 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 Witner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Gene, the world's most honored watch, and Witner, 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? Mr. William Bradford Huey, editor of the American Mercury, and Mr. Henry Hazlet, contributing editor of Newsweek Magazine. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the honorable Hugh D. Scott, Jr., United States representative from Pennsylvania. The opinions expressed are necessarily those of the speakers. Congressman Scott is former head of the Republican National Committee, and as one of the architects of the Eisenhower campaign, I'd like to begin by asking you when's the campaign going to start? Tomorrow, about the middle of the day, I would say, Eisenhower makes an important speech in Atlanta, Georgia. That will be followed by speeches in other Florida cities, in Alabama, in Arkansas, and then by a very important foreign policy speech in Philadelphia on the 4th of September. Well, could you tell us what topics he's going to speak on today? On these first speeches prior to the Philadelphia speech, he will talk generally on the mess in Washington, what he thinks about it, with some specific instances. And I am quite sure, because I have some advanced information that they will be very forthright, fighting speeches. He agrees with Governor Stevenson that there is a mess in Washington? Well, I'm sure he agrees with Governor Stevenson that there's a mess in Washington. I'm sure that he's very angry about it. There's a moral fervor in the way in which he prepares his speeches, and I think we're going to get the benefit of that. His fight, after all, as I see it, is against Harry Truman's bad government and Harry Truman's captive candidate, and Harry Truman's having taken the leadership of this campaign. Stevenson's a secondary issue, and Truman in his Milwaukee Labor Day speech, you recall, has said in effect to Stevenson, watch how I do it. I'm the boss, I run this thing, and you take your lead from me. You think the battle from this point on will be essentially between President Truman and General Eisenhower? I think so, because I don't think that Truman could keep out of it. I don't think that the issue of trumanism, which is equivalent to bad government, could possibly be kept out of it. And I think that Mr. Truman's captive candidate is just stuck with Harry. You think that there has been the feeling that General Eisenhower first could not effectively make the case against the Democratic Party, and then second that probably he would not make the case. Now are you convinced, sir, after your weeks that you spent with him, that General Eisenhower is going to prosecute the case against the Democratic Party? Yes, I'm satisfied that he's going to prosecute the case against the present administration which goes on to the title of Democratic. There's nothing Democrat or Democratic about it. It's trumanism. It's a mess. That's the best way to put it. Well, do you think there has been the statement that he would not resort to personalities? Now that the President has attacked him, do you think that he will at least resort to the personality of the President? I think that he can attack this whole thing that's wrong without necessarily calling anybody any bad names, because the bad odor and the bad names have already been established. I think it's his job to point out what's wrong with the government in power. Well, let's take one other personality, namely the Secretary of State. I believe that Mr. Stevenson's own record is having said that he didn't have the faintest idea whether he would discharge Mr. Atchison or not. Do you think that General Eisenhower has something of a firmer idea as to a course of action there? I don't think there's a single doubt in the world that if Dean Atchison were stupid enough or foolish enough to remain in office next January that he would be fired. I have no question he would be fired, but I think Atchison will resign on the first Wednesday after the first Tuesday of the month. But an American voter at least can make a choice on that point. If Stevenson doesn't know whether he will get rid of Atchison, but if he does choose Eisenhower, he knows he can get rid of Atchison. Stevenson is the captive and the victim of men who are pretty smart, and among those men are Dean Atchison, who has controlled the foreign policy of this country to its severe detriment. The man who has led us down the road to weakness in the face of tyranny. The man who hasn't hesitated to deal with those who are enemies of our government in a weak need, a mollycoddle, milk and water fashion. The man has got to go, and Eisenhower, there's no question he'd go under Stevenson. I don't think Stevenson is in the position where he can get rid of these old men of the sea that have been paying to the Democratic ship. Well, General Eisenhower has said that some terrible blunders were made in Korea and are getting into Korea. Now, is he going to spell out and detail what those blunders were? I'm quite sure that he is going to spell them out because he will make several speeches on foreign policy, and one of them inevitably, or more than one, would have to deal with the kind of a war that we've gotten into which we can neither win, nor lose, nor stop. And when Mr. Truman and his Labor Day speech spoke of all those people who had benefited so much from, as he said, from a higher wage, I can think of 137,000 casualties in Korea who will never benefit from anything that Mr. Truman has done. Is General Eisenhower going to defend the Taft-Partley Act against the attacks of Stevenson and of the President? I think that General Eisenhower would rightly take the position, and I cannot undertake, obviously, to speak for him, but I would believe that he would take the Republican position, which is that the Labor Management Act of 1947 operates fairly in the interest of people who are in labor, union labor, or non-union labor. I think, again, Mr. Truman has given us the key to it. When he points out that union labor used to have 3 million people. Since the Labor Management Act or the Taft-Partley Act of 1947, there are now 16 million people in unions. All of them better pay it. All of them with better living