 for the Lorne Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. A presentation of the Lorne Jean Wittner Watch Company, maker of Lorne Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world honored Lorne Jean. Good evening, this is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lorne Jean Chronoscope. Mr. William Bradford Huey, editor and analyst, and Mr. Richard Waddell, management editor of Business Week Magazine. Our distinguished guest for this evening is Mr. Charles F. Brannon, former secretary of agriculture. Mr. Brannon, our viewers are particularly interested in the price of meat and butter this week, sir, and I don't know if any man better qualified to discuss prices of those two things. Because, sir, our viewers remember that you were the secretary of agriculture and in the Truman administration, and of course now the new administration is in trouble over falling meat prices. Now, sir, why are meat prices falling now? Mr. Huey, there are several reasons. One of the main reasons is that the range conditions in the country have been poor and have been deteriorating for some period of time, which means that the man who produces the first animal, the animal on his road to the butcher shop, has found it necessary to cut down his numbers because his range won't carry them. That set against the background of the fact that we have built our beef animal numbers, our livestock numbers in this country, to the highest point in, I guess, all our history. Well, that's that building them to the highest point in our history. Brings me to this point, sir. Was it your policy while you were secretary of agriculture to encourage abundance, meaning to build, to get as many beef cattle as possible in the country? Yes, it was. The philosophy of abundance, which I think is inherent here really in the present law, simply is founded upon the idea that if you produce a large quantity or have a substantial quantity of a given commodity, you thereby begin to certainly control price or prevent runaway prices. Can you give us an illustration of how this works and what is different, perhaps, between your philosophy of farm policy and Mr. Benson's? Well, I would say, let me say first of all this about the present administration and Mr. Benson's farm policy. I'm not going to be critical of him. It is as important to me as a citizen that he solved the problems much more important to me as a citizen, and to you and all the rest of our people. Then it is that we gain some political advantage by as a result of his failure to solve them. I hope he's able to solve them, and as far as I'm concerned, I'd like to be as useful as I can in the solution. But sir, is there some basic difference, as you understand it, between your philosophy of government and his philosophy of government and relation? I would say that his statement and to simplify it and bring it concise as we can, the use of the word disaster insurance indicates a very direct takeoff at attention from the existing philosophy under the existing law. The price support laws of the country have been designed to maintain purchasing power in American farmers to the end that they are able to take care of the basic resources without which this country cannot be strong. Now, therefore, we have we have tried to keep a fair return to the American farmer while encouraging him to produce abundantly. I understand from the from the disaster insurance idea that you wouldn't help the farmer until his prices had gotten so low that he'd lost his purchasing power to begin with, and about all you'd give him is enough to put him back in business the next year as a farmer. If that's true, why is it that the the American Farm Bureau and the National Grange both have indicated their support of Mr. Benson? Benson's policies is so far indicated. Well, first of all, let's represent farmers. I they are the hierarchy of the American Farm Bureau and of the Grange have a philosophy, which in my opinion is not the philosophy of the many of their members. Is that would you call that a low support philosophy? It's a low to no support philosophy. Low to no. And and and it's proper to identify your philosophy as a high support philosophy. Yes, there's a strong support of philosophy. Now you were explaining the idea of the of the hierarchy. Well, they the the existing law or or the strong price support philosophy, of course, was the philosophy of the membership and the hierarchy of the American Farm Bureau, until it changed leadership. Now, if the membership changed leadership knowing that they were going to a low to no price support philosophy, I'm I would be doubtful that they would have ever made the change they made. Do you think Mr. Benson's policy, although his actions, he's supporting the law, but his disaster statement would indicate something else. Are those policies his own? Or are they administration policy? Are they something that in other words, is he the man who must be blamed if there is any blame to be placed? Well, I'm confident that Mr. Benson is expressing an administration policy. And who are the men? Do you think who are fashioning that policy? The president, of course, must be the final architect or must say the final yes or no. I think advising him, of course, is his brother Milton is Mr. Allen Klein, President of the American Farm Bureau Federation, and a few people, all of whom are low or no price support people. Well, is it is it fair to say, sir, that there's a difference in degree? I mean, we use this high support and low support. You wanted the Department of Agriculture to assume more responsibility for assuring abundance or assuring the farmer a return. And whereas your successor now, Mr. Benson, wants to assume, wants the Department of Agriculture to assume less responsibility. Is