 It's time for the Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, 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 Colonel Ansel Talbert, aviation editor of the New York Herald Tribune. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable W.J. Brian Dorn, United States Congressman from South Carolina. Congressman Dorn, one of the problems that our viewers are most interested in is how can we as a nation win the Cold War without spending ourselves into bankruptcy? Now, sir, do you have a solution for this problem? Mr. Huey, that is a very pertinent question, and it's one that's being asked constantly by our constituents all over the country. That is the Congressman and Senate. Yes, I think that America can win the Cold War, and that we can build up an adequate national defense without bankrupting America. Well, now, how are some of the ways that we can do this, sir? Well, I'm one of the few that believe that the national defense budget is not a whole of fun that can't be touched anywhere along the line. You know, down in Washington, every time they want to spend money, they'll say, well, this is an interest of national defense. But I believe that you could consolidate a lot of agencies within the Army and the Navy and the Air Force. And I believe there's a lot of duplication there. Can you give us some examples of this duplication that can be eliminated? I flew around the world here and inspected bases in 1951 in the fall. And you would have pipeline for the Navy here and a pipeline for the Army and the Air Force right along beside each other. You'd have warehouses adjoining. And I believe that by having common use items for all the branches of this area, we could save millions of dollars. Not only that, I believe that today we have four Air Forces. The regular Air Force, the Naval Air Arm, the Marine Air Support, and the Army Air Force. I didn't even know that, but they do have a few planes the Army uses. Now, I think that could be consolidated into one great instrumentality of war, the United States Air Force. Do you think, Congressman, that the Army and the Navy and the Air Force should receive equal amounts of funds? Colonel Talbot, by no stretch of the imagination. Do I think the Congress should arrive at a political or portion one of the national defense money? And that's about exactly what we're doing today under this old balance force concept. That is, you give the Navy $20 billion approximately, the Air Force $20 billion approximately, and the Navy $20 billion approximately. The strategic world situation, I think warrants that one branch or another possibly deserves more money than the other. In your examination of the defense establishment, sir, can you find whether or not we have a one strategy for imposing our will on the enemy? That also, Mr. Hughes, is a good question. I think before we do anything, we should form a world strategic plan and adhere to that plan. It seems like in the last few years, it's evident to all of us down there that we have no strategic plan. We'll wait for the common enemy to make a move and then we'll say, well, we're against that, for instance, Korea. I think we need a more positive policy, a more positive foreign policy, and we certainly need an overall strategic world plan. Congressman, about five or six years ago, if I'm not mistaken, the deputy Soviet foreign minister, Andrei Vashinsky, singled you out in a speech in the United Nations, as I believe he said, a cynical warmonger, because you advocated increasing American plane production at that time. How do you feel at the present time about the Soviet so-called peace offensive? Do you think the Soviets are sincere? Colonel, let me go back just briefly to that speech of Vashinsky. A lot of members of the House and some senators were amazed that Vashinsky would pick me out as a freshman member of the House and list as one of the outstanding warmongers the way he put it of the world. It was simply because I believe that I happened to mention the one thing that they fear most. In that speech, I said that we needed a strategic air arm capable of destroying the industrial potential of Russia or any other potential enemy. And of course, when he heard that, he howled, because that was evidently the thing that they feared most. And as far as your other question is concerned, I do think Russia is making rapid strides in the development of its air power. I have information that leads me to believe that that is their number one priority right now, is to build up their air power comparable to the striking power of the Red Army. Well, Congressman, as I understand it, sir, the way that you cut our expenditures and at the same time make our country safe, first of all, you would concentrate expenditures on the creation of a striking air force. That's correct. That's the first thing you would. That's correct. I think should be our number one objective at the present time. Do you find any inclination on the part of the Pentagon to accept that plan? Yes, I do find that there is, well, there's not much inclination on their part. And I'll be frank with you, Mr. Hewitt, there is a powerful lobby in Washington representing each branch of the service. I think that's a lobby that's often overlooked by the American people, yet it's the most effective down there. And if you try to touch some of the appropriations that have been going to one service or the other, it's just next to impossible to get it cut. And it's evident that they have duplication, that they do not have the proper catalog system, and a lot of red tape is evidenced by this investigation of ammunition shortage in Korea. Well, that brings us... I believe, Congressman, you've been an outspoken critic of what you called our negative policy of appeasement in the foreign affairs. Do you see any signs of that policy stiffening recently? Colonel Talbot, only a slight