conditions. The Taft-Partley Act has been a good and a beneficent act, and it has worked to the advantage of labor. Well, how did the majority of Democrats in Congress think about these attacks on the Taft-Partley Act? Didn't the majority, both of the House and of the Senate, vote for the Taft-Partley Act? I'm speaking to the Democratic majority at the time. Mr. Eisenhower, it's my recollection that they did. I think they did. And didn't they also, majority in Congress, also recommend or express the hope that the President would use the Taft-Partley Act in the steel strike? Of course they did, and more than that, you'll be interested in an rather old incident. The late chairman of the House Labor Committee was Mr. Lysinski of Michigan. Mr. Lysinski, on one celebrate occasion, said to one of the Republican members of the committee, we are not going to do anything to repeal Taft-Partley or to change it, because we'd rather have it as an issue than do anything about it. And that's Mr. Truman's position, and it necessarily has to be Mr. Stevenson's position if he were to be the chief executive. Mr. Scott, a great deal has been said about errors in the Eisenhower campaign thus far. As one of the Eisenhower strategists, do you think that there have been any errors in the other camp? Well, I, of course, always thank a wise providence for the Democratic National Committee. I think they've made quite a few errors. They must have been working pretty hard at it in the short time they've had. The cabinet meeting which showed that Stevenson was called to Washington to get his orders from Harry was one instance of it. That showed that the hand is the hand of, the voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hand is the hand of Esau. And you remember that was a Harry hand? The same thing true. The voice is the voice of Adley. The hand is Harry. On our, on our program last week, Mr. Jim Farley made some rather critical statements about the Eisenhower campaign. Before you go on, Mr. Huey, I did want to mention another blunder, and that was the fact that Mr. Stevenson admits that there's a mess in Washington. Now, he's going to try to back away from it, but he said it. And he's good at these six syllable words, but he stumbled on that little four letter word mess and he swallowed it whole. Mr. Farley, however, made some definite predictions, and he has some reputation as a predictor, I believe. And we'd like tonight, I'm sure that our viewers would like you to predict somewhat the way that you think the campaign will develop and the way the nation will vote. Do you think Eisenhower specifically has a chance to get any southern states? Well, I'm not in Jim Farley's league as a predictor, but I did predict that Eisenhower would lead his opponent on the first ballot by 100 votes and I predicted it to use to have a man a month beforehand. I only missed it by five votes. I would say that if I may venture into Mr. Farley's field that Eisenhower will win, that he will carry several southern states, that he will have the support of all groups and classes and kinds and conditions of Americans because he's not a sectarian or a sectional candidate. Would you care to name the national candidate? Would you care to name the southern states that you think General Eisenhower can carry? I think it might be unfair to those people who are working so hard in all the southern states to point the finger that's commonly said that among those are Virginia, Texas. I would think that Louisiana with its immense reaction against the Thailand situation would be one, Florida and there others. Well, General Eisenhower, take the position of Texas on the Thailand's case or take the position that Shivers believes in. Well, I understand that he has substantially taken this position that Texas had a treaty with the United States. Texas reserved the right to all of its lands, including those offshore and the United States ought not to break any treaty, including one with Texas. The Texans don't like it either. They're often mad about it, I think. Well then, as I understand you, sir, you are one of those supporters of Eisenhower who's completely convinced that the general will carry on a very forthright slugging campaign from this point on. Yes, I'm satisfied of it. I reminded Jim Farley the other day that there's a maxim which he may have invented, that you never campaign the straw hat. Naturally, those people who want Eisenhower to win and there's so many of them are anxious for him to get started early, but Labor Day is usually the start of the campaign. And you expect it to start. Well, thank you very much for being with us tonight, Mr. Sky. The editorial board for this edition of the Lone Gene Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Henry Haslett. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Hugh D. Scott, Jr., United States representative from Pennsylvania. North, south, east, or west. No other name on a watch means so much as Lone Gene, the world's most honored watch. Actually, Lone Gene watches are sold and serviced in all the capitals of the free world, for the appreciation of things fine and beautiful is universal. Judging by the same high standards, millions of people the world over agree that Lone Gene watches are in every respect worthy of the 10 World Fair Grand Prizes and 28 gold medals which impartial juries of experts have bestowed upon them for elegance and excellence. It was through superior merit that Lone Gene became, in fact, the world's most honored watch. Now, whichever Lone Gene watch you choose to make your own, rest assured, it will bring you in full measure the greater accuracy and longer life for which Lone Gene watches are world honored. Yet, unbelievably, you may buy and own or buy and proudly give a Lone Gene watch for as little as 7150. Lone Gene, the world's most honored watch. Premier product of the Lone Gene Witnor 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 Gene Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Lone Gene, the world's most honored watch, and Witnor, distinguished companion to the world honored Lone Gene. This is Frank Knight, reminding you that Lone Gene and Witnor watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this empire. Agency for Lone Gene Witnor Watch.