Frank Knight: The world’s most hon­ored watch is Longines. Longines watch­es have won ten World’s Fair Grand Prizes, twenty-eight gold medals, and more hon­ors for accu­ra­cy than any oth­er time­piece. Longines, the world’s most hon­ored watch, is made and guar­an­teed by the Longines-Wittnauer Watch Company.

It’s time for the Longines Chronoscope, a tele­vi­sion jour­nal of the impor­tant issues of the hour. Brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. A pre­sen­ta­tion of the Longines-Wittnauer Watch Company, mak­er of Longines, the world’s most hon­ored watch. And Wittnauer, dis­tin­guished com­pan­ion to the world hon­ored Longines.

Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I intro­duce our coed­i­tors for this edi­tion of the Longines Chronoscope, Mr. Victor Riesel, labor colum­nist for the New York Daily Mirror, and Mr. William Bradford Huie, edi­tor of the American Mercury. Our dis­tin­guished guest for this evening is Mr. Arthur Garfield Hays, famed con­sti­tu­tion­al lawyer and gen­er­al coun­sel for the Civil Liberties Union. The opin­ions expressed are nec­es­sar­i­ly those of the speakers.

William Bradford Huie: Mr. Hays, our Chronoscope audi­ence knows you sir, as a long-time cru­sad­er for human free­dom. And I’m sure they’ll be very much inter­est­ed in your views tonight. Now sir, we had Senator McCarthy on this show a few days ago. And our audi­ence had his views. Now, what is your gen­er­al appraisal of Senator McCarthy and his work, sir?

Arthur Garfield Hays: I think he’s the most dan­ger­ous man in the United States. I think Senator McCarthy is more dan­ger­ous to free­dom in the United States than all the com­mu­nists we have in this country.

Victor Riesel: Well Mister Hays, do you think that because he’s attack­ing communism—and I dis­agree with the Senator. Do you that he’s dan­ger­ous because he’s attack­ing com­mu­nism, or do you think—

Hays: No, I think he’s dan­ger­ous because with­out suf­fi­cient evi­dence he’s smear­ing a lot of respect­ed and high­ly decent people.

Riesel: Well do you think, Mr. Hays, that there are com­mu­nists in the State Department. have they infil­trat­ed our government?

Hays: I don’t think for a moment they’ve begun to infil­trate the gov­ern­ment. I think there may be a few com­mu­nists in the State Department, but they don’t do near­ly as much harm as sus­pi­cion stirred up against the whole State Department by [?] like McCarthy, and his ilk, and his followers.

Riesel: Well, what spe­cif­ic harm do you think Senator McCarthy has done?

Hays: Well, I think when you smear men like Owen Lattimore and Philip Jessup—Jessup who’s done a great job for the United Nations, and when you throw sus­pi­cion on men who’ve been in gov­ern­ment ser­vice for years and make peo­ple doubt their own State Department, you do a great deal of harm because you stir up hate and sus­pi­cion and fear all over the United States. I think the most dan­ger­ous thing the com­mu­nists can do in the United States is stir up hate, sus­pi­cion, and fear. And I think any­body who aids them to do it is doing as bad a job as they are.

Huie: Do you think that there is any ground for sus­pi­cion and fear among the peo­ple of the United States, sir?

Hays: No rea­son­able ground. And I think that no man should be deprived of his rep­u­ta­tion’s stand­ing with­out a fair tri­al and a judg­ment accord­ing to Anglo-Saxon meth­ods. And not by the rav­ings of McCarthy, even though he has con­gres­sion­al immunity.

Huie: But don’t you think that the American peo­ple, sir, have some rea­son to sus­pect there’s a State Department that har­bors a Hiss, or that har­bors peo­ple that are known to be sub­ver­sive and to be agents of for­eign powers?

Hays: I don’t think American peo­ple have any sound rea­son to sus­pect our State Department at present.

Riesel: Well Mr Hays, sound rea­son would want to sep­a­rate this from Senator McCarthy imme­di­ate­ly. We agree, we dis­miss him—

Hays: If you sep­a­rate sound rea­son­ing from Senator McCarthy, you and I are on the same side [inaudi­ble]

Riesel: Alright, well tak­en. We agree and we dis­miss him. Now, Owen Lattimore. Don’t you think he’s a dan­ger as a friend of Mao Tse-tung, the com­man­der of the army that’s fight­ing our own United Nations? For fif­teen years, Owen Lattimore’s been Mao Tse-tung’s friend. Now, do you think that does­n’t con­sti­tute a dan­ger to the think­ing of our State Department?

Hays: No, I don’t, because I’ve seen noth­ing or heard of noth­ing that he has done, that Owen Lattimore has done, that seems to me to sug­gest for a moment that he isn’t a loy­al American.

Huie: Well, let’s come…let’s do this, sir. Personality are very inter­est­ing. But let’s come to McCarthy’s meth­ods, which are the things that you most oppose. Now, it’s your posi­tion that his meth­ods have not been justified.

