 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 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, author and analyst, and Mr. James Watson, educator, author, and editor. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Frank Carlson, United States Senator from Kansas. Senator Carlson, our viewers recall that you're one of the Americans who has been closest to General Eisenhower from the beginning of his political career. So you're the one man who can give us the best inside report on the new administration. Now, sir, first of all, do you believe that Americans can hope for a general settlement of the Korean War? Well, Mr. Huey, I assure you it's a pleasure to again be on your program and be with you this evening and Mr. Watson. I think the news that we have had this evening is one of the most hopeful and most encouraging pieces of news that's come to the every American home in many, many months. All of us, I think, are what we might say very tired and very discouraged with the Korean situation, and it's my opinion that this is the beginning of the end. I have great confidence in President Eisenhower and his ability to bring about, with the cooperation, of course, of the United Nations and the communist countries, a peace that will bring peace to this nation that we've been longing and praying for for a long time. How do you feel, sir? Do you think that some credit or considerable credit for the Korean development should go to the administration and to General Eisenhower? Well, I know very positively that the President has been working hard in his administration leadership to bring about an early and a very satisfactory and honorable solution to this war. Well, sir, there's been, speaking of the administration, there has been a great deal of criticism of the administration. Statements that you're having a hard time getting started, getting control of the government, farm policies, foreign policy. What do you feel yourself, sir? Do you think that the administration is making progress? Very definitely so. I want to remember, we've only been in power, I think, 75 days, and we did take over what even the Democratic leadership called a mess in Washington, and we are beginning to try to bring some order out of this chaos, and I know we're making progress. We're making progress in every phase of the picture internationally and domestically, and the President is doing a noble job with the aid of folks that he has selected to help him. Do you feel that the Korean situation or that the first place that you've made progress is in foreign policy? I think we've made great progress in foreign policy, and the results of it are beginning to be felt now. And we're making progress in the domestic field. We want to remember that we reorganized the Federal Security Agency this year, our first great reorganization measure. We've made some changes in the personnel policies. We're really on the way. That brings us, of course, to what you are most directly concerned with, sir, and that is the organization of the civil service system and the federal patronage system. Now, how many jobs in the federal government are covered by civil service? Well, I would say there are two million that might be classed as covered civil service jobs. We have probably two to a million, 300,000, two and a half million federal employees, and a large percentage of them are covered. Well, Senator, in this matter of getting a hold of the administration, as you've said a minute ago, we recently had an announcement that President Eisenhower had issued an order taking away civil service from many top policy jobs. Do you think that there's any fear from that that we're returning to some phase of the spoil system? Well, now, Mr. Watson, I don't think we need to have any fears that we're returning to what we would call the spoil system. That is really, truly patronage appointments, but I will say very honestly, very frankly, that we must make some changes in the civil service positions or policymaking positions. I don't believe anyone can expect this administration to operate with individuals whose thinking is not in accord with the administration that was selected by the people last fall. And it's our intention. I know it's the President's intention to change those positions, and I think the people expect us to. Well, can you illustrate for our viewers just what you mean by policy position, something like the Federal Security Administration, how many people are policy makers and how many people are not? Well, I regret that I can't give you the exact number in the Federal Security Administration, but any individual in a top flight position that makes policy, in other words, determines policy and social security, and many other phases ought to be a policy whose thinking is in keeping with the President's administration. Well, that's a relatively few people, I assume. I would assume that the top flight numbers would be very few. Get into the Department of Agriculture, you want to remember, we've had an administration in power 20 years. And I think it's very essential that we have people in those positions, and that's true in the State Department. I think it's very noticeable. You feel that in this 20 year period possibly that the previous administration has tried to push the civil service coverage too far up? Well, I think that their large numbers of people were covered in who were placed in those positions purely for patronage reasons. I am not critical of it, but I don't think they ought to expect to continue in these positions, especially when they're trying to work on policy matters with a new administration selected by the people this last election. Does this mean, sir, that the new administration is actually having great difficulty getting physical control of the government? They are having some difficulty of getting physical control of these departments, and it's very important that we do get control because we have the responsibility and the obligation to carry out the policies of this President administration. Any administration, unless you can change a certain number of jobs, then your free government loses, doesn't it? I would say, Mr. Huey, that that would be true of any administration. After we've been in power for many years, as I hope we will be, the next administration comes in, I would want to court them the same privilege as the same rights. I firmly believe that. Well, now, are you abolishing jobs? One of the things you