Mr. BRINKLEY. Senator, you have discussed at length and in some detail the kind of foreign policy you will pursue as President, but you haven't told us who is going to run it for you. Are you going to appoint Adlai Stevenson Secretary of State?
     Senator KENNEDY. Well, I think it is a mistake to attempt to make a judgment on Cabinet officers before the election is over. I think the last presidential candidate who did it was Thomas Dewey in 1948, who indicated that Foster Dulles was going to be his Secretary of State.
     I am running against Mr. Nixon, and we are running on the record of our two parties. When the election is over, then I think it would be appropriate to make a judgment on the various Cabinet officers and other administrative officers. I will say that Governor Stevenson and I have been associated together. I nominated him in 1956. He has been serving in an advisory capacity in this campaign on foreign policy, so that I have a high regard for him; but I think on the office itself it should wait until after election.
     QUESTION. One other question - your phrase "the new frontier"; can that be defined in a few words? What is it?
     Senator KENNEDY. Really it is the spirit of the 1960's, the recognition that we are going into entirely different areas of science, technology, and I hope that they will be approached with an entirely new spirit. I think so that we talk about the actual new physical frontiers we are going to cross in the 1960's, and I hope we are going to cross some new areas as far as the concept of national service, the public interest, the desire to serve our country. I think they are all wrapped up in the general idea of new frontiers.
     QUESTION. Senator, I vaguely recall something I think you said at a commencement address in Harvard several years ago about the study of poetry. Can you recall that?
     Senator KENNEDY. The speech was really about the widening gap between the world of politics and the world of scholarship, and I quoted probably a mythical letter from an English mother who wrote the headmaster at Eton "Don't teach my boy poetry; he's going into politics," the idea being that academic attainment does not sit well on a future Prime Minister or perhaps President.
     I think that day fortunately is passing. The problems now are so sophisticated and technical that unless you have a partnership or an interrelationship between the intellectual world and the political world, you will not possibly be able to solve these problems which now face us, which require high skills.
     QUESTION. Might we suspect that your illness had some rather profound consequences? Your life was despaired of at one time, wasn't it?
     Senator KENNEDY. Well, I was in the hospital for a long time in 1954-55. I was out of the Senate about a year, as I hurt my back in service, was operated on a couple of times, and I had a long time away from politics.
     QUESTION. You might agree with Nehru, who says there is nothing like an illness or a long prison sentence to do some thinking and develop a political philosophy.
     Senator KENNEDY. Yes, it's the hard way, however.
     QUESTION. You have said, Senator, in your administration the Vice Presidency would be expanded and made more important. Vice President Nixon says he would put Mr. Lodge in charge of all the nonmilitary aspects of the cold war. What would you do with Senator Lyndon Johnson? What would you give him to do?
     Senator KENNEDY. In the first place, I am not so sure I agree with the idea of putting the Vice President in charge of all the nonmilitary aspects of foreign policy. I don't know exactly what that does to the Secretary of State. I think the Secretary :of State has to be the closest adviser to the President on foreign policy. The Vice President, if he intervenes between the President and the Secretary of State, it seems to me that really changes the balance, and I am not sure in a satisfactory way.
     I think that Senator Johnson has had broad experience in the legislative front, and therefore I would hope that as Vice President, if we are successful, he would continue, and in a sense amplify. We have to get these programs through the Congress. That isn't always easy, and therefore his skill would be particularly helpful there. In addition, he has been chairman of the Subcommittee on Preparedness, and I would say in the area of national defense. In addition, Senator Johnson has been around the Hill for 30 years. I think he's got good judgment, and I think that any President would be advised to call on him for many tasks.
     Actually, the concept of the Vice Presidency as an assistant President has been before us on many different occasions, and I would say that Mr. Lodge, who is a very able public servant, could be very helpful to Mr. Nixon, if he is elected, and I am sure Mr. Johnson could.
     What I question, however, is the idea of delegating either the Defense Establishment, or foreign policy, to a Vice President in a formal way, as it interferes with the relationship between the Cabinet and the President, which I think is essential.
     QUESTION. We might expect, then, that Senator Johnson would spend a great deal of his time around the Capitol, where he has been for a long time.
     Senator KENNEDY. He would also spend his time, I hope - President Roosevelt gave his Vice President several tasks. Mr. Wallace, I think, was head of mobilization, manpower, War Production Board, I think, at the beginning, and he also served other functions. I think it is possible to have the Vice President play a far more effective role than he has been able to play really and historically.
     QUESTION. Would you agree, Senator Kennedy, that much of the present-day charter, that is the meaning and the spirit of the Democratic Party of 1960, has been enunciated by Adlai Stevenson?
