 This is Frank Knight, the Adventures of Lawn Jean. In the Adventures of Lawn Jean, there are recorded many interesting events. It's recorded that the longest eclipse of the sun in a period of 1200 years occurred in 1937. This fiery celestial spectacle, which in olden days was viewed with terror, gave scientists a brief opportunity to study the mysterious corona of the sun, visible only during an eclipse. The Hayden Planetarium expedition of the American Museum of Natural History went to Peru to make, and we quote, timing calculations of greater precision than ever before attempted on any eclipse. The timing equipment consisted of Lawn Jean watches, and the timepieces included Lawn Jean chronometers, Lawn Jean chronographs, and Lawn Jean one hundredth of a second watches. It's a great honor that Lawn Jean watches were selected for this, and many other important scientific expeditions, but it's no surprise considering the fact that leading government observatories have all bestowed first prizes and innumerable other honors on Lawn Jean watches for their exceptional accuracy. It's a fact that throughout the world, no other name on a watch means so much as Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch. The Lawn Jean Chronoscope each week looks for the truth in the important issues of the hour, and here to discuss these issues are our co-editors. Mr. Henry Haslett, a political economist of respected judgment and contributing editor of Newsweek Magazine, and Mr. William Bradford Huey, editor of the American Mercury. Our distinguished guest for this evening is Mr. Paul Gray Hoffman, former director of ECA and president of the Ford Foundation. In this spontaneous and unrehearsed discussion, the opinions are necessarily those of the speakers. Mr. Hoffman, I gather from your new book, Peace Can Be Won, that though you're now in private life, you're still in favor of the foreign aid program. Definitely, yes, Mr. Haslett. I wonder if I can tell you why? Because I believe in peace and because I believe and hope that free society can survive in the United States. I do not believe we can have peace, nor do I believe that free society can survive in the United States unless we play our appropriate part in helping the rest of the free world to remain free. Specifically, sir, do you believe you favor the bill now before Congress? You mean the bill that calls for $8.5 billion of foreign aid. Yes, sir. Well, of that amount, some $6.3 billion is for military aid, for Europe. I'm not a military man, have no judgment, but if General Eisenhower says he needs $6.3 billion, I'm forgiving General Eisenhower $6.3 billion for military aid. Well, Mr. Hoffman, isn't that military aid really at bottom economic aid? Doesn't it come down to this that what we are saying is that these European nations can't afford to arm themselves and that therefore we have to take that over? And isn't that really an economic question? Well, I think that we'd have to qualify someone if you'd say that they can't take care of the job of arming themselves quickly enough to make the threat of the Soviets. I go along with you. They can't do that by themselves. And I think we have to help them to arm themselves so that that arming can take place quickly enough. Well, if it's a question of our supplying arms, that's one thing, but aren't we really in effect saying they can't afford to buy those arms from us? We do a lot of things. Let's say we need tin, we need rubber, we need wool. But we buy them from the outside. Why can't they buy arms from us? Well, that's a very simple answer because they haven't the dollars. And we won't take any but dollars. But then it does come down to an economic question and not primarily a military question. I think it's very definitely an economic question, as well as a military question. Yes. Well, now on the two billion dollars of aid, I think there's two billion to recommend it for this year. Do you remember how much the recent one was? It was two billion seven or something like that? Well, for Western Europe alone, it was something under three billion dollars. That was for Western Europe, I should say, and I think some very small amount of aid in Asia. This bill is, this two billion two is about a billion six for Europe and about six hundred million for Asia, as I remember. Well, now your successor, Mr. Foster, testified a little while ago, testified this year before Congress, that the European countries had today a 40% increase in production and industrial production over pre-war period. That's right. And a 9% increase in industrial in agricultural production. Right. Now, in view of that, why do we continue to need to pour in aid there? Well, I don't think if it hadn't been, I think it had not been for this emergency, that we, that Europe, except in a few countries, could have carried itself. That is, I think England, you know, all aid to England was stopped last December, I think. I think that several other countries have reached a point where they no longer needed economic aid. Now, certain countries did. It was our original thought that we had had this program down, you know, starting the first year at five, that with improvement, it would go down to four, go down to three, and the last year would be two. Well, those figures were, of course, beaten, and we also, and also the European countries, with our help, got recovery more rapidly than we had originally anticipated. Mr. Hoffman, I'm interested in a transition in your own life. You were a