 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? Larry Lusser of the CBS television news staff, and August Heckscher, editorial writer for the New York Herald Tribune. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Carl Hinshaw, United States Representative from California. Representative Hinshaw, yesterday President Eisenhower proposed the creation of an international atomic energy agency as part of the United Nations, to which the nations would jointly contribute a portion of their nuclear material. Now as a ranking member of the Joint Congressional Atomic Energy Commission, how do you think this proposal will go down with our own Congress? I think it would go down very well. The statements of the various members of the committee that I have seen, the comments made by Mr. Durham, for example, and others on the minority side for the time being, certainly, have been very favorable to the President's proposal. And I know that the Republican side of the committee, the majority side, by a small margin, is quite favorable to them. So I'm sure that the committee would be very glad to consider and probably would vote out any such proposal. Representative Hinshaw, does this mean that the old Baruch plan is abandoned as too utopian? No, but the time has marched on, so to speak, and I believe that some changes might well be made in the original Baruch plan. So now you say that Congress will be favorably inclined toward this plan. Will Congress be called on for action of any kind and implementing it? Congress has three types of action which it might take. In the first place, let's say that under the original act which I have performing, it provides that if an international arrangement shall be entered into, that that shall supersede in so far as its terms go, the Atomic Energy Act itself and that any conflicts with the provisions of the agreement shall be null and void. And it also says that the commission in carrying out its functions shall give maximum effect to the international arrangement. Now the international arrangement, by definition, is a treaty or an agreement, and a treaty, of course, is agreed to by two-thirds of the Senate, and an agreement is made by a majority vote in both House and Senate. Well, in other words, were this to go into effect? You don't think that the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 would have to be changed fundamentally? Not necessarily, although it could be. And yet you do think that such a treaty would be passed that the Senate and the House would agree to having, what would they actually have to agree to? To having us give up fissionable material and give up such secrets as now are involved, for example, in the creation of an atomic power plant? Well, I can't foretell what such an agreement or arrangement might be. I can't foretell the action of the Senate in agreeing to a treaty, because no treaty is now before it to agree to. Representative Hinshaw, if there has been reluctance to share our atomic secrets with Britain, won't there be even greater reluctance to share our atomic secrets with other countries, especially Russia? Well, I don't think so. Not if Russia is willing to agree to do likewise. It may be that they have some information which would be just as valuable to us as our information would to them. Would you be willing to say that apart from military weapons, which have always been secrets in the history of warfare, that the age of secrecy for the splitting the atom itself is passed? No. It isn't passed, because the type of information that is proposed to be exchanged or given seems to be in the development of atomic power plants or nuclear power plants, which is a better term. Does this mean, sir, that we have a surplus of uranium or other material of nuclear fission? Well, I wouldn't like to answer that. I see. Well, in other words, we must have enough to contribute jointly to a pool. But to go on from there, how far are we, would you say, sir, away actually from the peacetime use of atomic energy? Oh, we're not very far at all. As a matter of fact, I think that we're in the process of building an atomic power plant or a nuclear-pueled power plant at the present time, as everyone knows. Is that basically different, for example, from the kind of engine that will be in the atomic submarine? Not basically. No. Well, of course, hundreds of millions of dollars is not so to build an atomic power plant or to build a plant that can create nuclear material. What is all this money going to come from for a United Nations agency, sir? In the United Nations, they could get it from the World Bank for one place. They could certainly find the money from lending agencies all over the world. But what would this mean if such a plan were to go into effect to a country, would it be like India? It would mean a great deal to India, for example, because India is suffering from a shortage of power. And so much work is necessarily done by hand in India, and the people are very poor if they could make things for each other, let alone the rest of the world. By the use of power, they could greatly multiply their hands. Representative Hinshaw, as I understand it, this is going to be a plan to develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes. It would leave intact, then, all the military developments, which now exist. I would understand so. We would have our atomic bombs, and Russia would have its atomic bombs. Do you foresee any way in which, as this plan progressed, the pressures toward war would be minimized, and these big atomic weapons would... Yes? Perhaps. Yes, I do. Because fissionable material may be used for an explosion, or it may be used in a, what you might say, a slow explosion, which is the creation of heat for the manufacture of steam and so forth, and turning into electric power eventually. Now, if you are to turn the use of fissionable material away from weapons of war, you can turn all of the fissionable material away from weapons. And rework the material so that it could be used for peaceful purposes, and thus