     Senator KENNEDY. I think he has had a great effect. There is no doubt about it. I saw recently that many of the candidates at the 1960 convention talked, and many of the phrases - at least the sense of public responsibility, of attempting to discuss the problems that we face - were without excess rhetoric. I think that Governor Stevenson made a great contribution in that area.
     QUESTION. It has been said, too, that this year neither party nominated the man of its heart, but the man of its head, the man that could win. Do you think there is any validity to the notion that Senator Goldwater represents the heart of the Republican Party, and Stevenson the heart of the Democratic Party?
     Senator KENNEDY. Well, that is an interesting thought. I think Senator Goldwater does have a strong emotional pull to the Republicans, and there isn't any doubt that Governor Stevenson does. And you would have had an interesting contest between Senator Goldwater and Governor Stevenson; but that isn't the way it went.
     QUESTION. I take it then that you feel that the two parties today do give the American voters some choice.
     Senator KENNEDY. I do. Actually, I have had some disagreement with Mr. Nixon on this score recently. He has stated that the party label doesn't make so much difference. What is in question is the man. But we come out of our parties, naturally. I would never have been nominated by the Republicans, and Mr. Nixon never would have been nominated by the Democrats.
     I agree with the general historic philosophy of the Democratic Party and he does with the Republican Party. His voting record demonstrates that, and I don't think he would have been chosen almost unanimously by the Republicans unless they had felt he was in accordance with their general political philosophy. So party labels do tell us something. If they don't, there is something wrong with the candidates, and something wrong with the parties.
     I think there are distinct differences between parties historically, not between some Presidents, not, for example, between Theodore Roosevelt and some Democratic Presidents. Generally, the Republican candidates of this century, McKinley, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Landon, Dewey, have been in a different stream than Roosevelt, Wilson, Truman. I think that it has significance for the future.
     We move faster than they are ready to move into the future, and I think that is the great difference.
     QUESTION. We would like to hear a bit about your view of the Presidency as compared to Mr. Eisenhower's view of it. He, the President, has been criticized a great deal for not having done more to support and uphold the Supreme Court decision on the schools. What would you do if you were President?
     Senator KENNEDY. Well, I think the concept of equality of rights, which is carried in the Constitution, involves very great moral principle, upon which really a democracy is founded; that is, that everyone is equal. Everyone should have, therefore, if their rights are going to be protected in law and in fact, an opportunity for developing those talents equally. I think that is basic, and that should be regardless of any extraneous matter.
     I mentioned the other night that the statistics show that the chances of a Negro finishing college, owning a house, owning a profession, holding a job, are substantially less because he is born with his color, than is a white citizen. I don't think that is a satisfactory condition for a democracy; and therefore everyone isn't equal in talent, and in ability, and in motivation, but they certainly should be equal in their opportunity to develop those talents. So that I feel that the President should set the moral imperative behind that concept, which really stretches back far before the Supreme Court decision.
     QUESTION. Do you think President Eisenhower has done that?
     Senator KENNEDY. I do not. He has stated that he didn't think it was proper for the President to comment on the Supreme Court decision. There is some validity that Supreme Court decisions are made frequently, and many of them do not involve moral factors, but I think this one does.
     QUESTION. Do you know anything specific that he might have done, or that you might do in this field?
     Senator KENNEDY. Well, I think that the President has stated that he has not even informed Mrs. Eisenhower what his opinion is of the Supreme Court decision. I do think it is useful to inform the people. This is not a decision which happens to involve a highly technical labor or tax matter. This involves a very basic question: Should people have an opportunity to make something of themselves, regardless of the color of their skin? I think we have to say that they do, or otherwise we are really not - our suppositions upon which our society is based are not valid.
     The President is really the center of Government, of opinion. He molds it. That is the function of the President. The President is the only one who speaks for all the people, and therefore on a great issue, he should speak to the people.
     Now the implementation of the Court decision is within the Court's judgment. They are the ones who have said by what speed and what manner the Court decision would be carried out. But I think the President should at least, in the future, indicate his belief that we should work and strive toward equality of opportunity for Americans.
     QUESTION. One more question on the conduct of the President. A great many people, including a lot of Republicans, think the Eisenhower administration has been overzealous with the antitrust laws, has been too active, in pushing and prosecuting business. Do you think so? How would you do that?
     Senator KENNEDY. You have to operate the antitrust section very vigorously. There is a great tendency for the big to get bigger in business, and labor unions, and farms. It happens to be that businesses which are bigger, or anything that is bigger, has many advantages, controlling markets, getting credit, maintaining themselves in good times and bad.
