 It's time for the Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. A presentation of the Lawn Jean Wittner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lawn Jean. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope? Mr. William Bradford Huey, editor of the American Mercury, and Mr. Carl Hess, press editor of Newsweek magazine. Our distinguished guest for this evening is Mr. Henry Wallace, former vice president of the United States. Mr. Wallace, I'm sure that our viewers will be glad to see you back for a second appearance on the Chronoscope tonight, sir. Mr. Huey, I might be glad to be here because I look on your program as one of the most constructive on television today. Well, thank you, sir. That's very kind. And tonight I'm sure that our viewers would like to have some of your observations on what you consider to be the issues of the campaign. Oh, first one would be, have you made up your mind for whom you're going to vote? Well, it's not exactly an issue of the campaign, and I may say that I have not, as yet, quite made up my mind. I am going to vote for one of the two leading candidates. Have you felt yourself leaning either way, Mr. Wallace? Well, I'm very carefully refraining from stating publicly, as yet, as to which way I am leaning. I'm trying to keep an open mind because I look on myself as a genuine independent. What issues will sway you to lean one way or the other? The particular issue that would sway me is as to which candidate comes out with the methods which I deem most constructive for promoting a secure peace and domestic prosperity. Well, now have you, has General Eisenhower, for instance, said anything that interested you along that line? General Eisenhower has said he was for peace. He hasn't indicated precisely how he would attain a secure peace combined with domestic prosperity. Now, Stevenson also, I assume, is for peace and domestic prosperity, but neither one nor the other has come out as yet with a definite method of attaining the secure peace. Do you feel that there's a single definite method? You have something in mind yourself? Yes, I very definitely do have something in mind. Well, sir, you spoke of yourself as being an independent and that you haven't yet made up your mind. Do you feel that a great many people haven't yet made up their minds? I think a much larger percentage of the population than usual has not made up its mind as yet. And do you think that independence should be in this position now? Do you see independence in some peculiar role in this campaign? I think the independence are important in all campaigns, but especially so in this one. And I hope they will follow my example and not state exactly how they're going to vote. Why, sir? Because if they will hold their fire as it were, it will be an inducement for both candidates to become more specific in terms of all important constructive issues. Can one of the candidates win without making these specific statements? How important are these independence? I think they're unusually important in this particular campaign. I notice Mr. Sam Lubell in one of the New York newspapers has dwelt on that at considerable length. And that Elmo Roper has gone into great detail on it. Both Lubell's analysis and Roper's analysis indicate to me quite clearly that the independence have more importance this year than usual. On this business of smoking them out, sir, what particular plan do you have, or what would you like to hear them say? Well, I feel the all-important issue, both from the standpoint of domestic prosperity in the long run and from the standpoint of world peace, is recognizing that in that vast area on the southern border of Russia and China, the dominant problem is an agricultural problem. These people are very poor because they produce only about one-fiftyth as much as the American farmer. Their misery has been increasing, and the communists are exploiting that misery. And if those people along that entire southern border, in the desperation of their misery, should succumb to the communist propaganda, then the world would become overbalanced to a very great disadvantage. How many people? You mean India and Iran? That's something like 500 million people in that area, I assume. Oh yes, definitely 500, going all the way across to northern Africa. And you think that's the key area at the moment now, the area that we must fight Russian influence in that area? Well, I'd put it specifically, that the way to fight Russian influence in that area is really to get close to the people who are on the land. You see, more than 80% of the people in that area are farmers, and they are 99%, I would say, using backward methods. Well, they're also prisoners of a sort now. How do you get close to them in their condition of servitude to the Soviet Union now? Well, I'm referring to the people on the southern border, the people that we can reach. Below China? Yes, it's below China. I'm referring to the people in India and Afghanistan and all the way across. Does this mean we give up China? No, I'd say that the way to gain China, the only way in which effectively we can gain China now, is to demonstrate what we can do on the border areas. I do think that the nationalist government in Formosa is putting forth a very good effort at the present time to gain the support of the Formosan farmers. Well now, with this 500 million people... They do recognize that you have to give the people on the land a stake in the land, something that they feel is their own. In other words, you have 500 million people at least, and 80% of them are farmers, so your particular interest is in 400 or 500 million farm people. And you want to raise their living standards. Yes, that is correct. I don't say that is the sole issue. But I say that unless that particular issue is recognized, that all other methods of gaining a