stiffening of the policy towards Russia and her satellites, not as much as I would like to have seen. And I'm speaking for a lot of members of Congress who are not, you know, speaking out publicly, but back in the courtroom, most of them, I think, will admit that, that they're just a little bit disappointed that 7 million Americans last fall at the polls expressed a desire for a change. And I think they wanted an immediate change from this wishy washy negative foreign policy that we had that was losing the world to the enemy. Well, now, Congressman, let's particularize just a little bit. You come from South Carolina and a great many people down there voted Republican and some of the rest of you prayed Republican last November. Now, are you saying that you're not satisfied with the way this new administration is developing? Not exactly, Mr. Hewitt. Now, we have a lot of confidence in the President, General Eisenhower. He's a fine fellow, in many respects, but... Well, what about the State Department? Are you satisfied with Mr. Dulles or how does he compare with Atchison? Well, Mr. Dulles is an improvement, I would say, over the former Secretary of State. But there are many of us in Washington who feel that he's not progressing fast enough that probably a lot of the old policy makers are still down there. In fact, that was the big issue in the Bolin apartment to Russia. It wasn't the personality involved there, but it was the policy. The Senators opposed that performance, a lot of them, on that basis, that we still have the... Well, you've been out to Korea twice, I believe, in the last year or two, and I wonder how you feel about the restrictions that have been placed on the United Nations troops out there, particularly the air power against going north of the Yellow River. What do you think on that? I think this, Colonel Talbot, that we were attacked in Korea. The United States flag was fired on and the enemy North Korea, they're backed by Russia and Red China, invaded a free country, South Korea. And when the American troops were once committed, there is no substitute to my mind for victory. And I think the whole Oriental world out there, they would have felt much closer to the United States and would have admired us much more had we gone ahead and won that war conclusively. Then I think we would have won millions of friends. But this negative policy of not crossing a certain line, not going all out for victory, has cost us, on the hand, millions of potential friends. Are you suggesting that we should invade China, for example, with ground troops? I don't think, Colonel, that would be necessary. In fact, I'm sure it wouldn't. China is served by just two or three major railroads. And if we were to blockade that country and get the United Nations to unite in blockading that country, hit those railroads, I believe you'd have a revolution in China. And then a lot of people in Washington and elsewhere that I talked with in the Far East leave the same thing, certainly a couple of years ago. Well, sir, now to particularize again, you are advocating a concentration on air power and do you think that the president is inclined in that direction? I haven't seen any evidence so far, Mr. Hewitt, that he is inclined toward a great overwhelming superior. And what about the new Secretary of Defense, Mr. Wilson? I've been a little bit disappointed lately. I understand he's a fine man, a great organizer. But I understood off the record that he's a little bit opposed in the last few days to a concentration on our jet strategic aircraft that he possibly wanted to cut that some. I think that would be a great mistake. I see, sir. Because we want to concentrate on what? On small fighters? Small fighters, which would be used by the ground troops only as artillery. Well, Congressman Dorn, we certainly appreciate these remarks from you tonight. Certainly 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 launching chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Colonel Alson Talbert. Our distinguished guest was the honorable W.J. Brian Dorn, United States Congressman from South Carolina. Another baseball season has begun. The crack of battered ball brings a roar from the crowd. And teams begin their long grind toward a pen and a head and a chance at the World Series. And this year again, from opening game to World Series, Long Jean watches on the wrists of all major league umpires will officially time the baseball games. Now timing the major league baseball games is an honor of which Long Jean is very proud. It reflects a trust in the accuracy and the dependability of Long Jean watches. It gives practical proof to the superiority of Long Jean manufacturer. Among the world's finest watches, Long Jean alone has won 10 World's Fair Grand Prizes, 28 gold medals and so many honors for accuracy in fields of precise timing. Now whatever your needs in a watch, the name Long Jean is assurance of superior performance. In each of these magnificent creations is the famed Long Jean watch movement with greater accuracy and longer life inbuilt through superior workmanship. For an anniversary, a birthday, a graduation, for any important gift occasion, throughout the world, no other name on a watch means so much as Long Jean. The world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift, premier product of the Long Jean Witner watch company, since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. We invite you to sing at this same time for the Long Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Long Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Witner, distinguished companion to the world honored Long Jean. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Long Jean 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 Long Jean Witner watches. This Sunday night another great Jack Benny show on the CBS television network.