     So I don't want to see a few big businesses, a few big farms, a few big unions, because that isn't what suits our system. Competition is. Therefore, in order to maintain that competition, the Department of Justice has to be vigorous. In many ways I think they could have been even more vigorous. So that I am a great believer in that phase of it. It is the only way you can prevent administered prices and controlling the market by indirection, and competition is what we all talk about in the private enterprise system, and the essence of it is free competition; protection in the marketplace for the consumer. So I believe in the antitrust work, the work of the Antitrust Division.
     QUESTION. And you would carry it on in much the same way?
     Senator KENNEDY. I would carry it on vigorously, responsively and effectively. I would also carry it on against other abuses in the field of bigness. I don't think the department of Justice has done a good job at all in its relation to Mr. Hoffa, for example. I think he has been treated with far greater kindness than he deserves. I think their actions against his clear breaches of the law have been handled, I think, very ineffectively.
     QUESTION. You said the other night that you regretted Mr. Hoffa was still president of the union and still free. What did you mean by that, exactly?
     Senator KENNEDY. Because I think Mr. Hoffa has breached national law, State law. I don't think the prosecutions have been handled against him very satisfactorily. I think that there is a great question of how effectively the prosecution was presented, and in addition whether all the available cases have been used.
     Jimmy Hoffa represents a very serious menace, because that union is terribly large and terribly powerful, and he has shown complete contempt for the law. So I don't think the Department of Justice under this administration has done a good job in that area at all.
     QUESTION. How is he opposing you in the campaign, Senator?
     Senator KENNEDY. Oh, well, he has been opposing me ever since the Rackets Committee investigation, on account of my brother. He is going around and raising $1,500,000 I saw, and he is going around making speeches. I think I will win or lose without regard to what he does in the campaign. I don't think he should stand - he's got an alliance with Harry Bridges and the Longshoremen, and that is a very powerful organization, and I think we should conduct the case against him with more vigor, and if successful, I will.
     QUESTION. Is there any one argument or device, or issue being used by your opponent which is concerning you, or giving you any difficulty?
     Senator KENNEDY. Oh well, everything is a matter of concern these days. We have got a tough campaign. It is very close, very hard fought in every State. All the polls indicate that every place pretty nearly in the country it is neck and neck. So I think it is going to be---
     QUESTION. You are charged, Senator, with some inconsistency on farm legislation. Would you comment about that?
     Senator KENNEDY. Yes. I originally had thought that some degree of flexibility would help in trying to limit overproduction, but it was obvious after the program worked for 2 years, by the end of 1955, that it really wasn't going to work. Dropping support prices stimulated production in many ways, particularly when you didn't have effective production controls, and therefore it seemed to me after a couple of years, and Mr. Vinson's experience, that the most effective way was to have a higher support price and effective controls on production that o not only to the acre, but to the unit per acre.
     I think experience, or observation is given to us for some reason, and I think that the experience of the last 8 years has shown that this policy is disastrous. These tremendous surpluses are a tremendous burden on the taxpayer, and very low price - I can't understand why the policy is continued. It seemed to me after 2 years it wasn't going to work.
     QUESTION. Does consistency on issues concern you? Is it important for a Presidential candidate to be absolutely consistent on every issue?
     Senator KENNEDY. Obviously, we all learn, I hope, from the time you are born to the time you die, so that what may have been a satisfactory policy at one time, may not be. Events change, too. Conditions change, and you try to make an effort in an area, and if it isn't successful, of course you try a different policy.
     I think you would be extremely unwise, whether you are a general, whether you're a writer, a commentator, or politician, to pursue policies that are unsuccessful. I hope there would be some consistency of viewpoint, of philosophy, but I would think that some things are successful, and some are not.
     QUESTION. One more question about specific issues. Does the implication that you are lacking experience in foreign affairs, and foreign policy, disturb you?
     Senator KENNEDY. It is one of the campaign charges, and one of the grounds upon which Mr. Nixon has based his claim. Actually, I have spent quite a lot of time in foreign affairs. My father was Ambassador. I worked over there. I wrote a book on English foreign policy in 1939 and 1940, "Our Unpreparedness for War"; visited the Soviet Union and other countries; have been on the Foreign Relations Committee for a number of years in the Senate; and have been particularly concerned with problems of foreign policy in the Senate. So that I go back quite a long way, and I think that as these debates go on, I will be glad to discuss foreign policy with Mr. Nixon.
     QUESTION. Have you any idea how many countries you have visited; foreign countries?
     Senator KENNEDY. I have visited about 45 countries over the years.
     QUESTION. And some of those were on behalf of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?
     Senator KENNEDY. Most of them really were on my own. I traveled really almost every summer when I was in Congress, and before. I went to Indochina, India, Latin America, and so on. So I really did most of it on my own.
     QUESTION. Senator, you mentioned a debate. I think every other person in the United States has expressed his opinion about it. What was yours? What did you think of it?