Hays: It is.

Huie: Now, a great many Americans, how­ev­er, believe that the one real­i­ty of our time is the Soviet pow­er, and that that Soviet pow­er is aid­ed in the United States by peo­ple who are will­ing to lend their aid to that Soviet power. 

Hays: Soviet pow­er in Russia’s one thing. Soviet pow­er in the United States I don’t think exists.

Huie: But you do admit that there are Americans who want to make Russia more pow­er­ful, and that there have been such Americans inside our own government.

Hays: Yes, but very few in num­ber and exer­cis­ing, in my judg­ment, no influence.

Riesel: Mr. Hays, don’t you think that 500,000 Americans led by Stalinists, labor lead­ers, are a men­ace? Especially when in the heart of our defense indus­try and I could name—

Hays: Where do you get 500,000 Stalinists?

Riesel: The 500,000 Americans are mem­bers of trade unions led in the heart of our defense indus­try by com­mu­nist labor lead­ers. Don’t you think that con­sti­tutes a men­ace to our civ­il liberties?

Hays: I don’t, because I think it’ll work itself out the same as it has in the CIO. At one time the com­mu­nists were very strong in the CIO. Then the com­mu­nists began play­ing pol­i­tics instead of attend­ing the labor union duties, and they were thrown out of prac­ti­cal­ly all the CIO unions. Every time I read of a strike, I don’t attribute it to com­mu­nists. They don’t deserve the credit.

Riesel: No, no. We’re going to dis­miss that one, too. We’re not going to—

Hays: Alright, I’m glad you’re giv­ing me [inaudi­ble].

Riesel: Don’t you think though that the orga­nized con­spir­a­cy of American Stalinism, with 43,000 fanat­ics, rep­re­sents a threat to American civ­il liberty?

Hays: No, I don’t. I think all those peo­ple are under sur­veil­lance by the FBI. I think they might be fifth colum­nists in case of war. I don’t think they’re poten­tial spies because spies aren’t used who are under sus­pi­cion. And I trust the FBI, and I trust the laws. If what you’re try­ing to tell me is that we have a right to vio­late laws of decen­cy as well laws in the statute books in order to get com­mu­nists, what you’re real­ly say­ing is that a total­i­tar­i­an gov­ern­ment over here would be safer than a demo­c­ra­t­ic gov­ern­ment, and I don’t believe it.

Riesel: Let me say, Mr. Hays, I’m for decen­cy. I want­ed to make that clear. 

Hays: Well, I thought you were. That’s why thought your argu­ment was­n’t sound.

Huie: Well, I’m delight­ed that both you gen­tle­men are for decen­cy. But let’s come back to the State Department. Don’t you think, sir, that Senator McCarthy’s meth­ods might be jus­ti­fied, and that the House Un-American Activities Committee’s meth­ods might be jus­ti­fied, because of a fail­ure on the part of the Department of Justice? After all, the FBI knew of the exis­tence of Alger Hiss for four or five years before he was prosecuted.

Hays: Oh well I’ll grant you Hiss. But for heav­en sakes, you’re not going to found all your pol­i­cy on the fact that one man was found guilty of hav­ing done some­thing improp­er in 1938 and lied about it in 1948. Certainly you’re not going to take that position.

Riesel: Mr. Hays, don’t you think that the State Department hav­ing worked us into this Holocaust in the East has failed because of the policies—which I think pro-communist policies—of Owen Lattimore, Alger Hiss—

Hays: Well, I don’t think the State Department led us into to the Holocaust in the East.

Riesel: What did, Mr. Hays?

Hays: The inva­sion from North Korea of the communists.

Riesel: Who is respon­si­ble for that?

Hays: I think the com­mu­nists were responsible.

Riesel: And behind them?

Hays: Russia, of course.

Riesel: And there­fore you don’t think that the same exten­sion of the same con­spir­a­cy in the United States rep­re­sents a threat to us?

Hays: Yes, but I don’t see the same con­spir­a­cy in the United States. I’m not afraid of the com­mu­nists in the United States. There nev­er has been a more futile polit­i­cal move­ment in the United States than that of com­mu­nism. After twenty-five years they can’t get enough votes to keep their name on the bal­lot. This idea of find­ing a com­mu­nist [?] under the bed seems to me all non­sense. And the result of the whole thing is that Americans now are so timid about express­ing them­selves that we’ve prac­ti­cal­ly giv­en up demo­c­ra­t­ic meth­ods and free speech. Nobody in this coun­try dares to say any­thing that might sug­gest to any­body that he’s an appeas­er or pro-Russian or any­thing else. The result is that we act as one and even on con­tro­ver­sial sub­jects we don’t find any debate in pub­lic life. And don’t dare.

Huie: As a lib­er­al, sir, and a believ­er in human free­dom, you deplore the fact that Americans do not have that or uti­lize that lib­er­ty as they once did. 