abandon fissionable material in the art of war altogether. But wouldn't we be very reluctant to give too much fissionable material away, unless we were very sure that Russia was also reducing its military weapon? Why, of course. I mean, that goes without saying. We'd want to be sure that we were both doing the same thing. Representative Hinshaw, there's an understandable reluctance about sharing our atomic secrets with Russia, but don't you think that private industry would also be reluctant to share its patents for a peacetime use of atomic energy with other countries, with private industry of Britain, of France, of Belgium, and other nations, which are in competition? Of course, Larry, that's a very difficult thing to say, except that any of these patents that they now have under the present law are the property of the United States, and the United States would have to share them, not the private industry. But, you know, it's a funny thing that the British contributed mightily in their science to the original production and use of fissionable material. Perhaps they have developed some information in the meantime that would be of great value to us, and we might like to have it. I understand that Mr. Vyshinsky has virtually turned down the President's proposal in the speech of the UN today. Does that surprise you, Representative Hinshaw? Yes, it does. Especially, well, no, I'll tell you, that isn't exactly turned down yet, as I understand it. It's not official from Moscow, as I believe. But I think it's probably foreshadowing as such a turn down. I can't imagine why they would turn the proposal down so quickly. I can't understand it at all, because they run a chance of learning something if they go into it even part way. Isn't it a little bit like the original Marshall Plan, which was to include Russia in the countries that received money? They turned that down and nobody could understand why they did it. This is the same sort of great worldwide offer, and remember, the Czechoslovakia first tried to come in under the Marshall Plan, and then Russia wrapped its knuckles, and they stayed out, and the other countries of Western Europe went in and are in their feet today. Well, of course, I don't understand the Russian ideology, and I believe all such decisions are made according to their ideology and concepts of the rest of the world. And if they're as wrong about the rest of the world as some of their statements indicate, it can easily be seen that such misunderstanding would lead to turning it down. Representative Hinshaw, since I think it's true, and you confirm me if I'm wrong, nuclear material can be turned from peacetime use into a bomb very quickly. Wouldn't an agency of the United Nations which possessed uranium or other nuclear material also be in possession of atomic weapons, too? They might, but I don't believe it is contemplated under the President's proposal. They would certainly be in possession of a large part of the fictional material, which goes to make up the main body, so to speak, of the nuclear weapon. But couldn't there be, I think, in this plan, there could be some provision that it never would be turned to military uses? Oh, an international agency would have to provide so. Yes, indeed. What do you suppose, sir, is the next step in this offer that has now been made to the world to get reaction from the other countries? There has been a series of reactions already, or will there be private conversations on what to do about it? Well, I presume that the people who figure those things out are thinking rather deeply, and in the meantime, the nations of the world had better keep their powder dry. I see. Well, Representative Hinshaw has a final question. I'd like to ask you this. I regard this plan as sincere and genuine and humanitarian, but may I ask, what's in it for the United States? Is it in our self-interest? Yes, I believe it is in our self-interest to offer this plan, because if it can be accepted by the world, and that includes Russia, then we are bending our efforts toward peace in peaceful pursuits. And in that way, we will magnify the good living of the world to such an extent that everyone can enjoy it. Thank you very much, Representative Hinshaw. It's very kind of you to come up and inform us on this great subject tonight. Well, I'm delighted to be here. Thank you very much. The opinions you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope was Larry Lesser and August Heckscher. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Carl Hinshaw, United States Representative from California. Will there be a Laun Jean watch in your Christmas stocking on Christmas Day? Now, why not a subtle hint to your own personal Santa Claus? Believe me, nothing could give you so much satisfaction and so much pleasure. Now, here in these diminutive Laun Jean ladies watches is beauty for the adornment of the loveliest wrist, and more important, dependability to keep the busy hostess or busy woman precisely on time. For the man in every field of activity, a Laun Jean watch is a priceless possession, for no other name on a Christmas watch means so much as Laun Jean, for no other watch has won ten World's Fair grand prizes, twenty-eight gold medals, and so many honors for accuracy. Yet, unbelievably, many beautiful Laun Jean watch models are priced as low as seventy-one fifty, each made to the unique Laun Jean standards of excellence, which have gained for Laun Jean the title, The World's Most Honored Watch, The World's Most Honored Christmas Gift. Premier product of the Laun Jean Witner 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 Laun Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Laun Jean, The World's Most Honored Watch, and Witner, distinguished companion to the World Honored Laun Jean. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Laun Jean and Witner watches are sold and service from coast to coast by more than four thousand leading jurors who proudly display this emblem. Agency for Laun Jean Witner watches. This is the CBS television network.