     Senator KENNEDY. I thought it was very useful. In the first place, we could get up and talk, and give our views, and make a speech and give our arguments. It's like a lawyer in a court. Unless you have the two lawyers together presenting their arguments for each side, how can any judge or any jury give a verdict? If they heard one lawyer once a week, and then perhaps picked him up or read some statement of the lawyer the next week, it's very difficult to give a balanced decision.
     Now there are limits. Everyone says it isn't Lincoln-Douglas, but Lincoln-Douglas, I think, gave seven, eight, or nine speeches, leisurely traveled through Illinois; hour after hour they spoke in rebuttal. Unfortunately, it cannot operate that way.
     But I think it does give a flavor that you could not possibly get in any other way. I think it is going to change campaigning.
     QUESTION. How? More of this and less travel around the country you mean ?
     Senator KENNEDY. No, I think the travel you're going to have to do. But otherwise we just speak through the newspapers, and that's pretty difficult to get much over through the papers. You get a headline.
     QUESTION. Is it more difficult for a Democrat?
     Senator KENNEDY. I think about 85 percent of the papers of this country are supporting the Republican candidate, but of course they always have. Now some of them - I would say the majority of them - certainly give very fair news coverage to both candidates. Some of them are not as fair. But I think, there are some burdens that the Democrats carry in that area which have been traditional. Everyone thinks that Franklin Roosevelt, if he had had the same newspaper support that Alf London had in 1956, he would have carried Maine and Vermont.
     QUESTION. One more question about the debate. How do you think it came out?
     Senator KENNEDY. I thought we held our own. However, it's like playing Ohio State. You have to play three more Saturdays.
     QUESTION. During the next day or two, after the debate, or even that night after you went to bed, did a couple dozen things go through your head? You said to yourself, "Why didn't I say this or that."
     Senator KENNEDY. No; I thought that you can always improve afterward, but I would settle for the way it went. I thought it was all right.
     QUESTION. Do you agree, Senator Kennedy, with the present policy in which it seems to me we are committed now to the defense of the tiny offshore islands off the coast of China, Quemoy and Matsu?
     Senator KENNEDY. I have always thought that was an unwise place to draw the line. It seems to me that we should draw the line very exactly and precisely, so that any aggressor knows that if he moves into this area that it would mean war. One of the charges frequently made was that the line had not been precisely drawn in Korea; that there was some feeling by the Communists that if they moved into South Korea, it was not within the perimeter of our defense, and the same really is true of Quemoy and Matsu.
     Under the Eisenhower doctrine and the interpretation it has been given, we have stated that we would defend Quemoy and Matsu if it was part of an attack on the island of Formosa. How are we going to make that judgment? On what basis? Quemoy and Matsu are not essential to the defense of Formosa. They are small islands a few miles off the coast of the mainland. I think that we should draw the line very precisely and hard.
     The Chinese Communists are a very dangerous adversary now, and they are going to be more dangerous. They indicate that they believe that world war III will bring the world revolution for communism, and therefore, they may be prepared to start it. We want to draw the line in such a way that we can clearly defend it, that it would have the support of the American people as an attack on the United States, and the support of world opinion.
     I am not convinced we will in the case of Quemoy and Matsu. Formosa, yes. At least our own support we will have. Quemoy and Matsu is a different matter.
     QUESTION. I recall something, too, about you and former Secretary of State Acheson having, well, a polite difference, following your speech on Algeria. He thought you were criticizing France too severely. Are you and Acheson now on good terms?
     Senator KENNEDY. Personally we are. We probably don't agree about Algeria, however. The reason I spoke about Algeria is the same reason that I spoke about Indochina. The strongest tie that has been running through the world since the end of World War II is the desire of these people to be independent. I think the United States should be associated with that feeling. We have seen it now in Africa. All these people are going to be independent. It is the greatest asset we have, cause after all we want them to be independent. The events of Eastern Europe in the last 6 or 7 years show that this is the thing which finally, I think, will stop the Communists.
     Now if we lose our identification with this nationalist tie, the Communists have been more successful recently in identifying themselves with it. The trouble is we talk about Hungary all the time, which we should, and about Poland, and Eastern Germany, and about Communist imperialism, which is the most brutal kind.
     But then in Africa, where there was colonial powers from the West, or Indochina, where it was French, when they would be voted on in the United Nations, we would always abstain, or vote the other way.
     Now in 1960, I think we are doing much better. The British and French have done a tremendous job in Africa, as far as freeing their countries. I think the record is very good. But I do feel and felt at the time of Algeria that this is a matter that is before us, before the United Nations, and should disturb us. I think General de Gaulle has tried to do well there, but it is still a difficult matter. I just want to see us have the same identification with this cause that we did during Roosevelt's administration.
