 It's 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 Wettner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wettner, 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. From the CBS television news staff, Larry Lassur and Winston Bridette. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Kenneth B. Keating, representative from New York. Representative Keating, you are a veteran of both world wars. I'd like to ask you something about a situation which exists today. Do you think the time has now come for the government to frame new defense policies in the light of the hydrogen bomb? Well, Larry, I'm no expert, even though I have had some military experience. My feeling is that we mustn't get into hysteria over some new development. We have known of the potentiality, increasingly dangerous potentialities of these atomic weapons, and we're making plans to meet those threats, and I have the feeling that we have in the White House today a man who is the best able to cope with that problem of anyone in the world that I can think of, and I am perfectly content to leave the decision as to what changes, what shifts in our defense policy should be made to him and his advisers. Representative Keating, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, do you regard the threat to the security of this country as coming primarily from the outside, or is it primarily an internal threat, as some congressmen have said? Well, it's both. In my opinion, the communist conspiracy is international. There is certainly a threat from the outside, and there is great evidence that there are those in our own country, among our own people, who would seek to destroy us. I can't understand it, but we're bound to admit that that exists. I don't know which is the greater. We must take steps to deal with both of those problems in my judgment. Representative Keating, regarding the internal threat, what about the Attorney General's request for a wiretapping bill? Are you in favor of that? I am in favor of it. I'm the author of a bill which has been favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee and is now before the House for Action. That bill permits the use in evidence of, in criminal trials, involving treason, espionage, sabotage, sedition, seditious conspiracy, and violation of the Atomic Energy Act of evidence which has been obtained by intercepting communications, sometimes called wiretapping. Representative, do you think that as a high-ranking member of the Judiciary Committee that the Attorney General should have the power to order wiretaps or should they be brought about as a court order and only upon a court order? Well, that is a subject upon which many very reasonable and sensible and good people differ. I originally felt that it was desirable to go to the court and obtain a court order. In fact, I introduced a bill which provided for that before permitting the use of the evidence in court. Now, I became convinced that it should be done by the Attorney General, and I'd be glad to tell you why I became convinced of that. It must be remembered that this evidence is legally obtained. It exists now. This, what we're talking about, is whether or not it can be used in evidence, in court, in prosecutions for offenses involving our national security. Now, there's a certain amount of delay going to ensue from going to a court. There are that many more people that are going to find out about it, and then the thing that clinched it with me was this. When in conferences with the Attorney General and Mr. Hoover, the director of the FBI, I was told that under orders of the Attorney General, the FBI had already intercepted communications in cases where there was evidence which could be used in court against people, against enemies of our country, which they have already collected but are barred from using under existing statutes. Well, wouldn't this be an exposed facto law then? No. If we required a court order in such cases, they couldn't use that evidence because it wasn't obtained by court order. There was nothing requiring them to get it, and it is not exposed facto for this reason. That phrase applies to creating a new crime later. Well, this is not the creation of a new crime. It's simply permitting the use and evidence of evidence already obtained. Well, there's a possibility that we might be giving too much power to the police authorities of the country by giving the Attorney General the soul right to order our attacks. Well, the Attorney General is an enforcement officer, and he's the officer charged with the responsibility of enforcing the criminal laws of our country. Of course, probably our most important criminal laws in the nation, federal laws, are those relating to our internal security, such as treason. And I think that he is the one peculiarly able to decide whether it is an appropriate case for the information to be obtained in this way. And it centralizes responsibility in him so that if he acts gets out of line and does not act in accordance with the proprieties, the Congress has one man upon whom they can pin the responsibility instead of having it defused among two or three hundred federal judges throughout the country. Sir, to take up another of your personal proposals, your bills which you have brought forward, what is the status now of your bill for granting immunity from prosecution to persons who otherwise might plead the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination? Well, that is, as you say, another administration measure along with the anti-trader or wiretap bill. Now, this bill would permit the Attorney General to grant immunity from prosecution in certain cases if he felt that the national interest required it, and then compel those witnesses to testify. That bill is now in committee, and a hearing is expected very shortly on it, and I am hopeful that it will be reported favorably very soon by the Judiciary Committee. I want to call your attention to this, that there were