Hays: Why, sure­ly as soon as you get to a posi­tion where you have a timid pub­lic as you have today, that is the end of free speech. It’s just as seri­ous as for Congress to pass laws. I think we’re a whole lot safer and health­i­er if every man says exact­ly what he believes.

Huie: Now, to relate your views to the polit­i­cal issues of 1952, sir, where do you stand? Do you expect to sup­port Truman in 52?

Hays: I do unless Eisenhower’s nom­i­nat­ed. If Eisenhower’s nom­i­nat­ed I’d prob­a­bly sup­port him.

Riesel: Why?

Hays: Because as pres­i­dent of Columbia I heard Eisenhower speak on democ­ra­cy, and he thrilled me. And I think his views are what I regard as demo­c­ra­t­ic views.

Riesel: Would you make those spe­cif­ic, sir? We’ve been try­ing to get some of those views from him and he has refused.

Hays: Well, I think if you read the past prints and read his speech­es you’ll find that he’s opposed to the present hys­te­ria. He is opposed to things that make us all fear­ful of com­mu­nists. He believes in peo­ple auda­cious­ly express­ing them­selves. And he believes that the atmos­phere today is very bad.

Riesel: Do you think the gen­er­al is a lib­er­al or a con­ser­v­a­tive by your stan­dards, Mr. Hays?

Hays: That’s hard to tell. I don’t use terms, lib­er­al or conservative.

Riesel: Would you vote for him on the Republican tick­et, sir?

Hays: Yes.

Riesel: The par­ty of McCarthy?

Hays: Well, I regard it as the par­ty of Eisenhower. Or I would so regard. 

Huie: How do you regard Senator Taft? He’s a man who is sup­posed to have con­sid­er­able respect for the law. And as a lawyer your­self I should think that would attract you to sen­a­tor Taft.

Hays: I have respect for Senator Taft as the man. I think he’s able, and hon­est, and I like the way he han­dles him­self in gen­er­al. Senator Taft to me is more or less of a met­al machine. And I haven’t the same lik­ing or admi­ra­tion for him per­son­al­ly that I would have for either Eisenhower or Truman.

Huie: I’m sure that our audi­ence would like to hear one last expres­sion from you, sir. As a fight­er for human lib­er­ty for many many years in this coun­try, are you hope­ful about the prospects for lib­er­al­ism as you define it in America in 1952?

Hays: Yes I am, because I’ve seen the same hys­te­ria exist—I saw it exist in the twen­ties when the social­ists were the tar­get. The par­ty to the left is always the tar­get. Someday we’ll have a par­ty more rad­i­cal than the com­mu­nists, and then the com­mu­nists will be respectable. I think this idea of becom­ing fear­ful because of names is all absurd. I have the same hope that we’ll reach a sane atmos­phere in the future, as turned out after the 1920s.

Huie: Well, I’m sure that our audi­ence very much appre­ci­ates these views, sir, and thank you for being with us, sir.

Knight: The edi­to­r­i­al board for this edi­tion of the Longines Chronoscope was Mr. Victor Riesel, and Mr William Bradford Huie. Our dis­tin­guished guest was Mr. Arthur Garfield Hays, famed con­sti­tu­tion­al lawyer and gen­er­al coun­sel for the Civil Liberties Union. 

Frank Knight: You know, one gets nowhere either in love or in busi­ness by being sub­tle. Just ask what for you want sim­ply and direct­ly. Isn’t that good advice? Now, if you’re one of the thou­sands who’s always want­ed a Longines watch, don’t beat around the bush. Just ask for it. Just say, I would love to get the Longines watch.” Christmas, you know, is just around the corner. 

And just around the cor­ner, too, is a Longines-Wittnauer jew­el­er agency with many won­der­ful Longines Christmas gift watch­es. Product of eighty-five years of fine watch­mak­ing expe­ri­ence, each indi­vid­u­al­ly wor­thy of the great hon­ors which Longines watch­es have won. Ten World’s Fair grand prizes, twenty-eight gold medals, and high­est hon­ors for accu­ra­cy from the lead­ing gov­ern­ment obser­va­to­ries. It’s the watch of first choice in fields of pre­cise tim­ing. In sports, avi­a­tion, in explo­ration and sci­ence. Believe me, through­out the world no oth­er name on a Christmas watch means so much in beau­ty, in accu­ra­cy, and long life as Longines, the world’s most hon­ored watch. Premier prod­uct of the Longines-Wittnauer Watch Company. Since 1866 mak­er of watch­es of the high­est char­ac­ter. And you made buy and proud­ly give a Longines watch this Christmas for as lit­tle as $71.50.

This is Frank Knight again, invit­ing you to join us every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday evening at this same time for the Longines Chronoscope. The tele­vi­sion jour­nal of the impor­tant issues of the hour. Broadcast on behalf of Longines, the world’s most hon­ored watch. And Wittnauer, dis­tin­guished com­pan­ion to the world-honored Longines. Sold and ser­viced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 lead­ing jew­el­ers who proud­ly dis­play this emblem, Agency for Longines-Wittnauer watches.”

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.