     QUESTION. Senator, you have been saying in your campaign that the Republicans in 8 years, 7½ years, have not come up with a single new major idea
     Senator KENNEDY. In social legislation.
     QUESTION. What major new idea do you offer?
     Senator KENNEDY. I stated I could not recall - I had even gone back further than that - in the last 25 years, since 1933, a single original piece of social legislation which had been proposed by the Republican Party leadership in the Congress or the administration. That record stands.
     The Cleveland paper took me to task and said that Senator Taft did some work on child labor. I don't recall any in the last 25 years, and I think that they have proposed compromises of original proposals we put forward.
     Now you are talking about the future and social legislation. One of the issues now before us is this whole issue of medical care for the aged, which I would think is the No. 1 social problem before the United States, and I think once again the Democrats have come forward with a proposal to put it under social security, and once again the Republican leadership has opposed it.
     QUESTION. Well, generally, there hasn't been a great deal of social legislation through Congress, since the early days of the New Deal, has there?
     Senator KENNEDY. There hasn't been much, no; but there have been continual attempts to improve the basic platform. After all, the minimum wage passed by the New Deal in the midthirties was 25 cents an hour, so that these areas of action have to be improved.
     I would say that housing for the elderly, aid to education, care, medical care for the aged - those are the three areas which will require action in the sixties, as well as the traditional ones - I would say the development of our natural resources, including the peaceful use of atomic energy, and getting fresh water from salt water. We are going to have a lot of new scientific changes which are going to change the social life of the country, the fight against pollution of our rivers. These are all rather new, maybe not dramatic, but important.
     QUESTION. While we are in this area, one of your advisers, Professor Galbraith, has an idea that has caught the attention of a lot of people, and it is that the American people are spending too much money for private comfort and luxury, and too little for such public facilities as schools, parks, libraries, and so on. What do you think of that?
     Senator KENNEDY. Well, I think that Professor Galbraith and others are anxious to concentrate as much attention as we can on the public needs of our time, and if you don't have the best schools and the best teachers, you can get - I include not only well paid, but also well trained. After all, one-fourth of all the teachers now teaching in our schools do not have a college degree. Unless you have the best teachers, highly motivated, unless you have good libraries, unless you have clean rivers, I think that. we are going to have twice the population in the United States by the year 2000, and here we are in the most competitive struggle that any free society has ever been engaged in.
     The individual can't build a school; the individual can't build a library. It is a matter for public responsibility. I think Professor Galbraith seeks to remind us that we have private and public responsibility, and if we don't recognize it we are not going to endure.
     QUESTION. Do you think the White House can change this emphasis from private luxury to public services?
     Senator KENNEDY. Roosevelt did an awful lot in his day. There was an awful lot of people in public life in the midtwenties and thirties that came because of Theodore Roosevelt, and I think Woodrow Wilson did the same.
     In the first place, there is a strong sense of public responsibility in the United States, and I think the President is the one man to strike that chord.
     QUESTION. Then are you saying, Senator, that when we come to this matter about economic growth, that we cannot depend upon the production and consumption of electric can openers, and gum massagers, and drink stirrers, and what not, for economic growth?
     Senator KENNEDY. No, I think all those examples may be somewhat extreme, but I do think we can want to improve private comfort. After, all, washing machines are essential and not a luxury, and automobiles, and all the rest.
     I think that the only thing we want to do is also remember the necessity of educating our children, and preparing the atmosphere around us for those who are coming after us. I think it is a welcome reminder, and I think the President - the pursuit of excellence in all phases of our national life, I think the President can do a good deal in setting the tone. Of course, we depend on individual effort, individual taste, individual judgment.
     QUESTION. Senator Kennedy, did you duck the McCarthy issue?
     Senator KENNEDY. No. I was in the hospital for a long time. I had indicated before I went to the hospital that I would support the censure, and I was away - I was operated on about 3 weeks before the censure and was not present and did not come back to the Senate for almost a year. I have indicated that I would have voted for it, though it was rather difficult to be there.
     QUESTION. Senator, what did you think about the way Vice President Nixon settled the steel strike?
     Senator KENNEDY. I think that I don't criticize his efforts in the area, because I think Federal intervention was required, and I don't know sufficient - it seemed to me that the companies could have made the same deal that they made in December way back in July. What the arguments were the Vice President used, or Mr. Mitchell used, or they understood, made them accept in December what they would not in July, I do not know.
     There is a place for Federal intervention, particularly in national emergency strikes. I would like to see the procedure more regularized than in this case. The strike did go on for 5 or 6 months. I think the President should be given a variety of tools and use them effectively. I think the President's power is quite great, and it seems to me if that is the final arrangement to be made, it could have been made in July by vigorous White House intervention then, particularly if we had appointed a committee which could have broken down the rival claims, which the Taylor committee did in September and October, so that you knew exactly what the steel union wanted in the way of increases, what it would provide for increase in prices. You knew what the company could pay without a price increase. Those facts never became open until around November.
