 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, author and analyst, and Mr. Hardy Burt, author and correspondent. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Robert S. Kerr, United States Senator from Oklahoma. Senator Kerr, it's a pleasure to have you with us again, sir, on the Chronoscope. Our viewers, of course, know that you are one of those old-fashioned Democrats in the Indian country who get your Tommy Hawk out every now and then, and I just wonder if there's somebody down in Washington you're gunning for now, sir. Well, Mr. Huey, I'm very much opposed to what the Secretary of Agriculture is doing to agriculture in this country. Well, now, what's your case against Mr. Benson, sir? My case against Mr. Benson is that while he is fiddling and talking about things which have no connection with reality, the producers of beef in this country are gradually being squeezed into bankruptcy. Well, now, obviously, I mean, you're not objective about this. You come from one of the great cattle-producing states, don't you? Yes, I do. And are your cattlemen putting the heat on you to put the heat on Mr. Benson? Well, the cattlemen are saying this, that the price of their product is below the cost of production. That if it continues, they're going to go into bankruptcy. When they do, they've suffered a great loss, and the consumer population of the country will find that they likewise have had inflicted upon them a tragedy. How much has the price of beef been reduced from their level, from the level of the cattlemen themselves? Well, the price of beef on the hoof has gone down in the last 12 months, 50 percent. How much has it gone down at the markets where you buy the meat? At the meat market, it had gone down very little until the first of the year. I'd say it has since gone down probably half as much as the price has been forced down to the producers. Now, Senator, you're stating to our viewers as a matter of fact that the beef industry, the beef producers, are really in trouble that they are going bankrupt if something isn't done. That's very definite. How much of a subsidy do you think they should get to keep them from going bankrupt? Mr. Burt, they don't want a subsidy. They want an opportunity to produce at a reasonable profit. You see, we have a program of supports in with reference to basic commodities, the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to support perishables of many kinds at 90 percent of parity. And the average cattleman feels that since the price of beef on the hoof has gone down now to less than 80 percent of parity, that the Secretary should use the authority which he now has under the law and support that product at what the law permits him to do. Isn't that just a matter of labels, Senator, not calling it a subsidy? In effect, it is a subsidy. The government's giving them money. No, not at all. If he would move to do that, he wouldn't have to buy a lot of beef in my judgment. But it would still be if he bought even a dollar's worth, it would be a dollar's worth of subsidy. Well, it would be a dollar's worth of investment in the welfare of one great segment of our country and in the continuation of a supply. I know that agriculture represents a very great industry in this country, but so does the clothing industry and so does the automobile industry. Why should agriculture have any more right to a subsidy, which the taxpayer pays than the clothing industry, the automobile industry? Because the consumer has an equal interest in an abundant supply of food and fiber as does the producer. You see, the only way that the consumer can have an abundant supply of food at a reasonable price is for somebody to produce it. If economics are handled in a way to force the producer back onto the law of supply and demand, all he'll do is just retreat in the matter of production, produce less food and get more money for it. Well, I know that you don't believe in free enterprise, particularly so far as the farmers are concerned. Sure, I believe in free enterprise, but I don't believe in the law of the jungle. Senator Kerr, our viewers have heard a great deal of discussion about this in the last few days. And now, sir, to simplify, Mr. Benson is buying butter, is supporting the price of butter at 90% parity, isn't he? Yes, sir. And that means that the government buys butter and supports the price, and you are saying, in effect, that you'd like to see him do the same thing for beef. Yes, only there's this difference in supporting the price of butter, which is in great overproduction. He's accumulated probably two million pounds of butter. I think there's many things that this country could do with that butter that would make it a good investment, but that's another question. I think if he moved to support the price of beef, that it would result in the packers paying an amount equal to 90% of parity, and I don't think it would raise the cost at the meat market at any. And you're telling our viewers that, unless that is done, that the beef producing industry is going to be hurt and hurt bad. That is correct. The average beef producer is going to continue to produce at a loss until he's broke, and that's going to mean that the producers are going to gradually be going out of the market. In one or two years, the supply will be less, and then the consumer will be penalized by having to pay more for less beef. Senator, what did you think of this two days supply for the whole country of New Zealand beef coming over and selling at 35 cents a pound from New Zealand? That recently happened, you know. Do you think that was a good thing for the cattlemen or a bad thing? Were you opposed to these imports of beef? Well, yes, I'm opposed to the imports of beef when we have competitive, unsupported, similar products. Now, if the secretary had moved to put a support program under the price of beef, then when imports imperiled the price of beef, he could have moved to cartail imports. But until he moves to support the price of the domestic product under the law in which he operates, he can't move to cartail imports of a competitive product. Well, that