 World's Fair grand prizes, 28 gold medal awards, and highest honors for accuracy from the world's great government observatories. These Lone Jean watches are the end product of 86 years of fine watchmaking for beauty, for greater accuracy, for the promise of a long and useful life. They are the finest Lone Jean watches ever made. So whenever you may need a watch, for yourself or as a gift, remember these facts. And remember, too, that you may buy and own or buy and proudly give the Lone Jean watch for as little as $71.50. Lone Jean, the world's most honored watch, premier product of the Lone Jean with no 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 Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important dishes of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Lone Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittnor Distinguished Companion to the World Honored Lone Jean. This is Frank Knight, reminding you that Lone Jean and Wittnor watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem. Agency for Lone Jean Wittnor watches. Join the Battle of the Ages on the CBS television network.