     I think if the White House had had the power, which I think it did have, and appointed a factfinding committee immediately to make a report of all these ingredients, then I think public opinion and the President, and mediators, and conciliators, and the mutual self-interest of the company and the union, perhaps we could have gotten an agreement in August.
     QUESTION. Do you think it would ever be appropriate for the President to make a suggestion or recommendation for a settlement in labor-management disputes?
     Senator KENNEDY. There are two or three thoughts there. I think what the President ought to do, in addition to have additional powers, which I think Congress should give him - he has the power now to set up a factfinding committee. I think that factfinding committee should have the power to make recommendations, which the President could then endorse, or not endorse. And then I would hope that the President, in a serious national emergency, would use the influence of his office, but not have the legal power to compel the State.
     QUESTION. He would be able to say he thinks this or that side should be right or wrong, and it should be settled this way or that way?
     Senator KENNEDY. I don't know if it is necessary - I think that he can use his great influence of his office. Once the facts are laid on the table, and the claims and the counterclaims, which are always the most difficult matter, and you are down to the bone of the dispute, then I think the President should urge the parties to get together, but he shouldn't have the power to say this is the basis for the settlement, or he will be settling every industrial dispute.
     I have great confidence in the power of the Presidency to influence events if the power is used effectively, not compulsion - particularly once the facts are brought to bear. That's the difficulty in all these industrial disputes, to know what the real claims are on each side.
     QUESTION. One of the great periods in the House of Commons in Britain is an occasional period, what they call a question and answer period. Have you ever thought about the feasibility of the President of the United States occasionally going before the House, or the Senate, or both, for a question and answer period ?
     Senator KENNEDY. No, I think it would be unwise. There are many differences between the parliamentary system and our system, and after all the Prime Minister comes out of the House of Commons. The President is not a Member of the House of Representatives. He is an equal branch of the Government, coordinate but equal. Therefore, to go to the House to submit himself to interrogations by Members of the House would, in my opinion, be taking a part of the British system without taking the other part, which makes the procedures of the House of Commons satisfactory for them.
     I think the division is best, and I think that the President could not - you remember when General Washington, I think, came to the Senate and recommended a treaty to the Senate. The Senate was highly dissatisfied to have the President of the Senate recommending action. The separateness of our branches is important and should be maintained.
     QUESTION. Well, if you are elected, Senator, do you think that you would depend almost entirely
     Senator KENNEDY. If I may say, that of some of the functions, the weekly press conferences serve a very important function.
     QUESTION. Would you depend almost entirely upon the press conferences and public addresses?
     Senator KENNEDY. Yes, but there are many ways in which the President can make his views known, but I don't think going up to the House is the way, any more than having the House Members come before the President to be interrogated.
     QUESTION. Do you think the present administration is in any way responsible for what has happened in Cuba, the growth of communism?
     Senator KENNEDY. I think there is a definite responsibility.
     QUESTION. What did they do wrong?
     Senator KENNEDY. Well, I think what they did wrong was not to use what was our great influence in the case of Cuba more effectively on Batista to have him relax his dictatorship and permit free elections, particularly toward the end. I remember in 1952 all the talk about why we lost China.
     Now here we have lost Cuba, and I think the situation is extremely serious for us.
     Here's Mr. Nixon at a press conference in Havana, in which he spoke about the stability of the Batista regime in 1955 - the United States had great influence. There isn't any doubt that the American Ambassador was the second most powerful figure in Cuba. Whether he should have been or not is another question, but he was, and when the general strike failed, and it looked like Batista had been set back, in my opinion the United States should have used all of its influence to persuade Batista to hold open elections that summer, so that the people could make a free choice. They didn't; Batista did not, and by December the situation had so soured that Castro was able to seize it.
     So I would say that both American Ambassadors, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Smith, have been extremely critical of American policy toward Cuba. They are both Republicans, appointed by a Republican administration. I don't seek to make any party capital out of what happened in Cuba; but I do believe we don't want other Cubas to come in other parts of Latin America.
     If you tolerate a dictatorship, the only opposition to the dictatorship usually becomes the Communists. They seize control of the nationalist movement. That is what concerns me about Algeria. If it goes on long enough, the Communists are the only ones that can survive a police state, and they deal in subversion themselves.
     So that what we want is free elections, and I think that was the mistake the administration made.
     QUESTION. I dare say you haven't had too much time to observe all of Khrushchev's behavior during the past week at the United Nations, but from what you have seen of it, has his behavior given you any insight or suggestion as to how we might better deal with this man?