brings us to the second, your second major interest, I believe, in Congress, sir, which you're interested in the reciprocal trade agreements and in foreign trade. That's correct, isn't it? I am keenly interested in reciprocal trade. Well, now, does that mean that you are in favor of what our viewers have heard a lot of discussion about? You believe in trade, not aid? I believe in the promotion of trade to the greatest possible extent for the mutual welfare, both of the buyer and the seller, which is our country and our customers. You believe in the lowering of tariff barriers? Where on a reciprocal basis, it promotes greater trade between those that make the adjustment. I would go for cattle too, beef too. I mean, if there are any barriers against beef, you were against the importation of beef just now. I'm against the importation of beef when it tends to add to the destruction of an unsupported domestic agricultural product. Yes, that's correct. How much are we selling abroad now, sir? We're selling at this time better than $15 billion of American products per year. And how much are we buying? We're buying about $9 billion. So there's about $6 billion there that we have to make up one way or the other. Have to make that with gifts or loans. And you are in favor of making it up by buying an additional six? I'm in favor of making it up by creating an environment that will result in our buying enough to offset what we sell. I think it's far better to increase our trade rather than our aid. Well, you're a supporter of President Eisenhower in this because I think he believes the same thing, doesn't he? He does, I think. Yes. Now do you concede, sir, that there'll be some segments of American industry or American producers who will be hurt by our buying an additional $6 billion worth of foreign-made goods? There will be times when it will hurt some domestic industry and when the time comes that the damage to a domestic industry is greater than the overall good, then I would favor a readjustment. You think that the national welfare, however, is so important and that it overrides those things? Yes, I do because you see the economic strength and the power of our allies to defend themselves and help us in the common cause are all tied up in the strength of their economy which is dependent on their trade mostly with us. I don't suppose you've ever made any studies, sir, of exactly what tariffs on what industry should be reduced to, Lord? Well, I have, but it is such an endless compilation of figures that I'd get lost and we'd all be terribly confused if we went into those details in a very few minutes. Senator, our viewers will recall, sir, that you were a candidate for the Democratic nomination last year. Well, it's very kind if they recall that. I had thought it would be such a little impression. Would you be a candidate for years from now, did you say, Senator? I have no plan at this time to be a candidate anything other than reelection to the Senate from Oklahoma. Well, you, of course, are a very influential member of the Democratic Policy Committee in the United States Senate. Now, sir, Mr. Stevenson, I believe, is on a trip around the world. So I'd like to ask you this, who's making policy for the Democratic Party now? Is it Stevenson or is it the policy committee in the Senate? Well, I would not say that it's exclusively either. Mr. Stevenson is the titular head of the Democratic Party. Do you think he should run four years from now? If he wants to. But the policy of the party is being made more by the membership of the National Congress today than by anybody else. Well, sir, as a final question, our viewers will also recall that you were very outspoken on the Korean War. And what do you think of Senator Taft's proposal for a general investigation of the Korean War? Well, I think Senator Taft spoke before he thought. I think he's trying to be a general again. I think that we've got a great defense department. I think that I didn't support Eisenhower, but certainly he's a great general. And I think he's in better shape to determine that than Taft is. I've just got more confidence in the general we've got in the White House than I have in any of the generals we've got in the Senate. Well, Senator Kerr, I'm sure that our viewers very much appreciated these outspoken sentiments of yours and thank you, sir, for being with us. Thank you. And the opinions that you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Lone Gene Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Hardy Burt. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Robert S. Kerr, United States Senator from Oklahoma. Confidence, said William Pet, is a plant of slow growth. Now, confidence in Lone Gene watches has been growing slowly, but very solidly for almost a century. But without a doubt, the confidence of others in Lone Gene has been stimulated by the confidence of Lone Gene in itself. Yes, the makers of Lone Gene watches have been ever willing to compete with the finest watches of the world. And from such competitions at world spares and international expositions and in the observatory timing contests, Lone Gene watches have won countless prizes, awards and medals. Now, a Lone Gene watch brings you more than the delight of a beautiful possession, more than the unsurpassed timekeeping of a remarkable watch. You have the confidence of knowing that you own the watch of highest prestige among the finest watches of all the world, for Easter, for an anniversary, a birthday, or for any important gift 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 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 Lone Gene Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Lone Gene, the world's most honored watch, and Witner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lone Gene. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Lone Gene and Witner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jurors who proudly display this emblem. Agency for Lone Gene Witner Watches. Tuesday night thrills danger on the CBS television network. Stop washing your nylon. This is the CBS television network.