very successful American industrialist, and as such, you were interested in balancing books, and then you became one of our firmest advocates of vast foreign spending. Now, do you see anything anomalous in that change? No, I don't, because my approach to foreign aid, I think, is strictly a business approach. In other words, I've never been able to see or believe that we could have peace and prosperity in the United States unless we were in a reasonably peaceful and prosperous world. Now, as a businessman, I always okayed with, I think, wisdom a budget of around one to two percent a year for promotion that wasn't going to pay off in this year or next, but over the long pull would pay off. Now, I have looked on foreign aid as promotion by the United States to help bring about peace and prosperity to the world. This spending, though, is spending a billion dollars, billions of dollars we've noticed, those of us in Washington, has become a rather heady business. Now, it causes a man to adopt a certain social worker attitude. Would you say that it's caused you to change any of your personal views, that experience? Definitely not. I really think that our administration of foreign aid was very hard-headed. I happen to think that the greatest bargain the American people ever got. They got the spending of money under the Marshall Plan. You have no doubt that what you've done is to the best interest of this country. That puts me in the position where I had to be somewhat immodest, but certainly I would not have been associated with the Marshall Plan if I had not wholly believed in the Marshall Plan from the American point of view. You would say that your first interest has always been the national interest of the United States. I certainly think that we have every right, always have said we have every right to determine whether we'll send any dollars abroad, where we'll send them, and to do that on a basis of our own interest, interest of the U.S. But I say it's got to be a somewhat enlightened self-interest. Well, Mr. Hoffman, we get back away from these generalities down to the specific figures. Secretary Atchison said a few days ago that this country was going to have to spend $25 billion in the next few years for the foreign aid program. Now, even some of the Democratic members of Congress are backing up against that, and Mr. Douglas, Senator Douglas, wants to reduce it about a billion or so, and even Senator Connolly bursts forth tonight. Why do you think of these specific figures that are being proposed for the foreign aid? Well, I think now an economic aid, talking about that first, the $2.2 billion that is projected for this next year is in line with what I thought would be necessary to just help build prosperity in the world, and to help promote peace in the world. Now, I'm not in no position to pass judgment on the amount of military aid required. I think that any effort to say what is required three years from now does involve a considerable amount of guessing. The world situation can change in a year or two years. If it did, I'm sure that Secretary Atchison would be the first one to want to change his estimates. But remember this. The thing that's very important is that we do everything that we can possibly do to keep peace in the world, because if World War III breaks out, according to estimates I believe to be reliable, we'll start spending a billion dollars a day. World War III would cost a billion dollars a day. Now if I could be sure that I am sure that the expenditure of the money up to this time has helped us to maintain peace. If I was sure that any amount was necessary to maintain peace, I would think it a very good investment. Do you believe, sir, let me ask one last question. Do you believe then that communism can be fought successfully with money? No, not money alone. I think it takes money, among other things, to fight communism. That's a long story. But do you believe that communism is an effect that it's a result of a declining economy, or do you believe that it's the result of ideas vigorously presented by intellectuals? I think it's a result of both. I think you have very false ideas, and I think that have had to be combated, and I do think... I'm sorry, Mr. Hoffman, but I'm afraid our time is up. I'm sorry you couldn't finish that interesting answer, but we appreciate very much for being with us tonight. The editorial board for this edition of the Lone Gene Chronoscope was Mr. Henry Haslett and Mr. William Bradford Huey. Our guest was Mr. Paul Gray Hoffman, president of the Ford Foundation. Throughout the world, no other name on a watch means so much as Lone Gene, the world's most honored watch. Honored for excellence and elegance by ten WorldSphere grand prizes, twenty-eight gold medal awards, and highest honors for accuracy from the leading government observatories of the world. Whenever you have an occasion to purchase a watch, for yourself or as a gift, it's well to remember that if you pay seventy-one fifty or more for a watch, you're paying the price of a Lone Gene. And you should insist on getting a Lone Gene. World honored for excellence, elegance, greater accuracy, and long life. Lone Gene, the world's most honored watch, sold in service by more than four thousand leading jewelers from coast to coast, who proudly display the emblem, Agency for Lone Gene Wet-Nor Watches. Next week at this same time over the CBS television network, the Lone Gene Wet-Nor Watch Company will again present the Lone Gene Chronoscope.