promised your American people to do is to cut out on the cost of government and the number of people in government. We are making very definite progress. We have reduced the employment of federal employment, 7,800 from January 20th to March 1st. We are going to close up some agencies and we are not going to fill a large number of places that become vacant. Is that process going on without having a public repercussion about services being cut? Generally speaking, yes. I think everyone must agree that we've had a very heavy government personnel and I think most people are hopeful that we can reduce it. I think we can reduce it with efficiency even in the administration and the agency itself through civil service. Well, one of the things about that, of course, is that some people feel that the present laws and rules tend to drive the best people out, particularly when you're going through this layoff period. What about that, Senator? I think that's one of the very definite problems and I'm hoping that we can secure legislation in this session of Congress that will improve the civil service system and I think you're absolutely right. There are good people there you want to keep. Absolutely. I think it's essential that we have a strong civil service merit system in operation to carry on the functions of the government. But at the same time, we must not have a civil service system that freezes in people who are not qualified for these positions and for other reasons. What is the administration attitude or the Republican attitude toward the federal pay scale? Do you think that federal employees are being paid enough? No, I wouldn't say that. That's one of the regrettable situations you're confronted with in the federal service. The federal employee's pay has not kept pace with civilian employment. We're a continuous competition with industry generally and business generally. But of course right now is a poor time to talk about great increase in pay. I feel there are top-flight positions in engineering and many other phases, operational positions that should have certainly an increase in pay. Well now as chairman of the Senate Committee on Civil Service, after you have affected the reforms that you're trying to affect, do you think it might be possible that the Republican administration would favor increased pay scales? We are going to have a study of the entire pay schedule and the entire civil service program as a whole and I sincerely hope that if the study warrants an increase and I think it will, that it will be granted. While you're trying to get rid of unnecessary civil servants, what about the turnover figure? I've understood it to be as high as 30%. Isn't that a terrible expense to government? It is. That's one of the very expensive features of the civil service. I don't know the exact figure, but I think last year we had a turnover of probably a half million employees in the federal government. In other words, we spend our federal taxpayers' money to train people. Was the new civil service commission going to be able to take steps to help improve that situation and bring real economies there? Well I'm proud of the new civil service commission that we have in Philly Young and George Moore and Mr. Lawton whose name has just come up and I know that if there's any civil service commission that could ever come forward with recommendations that will be accepted by Congress, this will be it. Coming back to the administration's record, sir, you come from one of the great farm states. Has the farm policy of the administration come under criticism from people in your state? Well of course we're faced with this situation in the agricultural areas. We inherited a farm price decline. Farm prices have been declining since 1951. We suffered a very serious problem in livestock. We had an inventory loss of $4,700 million in livestock alone last year. Now you just can't wipe out that much inventory without having its effect in the agricultural areas and I think in the national economy. I'll say this for the farmers of this nation that they did not become panicky when these prices were falling so rapidly in December and on January. They are concerned about it but they have faith in the president. They have faith in this administration. Well as a final question sir, do you feel that the administration still has the overwhelming support of the electorate in the country? I certainly do. Our tests show it. The letters we receive, the polls indicate it and when it comes to agriculture the president said he would not pull the rug out from under the farmers and he's going to keep that word. Well sir, I'm sure that our viewers have appreciated these statements from you sir and thank you for being with us. The opinions that you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. James Watson. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Frank Carlson, United States Senator from Kansas. A priceless attribute of every Laun Jean watch is pride of possession. It brings the satisfaction of knowing that one owns the watch of highest prestige among the finest watches in all the world. Yes, the Laun Jean watch brings its owner more than the delight of a beautiful possession, more than the unsurpassed timekeeping of a remarkable watch. For that Laun Jean watch of yours is the one and only world's most honored watch. Only Laun Jean among the world's finest watches has won so many honors for excellence, elegance and accuracy, including 10 world's fair grand prizes, 28 gold medals and innumerable bulletins and prizes for accuracy from the great government observatories. For mother on Mother's Day, for an anniversary, a birthday or as an important gift to a graduate, no other name on a watch means so much as Laun Jean and yet unbelievably you may buy and own or proudly give a Laun Jean watch for as little as 7150. Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift, premier product of the Laun Jean Wittner watch company since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. We invited 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 art, broadcast on behalf of Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world honored Laun Jean. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Laun Jean and Wittner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jurors who proudly display this emblem, agency for Laun Jean Wittner watches. History repeated and you are there, Sundays on the CBS television network.