     Senator KENNEDY. I thought yesterday's exhibition was the most alarming, in the case of Mr. Macmillan. Mr. Macmillan's speech, of course, represented a different viewpoint, but for Khrushchev to lose his temper, or feel that it was advantageous for him to lose his temper and harangue, and shout, demonstrates an emotional instability that I thought was very dangerous.
     On the other hand, Khrushchev has had these bursts that go on and on, and yet he has operated in a rather cool and cold way, so that we have to take the long view of the Communist menace. Khrushchev will come and go, but the Communist danger will continue. But I thought yesterday was very ominous.
     Mr. BRINKLEY. This is sort of an esoteric question, but if you were President at this moment, would you be inclined perhaps to tell Prime Minister Macmillan to use his own judgment, and his own discretion in setting up a meeting with Khrushchev, if he could see any profit in it?
     Senator KENNEDY. For Mr. Macmillan and Khrushchev, yes. I think if Mr. Macmillan wanted to go to see Mr. Khrushchev, or thought there was any benefit - we have to live with them. We want to live. We don't want to die with them. And therefore any opportunity for any easing of the tension, of course, is useful. But I think that unless there is some change in Soviet attitude, it would be a mistake probably for the President to now go to see Mr. Khrushchev, or invite Mr. Khrushchev.
     But if Mr. Macmillan thought it was useful, I would have no objection. I would like to see the relaxation of tension. We probably won't get it, but I would certainly make every effort to try to lessen fever.

     (Mrs. Kennedy was interviewed in her home at Hyannis Port, Mass., by NBC News Correspondent Sander Vanocur. )

     Mr. VANOCUR. Mrs. Kennedy, I read the other day that Dr. Spock has endorsed Senator Kennedy. Do you raise Caroline according to Dr. Spock, or have you got methods of your own ?
     Mrs. KENNEDY. I suppose I do. I always imagined I'd raise my children completely on my own, but once you have them you find you need help. So I do need Dr. Spock a lot and I find it such a relief to know that other people's children are as bad as yours at the same age.
     Mr. VANOCUR. Does Caroline, I'm sure, talk about her father when he's not here and campaigns a lot? Is it really true that the first words she learned were Wisconsin and West Virginia?
     Mrs. KENNEDY. No, that isn't true, but the first word she did learn was plane, because that was a very important part of her life. Her father was always leaving on them. I think she's at the age now where she misses him terribly, but she's not quite old enough to understand why he's away so much.
     Mr. VANOCUR. Now when did you first meet Senator Kennedy? Was that in Washington?
     Mrs. KENNEDY. That was in 1952-1951, Washington, when I was living with my family, working on a newspaper. I met him at the home of friends of ours who had been shamelessly matchmaking for a year, and usually that doesn't work out, but this time it did, and I'm very grateful to them.
     Mr. VANOCUR. What were you doing on the newspaper then? Was this a Washington newspaper?
     Mrs. KENNEDY. That's right. It was the Times-Herald, now defunct. And I was the inquiring photographer. I had always wanted to write. I think I thought I could write the great American novel, but I didn't quite know how to go about it. So a friend of my family's, Arthur Krock of the New York Times, told me the very best way to get experience was on a newspaper.
     Mr. VANOCUR. What did you inquire into?
     Mrs. KENNEDY. In a way it was the best training for everything, for the life I lead now. You've got to know so much about people, how they spoke, how they felt; you have to ask them a different question every day and in a way I'm glad I was that instead of the reporter I'd hoped I'd be.
     Mr. VANOCUR. Did you train for this when you went to college?
     Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, I majored in English and French literature there. I think it's better to major, to read all the literature rather than major in writing there. Because unless you have something to go by, with style, you don't acquire any sort of background.
     Mr. VANOCUR. Did you find that the year that you spent abroad, at the Sorbonne, I think, was that more rewarding than the time you spent in a university here?
     Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, I suppose any year abroad, I think every student should almost be compelled to have it in every country. It teaches one so much. And then I've never worked harder in my life. First, I have to, you know, study in a new language, and they seem to study so hard there. So that was a great year for me.
     Mr. VANOCUR. Have you used these languages much?
     Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, I have on my travels with my husband, with our friends in Washington. I interpreted for Jack when I spoke to former French Premier Georges Bidault in Rome in 1955. That was fascinating for me. And then I did all the research for two of his major foreign policy speeches, on Indochina and Algeria, which were in French.
     Mr. VANOCUR. If your husband did become President would you use this talent of languages in the White House? Would you translate for him, for example, if visiting dignitaries came, or would you use the official translators?
     Mrs. KENNEDY. Oh, I think whenever you could do it yourself you would. I think once you know the language you can't imagine how it enriches your life. I think maybe Caroline might like to go play now, would you?
     CAROLINE. No.