in the 1953 and just the congressional committees of Congress three hundred and five people who refused to answer whether or not they were communists or whether or not they had committed espionage or questions of that kind. Now, the people are upset throughout this country with that. We, of course, want to maintain our constitutional safeguards. There are very prominent jurists who think that perhaps the reason for the Fifth Amendment may have gone by now, that it was established first at a time, in an effort to avoid people being forced to confess by torture. And that that doesn't exist now. I don't agree with that. I think we should retain it. But I do think that we've got to meet this situation, this challenge to our security, imposed by these people, and in certain cases require them to answer but grant them immunity from prosecution. Representative Keating, I was going to say, may I ask what would you do to people who are granted immunity from prosecution who refuse to tell if they are members of the Communist Party, refuse to tell who are the members of their cells? Well, that's no ground under their Supreme Court decisions on that. One cannot refuse to answer on the ground that it may incriminate someone else. That is not a valid ground under the Fifth Amendment for refusing and the Supreme Court is so held. The only person who can refuse to answer and not be abusing the Fifth Amendment is one who believes, sincerely in his own heart, that his answer, if truthful, would tend to incriminate. Sir, I'd like to ask you this. Are there any legal precedents in our states, in any of our states, for granting to an attorney general some of the special powers that would be granted? Oh, yes. In 32 of our 48 states, for instance, permit the use of the evidence intercepted by wiretap in courts and the immunity. On the authorization of the... No, no. I think in most of those cases, and great many of them, it does require court order. That's true. But on the immunity question, I think nearly every state prosecuting officer has that power now to grant immunity from prosecution. In the federal jurisdiction, they don't have it at all. And my bill would extend it not only to congressional committees, but also to courts and before grand juries. Representative Keating, as one of the real experts on the judiciary of this country, I'd like to ask you if you believe that in this special investigation of the McCarthy subcommittee, whether you think Senators McCarthy should have the right to cross-examine witnesses on that hearing, although he has a part in the case? Well, in the Code of Fair Play that I've drawn up and have introduced in the House as a bill, and it provided for everyone to have anyone whose name was brought into a hearing in a way that he thought injured him to have the right of cross-examination for not to exceed one hour. And I would believe that anyone should have that right. Senator McCarthy or anybody on the other side or anyone else. However, I must say that in the committee of which I was the chairman investigating the Department of Justice, I was not even able to sell my own committee on that. And what we adopted was a plan whereby a person who felt his name had been brought in improperly into the hearing was permitted to send up questions and propound them to the committee to put to the witness. I think that Senator McCarthy or anyone else, they should all be treated on a parody, and everyone, if he's to have the right to cross-examination, of course the other side should have that right. Well, the final question, sir, I'd like to ask you if you can do it briefly, whether you think the Communist Party should be outlawed in this country on a state or federal level? Well, there are bills in to do that, and I have felt always in the past. I have agreed with Mr. Hoover, the head of the FBI, that that was not the right approach, that that was apt to drive them underground. And that rather the approach to bring them out and require them to come out in the open and to register upon which we passed legislation is the better approach. And then if they don't register under that law, they go to jail. But I believe that that bill is coming up shortly for hearings before my committee, and I want to entertain a certain amount of an open mind until I've heard what is said on that subject. Well, thank you very much, Representative Keating. It's been very interesting to have you here tonight. The opinions expressed on the Launcine Chronoscope were those of the speakers. The editorial board for this edition of the Launcine Chronoscope was Larry LeSerre and Winston Bredet. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Kenneth B. Keating, Representative from New York. What does the name Launcine mean to you? It means a watch, to be sure, but much more. The name Launcine on the dial of a watch means that here is one of the very finest of all the world's watches. The movement in every Launcine watch is regarded everywhere as being exceptionally fine. Every part is exquisitely finished for greater accuracy and long life, for better timekeeping and complete dependability. Yes, the name Launcine on a watch means something very fine. It spells the utmost insatisfaction, confidence and pride of ownership. The name Launcine identifies what is, in fact, the world's most honored watch. The only watch in history to win 10 World's Fair Grand Prizes, 28 gold medals, so many honors for accuracy in fields of precise timing, and wonderful as it may seem you may buy and own or proudly give the world's most honored watch Launcine for as little as $71.50. And remember that if you pay $71.50 or more for a watch, you're paying the price of a Launcine. Why not insist on getting a Launcine, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift? Premier product of the Launcine Witner Watch Company since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Launcine 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 Launcine Witner watches.