secure peace for us will fail. That is, military methods alone can't do it. I recognize the need and view of Stalin's statement, I think it was October 14th, just a few days ago, means that we do have to be fully prepared for every contingency. You may remember the precise statement, it was something to the effect that Russia was standing behind the communists in every western country. How do you interpret that? Well it was a very alarming statement, because it would indicate that at the moment Stalin believes that there is going to be war, and he wants to have a fifth column in every western country. I do hope that Stalin comes to his senses and abandons that position because that does seem to foreclose peace at the moment. Is that rather disillusioning to you, sir? You've been friendly toward the Soviet Union at various periods in your life, haven't you? Well I have felt that the dominant issue ever since 1942, that the dominant post-war issue would be whether or not we could come to a friendly understanding with Russia. I still say it's the dominant issue, and I regret exceedingly that Stalin has made a statement of this sort and that Russia has been taking an attitude that seems to make peace very difficult. Come back to your plans for helping to raise the food standard of these people. Stalin's plan, isn't it, as you understand it now, is to try to destroy us by inflation as one of the weapons against us, isn't it? Well that's what this statement would indicate. See I've felt right along that the Stalinist Marxists being so steeped in their brand of economics would try to destroy us without war, either by the deflation route or the inflation route. No, it's inflation. And this statement would indicate to me that they feel the best bet is the inflation route maintaining the tension at the maximum so that we will spend vast sums of money on armaments. Well how can we go about raising the living standards of four or five hundred million farmers without increasing the dangers of inflation at home? I think the pattern for doing that is given by Nelson Rockefeller's program through this International Agricultural Association in Brazil and Venezuela, which means that you use technicians, American and Native technicians working hand in hand, using local money as much as possible to make supervised loans to the local farmers. Now that doesn't take an awful lot to be either U.S. capital or United Nations capital, but it does take a lot of training of both American technicians and the Native technicians to do the job. I know something about this kind of thing because I saw it work in the old farm security administration. The supervised loans for farmers does not, that method does not need to take an awful lot of money. Is it fair to describe it? I would hope that General Eisen, if he becomes president, that his brother Milton would be there at his right hand because he knows exactly how this is done. And if Stevenson becomes president, I could name certain people that could help him. Well, in this case though, your aid program, it seems to me, would smack into a Russian barrier of actual sabotage and certainly a propaganda. How do we overcome that? Well, of course, you can meet propaganda with propaganda, but the best way of meeting propaganda of all is to produce results. And I think our extension people know how it is that you produce actual results and getting them to produce twice as much as they've been producing. And then this isn't exactly a struggle for men's minds at this point. It's a struggle first for men's stomachs and through the stomachs their minds. We've got to get their stomachs because there's a population explosion coming out, the mouths out running, the food. And unless we recognize that, there's the direst disaster coming to all of us, including Russia, I may say. As one of the world's great food scientists, sir, then as I understand it, you think that we are very particularly well equipped to fight this battle for men's stomachs. There's no nation so well equipped. The communists can use propaganda and make promises which they can never fulfill about giving the land to them with this, that, and the other thing. But we are the ones that can produce results. Well, thank you very much for being with us tonight, sir. The opinions you've heard our speakers express tonight are entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Carl Hess. Our distinguished guest was Mr. Henry Wallace, former vice president of the United States. Consistently superior manufacture makes Lawn Jean the world's most honored watch, never in its 86 years of business, as Lawn Jean deviated from its policy of making the finest quality of watch and only the finest. As a result, at world's fairs and international expositions, in competition with the world's finest timepieces, Lawn Jean watches have consistently won highest honors, including 10 world's fair grand prizes and 28 gold medal awards. And in competitive accuracy trials at great government observatories, Lawn Jean watches have been equally successful. In view of Lawn Jean's demonstrated superiority, isn't it remarkable that a Lawn Jean watch can be purchased for as little as $71.50? So when next you buy a watch, either for yourself or as an important gift, remember that if you pay $71.50 or more for a watch, you're paying the price of a Lawn Jean. And you should insist on getting a Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, premier product of the Lawn Jean Witner Watch 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 Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Witner, distinguished companion to the world honored Lawn Jean. This is Frank Knight reminding you that your mark as an American is X on the ballot. Vote for whom you please, but please vote. Sunday nights, the web spins mystery on the CBS television network.