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.”