     Mrs. KENNEDY. And see some rabbits?
     CAROLINE. No.
     Mrs. KENNEDY. Then will you sit very quietly?
     CAROLINE. Yes.
     Mrs. KENNEDY. OK.
     Mr. VANOCUR. OK. You've campaigned before, haven't you, Mrs. Kennedy? Does it seem awkward for you not to be able to campaign now?
     Mrs. KENNEDY. Oh, yes. I miss very much campaigning with my husband in this major endeavor of his life. I would be, if I wasn't expecting a baby. But I've campaigned with him ever since we were married in 1953. I counted - I've been in 46 States with him.
     Mr. VANOCUR. I know all politicians' wives say they love campaigning, but do you really love it, the long hours, the endless handshakes, and all the rest that goes with this exhausting work?
     Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, I tell you why you do love it. I grant that the exhaustion is there but you're with your husband in the major endeavor, you share. And when you look back on it, you've seen so much of the country, all the people you've met. It has just made you a person that you weren't before, so I would never part with one of the experiences I've had.
     Mr. VANOCUR. Mrs. Kennedy, if your husband gets elected President and you and Caroline and your other child - by the way, does the Senator want a boy or a girl?
     Mrs. KENNEDY. He's wonderful about it. He never said that he wanted either. Even in Caroline's case. And I think he probably wants a boy even less now because he's so delighted with this girl I think he'd like another.
     Mr. VANOCUR. I better tell you, out in California when he was campaigning there he kept telling the audience, "My wife is back in Massachusetts waiting for a boy to come."
     Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, maybe he's right.
     Mr. VANOCUR. Well, if you all move into the White House in January how do you feel about living in the White House? Do you think that an individual like yourself imposes her personality on the White House or the White House imposes its personality on the First Lady? Have you ever thought about that?
     Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes. I don't think the White House ever can completely belong to one person. It belongs to the people of America. And I think whoever lives in it, the First Lady, should preserve its traditions and enhance it and leave something of herself there. But she shouldn't leave it an empty museum. I also think that whichever way this election turns out there will be young children living there, and they are entitled to a home more than anyone because they didn't choose that their fathers should run for President, so it should be a place where they can bring their friends.
     Mr. VANOCUR. Is this a problem that a presidential candidate's wife has to face, in the case of yourself, that her child or children may be growing up in a limelight that other children don't have? Do you ever think or worry about this?
     Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, I think it's hard enough to bring up children, anyway, and everyone knows that limelight is the worst thing for them. They either get conceited or else they get hurt at school and shy. I think children who go to school are more vulnerable, probably, than really babies like this one. But it is a great problem, so you have to work harder.
     Mr. VANOCUR. What kind of a life would you try and make for Senator Kennedy if he becomes President Kennedy? Would you socialize much? Would you have parties at the White House? Who would come? What kind of a life would you try and create outside the official life of the White House?
     Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, I must say I don't think there's very much time for socializing because the President puts in such long days that he must be preserved rather than expended. But of course you would do official entertaining, and I don't think that should be treated as a drudgery. It should be a joy and done as graciously as possible. And then, you know, I mean if he is President he'll still be my husband and Caroline's father so we must have some time with him and he must have a normal family life there too.
     Mr. VANOCUR. Have you thought about a place outside the White House where you might go on weekends to get away, or is your first ambition just make the White House?
     Mrs. KENNEDY. I haven't thought about that and I think it's a mistake to talk as if I've been in the White House yet because I do think it's presumptuous, but obviously that crosses one's mind slightly.
     Mr. VANOCUR. Do you ever wish perhaps that your husband - perhaps like other husbands he didn't travel, he wasn't a politician, in a way, that he would just be at home more? Has the thought ever crossed your mind?
     Mrs. KENNEDY. No. I'm so glad he isn't. In the beginning I wished that. You know, when I was first married our life was almost as hectic as it is now and I found it rather hard to adjust. But now I think politics is one of the most, rewarding lives a woman can have, to be married to a politician. I think every woman wants to feel needed, and in politics you are so much more than in many other fields. You're always living in a state of crisis. You're always being demanded to meet a challenge, and when you meet it it's a great satisfaction to you.
     Mr. VANOCUR. If you do become the First Lady will you travel a great deal for your husband? Will you go out and do things that he asks you to do, speak to various groups, or will you try and stay at home more?
     Mrs. KENNEDY. I'll always do anything my husband asks me to do if he wants me to do that. Of course, I'd be delighted. I am an old-fashioned wife. I also think I have very young children, so I want to be with them.
     If you bungle raising your children I don't think whatever else you do well matters very much. But I'll try and do half of each.
     Mr. VANOCUR. Fine. Thank you very much, Mrs. Kennedy.
     Mrs. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Vanocur.