that a... Mr. Hewitt, I wouldn't say that was quite the right description. I think it is the people's concern to maintain stability and high level production in farm commodities. Now, maybe price support isn't the mechanism, but it's the best that anybody has thought of. And it is essential. For example, take this question of milk that we were talking about a few minutes ago. We have an excess of milk at this season of the year always. Now, do we... The question is, do we allow the price of milk to go so low as to penalize the farmers who have produced the abundance now? Or do you find a device by means of which you can encourage them to produce this abundance, pass that the benefit of the abundance onto the American consumer without making the farmer share all of the financial responsibility? What happens to the dairy farmer if the price of milk goes too low? Well, he goes out of business. He sells his cows. And remember, it will take you as long to get a new cow back into production of milk as it takes to build the biggest battleship we've ever floated. It'll take them two and a half years. And if he sells his cows for beef or bologna, they are going to be producing next year. That's a low season. And it's your belief, sir, that the president administration, the Eisenhower administration is not evidencing enough concern for the preservation of those herds. I think so. I think if I were to say anything critical, I probably would would run along that line. Let me say it another way. I think the American people should always take their risk on having a little more than we need than then having taking their risk on having a little less than we need of our food commodities. That brings up a question. Do you think there is has been a decline in some some concern among the farm groups about in prices about prices? Do you think that this price decline in farm commodities is significant? Does it historically a drop in farm prices bodes a recession or a downturn? Do you think that's what we have the fear in this? Well, historically, in practically all of the depressions that have come to this country, at least the ones in modern times, the farmer prices have gone down first, gone down farthest and stayed down the longest. So there is something in the present indications to to watch with great great concern. Now, I don't want by any stretch of imagination to say that we've reached catastrophic you. Do you think that the farmers of America are likely to suffer in the next in the foreseeable future in the next year or two? It's it's much too early to say as far as I can tell. Do you think to our viewers, sir, do you think that the price of food is going to continue to go down? Do you think the price of milk will go down? The price of meat will go down? No, I'm not to consumers. If the if the drought continues out in the Western area, there may be further liquidations of cattle, which would cause a further reduction of return to farmers. But that isn't always reflected to consumers. Prices were coming down for almost 18 months to farmers for for beef animals. At the same time, actually, some prices of meat or prices of some cuts were going up. You bring up a point there. Senator Taft has said recently that this farm problem, if there is a problem, is not a Republican problem, but the one that they inherited from the Democrats because the prices have been falling for about two years at the farm level. Well, let me put it this way. Just just plain fact, the price of beef did not go to 90 percent of parity during the Democratic administration. And there was no law which would have let us do anything until it did. I'm sorry, Mr. Brown and our time is up. Thank you very much for being with us this evening, sir. The opinions that you've heard our speakers expressed tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Lone Gene Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Richard Waddell. Our distinguished guest was Mr. Charles F. Brannon, former secretary of agriculture. Do you know when Easter comes this year? Well, here is a rough rule. Easter is the first Sunday after the full moon after the first day of spring. Spring begins, here's the full moon, and here's Easter Sunday, April the fifth. Now, how about giving someone near and dear to you a magnificent new Lone Gene watch to wear on Easter Sunday? You know, giving a Lone Gene is almost like selecting a watch made to your special order because every year, Lone Gene produces literally hundreds of new and exclusive styles and models. This has always been a Lone Gene policy because we realize that those who buy Lone Gene watches expect such exclusiveness. Above and beyond faultless performance, above and beyond unparalleled accuracy, a Lone Gene watch offers pride of possession. For a Lone Gene is, in fact, the world's most honored watch, the only one of the world's finest watches to win so many honors for excellence, elegance, and accuracy at world fairs and in observatory accuracy competitions. For Easter, for an anniversary, for a birthday, or for any important occasion, throughout the world, no other name on a watch means so much as Lone Gene, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift, premier product of the Lone Gene with Norwatch 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 Lone Gene Chronoscope, the television journal of the important issues of the hour broadcast on behalf of Lone Gene, the world's most honored watch, and Wet Nor, distinguished companion to the world honored Lone Gene. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Lone Gene and Wet Nor watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem, agency for Lone Gene Wet Nor watches. Sunday nights, it's Ed Sullivan's Toast of the Town on the CBS television network.