 It's time 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 Wittgenor Watch Company, maker of Lorne Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittgenor, 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, author and analyst, and Mr. Elliott Haynes of United Nations World. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Ezra Taft Benson, United States Secretary of Agriculture. Mr. Benson, you have had the distinction of becoming one of the first controversial figures in the new Eisenhower administration. And on our program, our viewers have heard some of your policies criticized by members of the Senate, and also rather vigorously defended by some of them. Now, first of all, sir, why is it that there has been controversy and discussion about your decisions? Well, I presume, Mr. Huey, one of the major reasons is the fact that I've spoken out, rather frankly and vigorously, on certain issues. Have you attempted to bring change into the Department of Agriculture? Not particularly into the Department of Agriculture. I have spoken out on certain trends which I thought were rather detrimental to agriculture and the country. Are you bringing a new philosophy to the Department of Agriculture? Well, you may call it that. Well, could you explain to our viewers, sir, just in a word, the difference between your philosophy, what you think the Department of Agriculture should do, and what your predecessors believed? Of course, basic to my philosophy is the feeling that in all of our government programs for agriculture or any other industry, the basic test should be how will it affect the character, the morale, and the well-being of our people. And I feel there's been a trend, too much of a trend, toward government paternalism, government regulation and control of a great industry. Well then, Mr. Benson, you'd characterize yourself as a low-support man rather than a high-price support man. Well, Mr. Haynes, I certainly feel we ought to have a maximum of flexibility in our support program. There may be times when high supports will be justified. Supports originally were intended to be used as incentives to get greater production of particular commodities we needed during an emergency period, such as war. Well, specifically, sir, one of your first actions was to give rather high support to butter. And of course, you are now buying a great deal of it. How do you defend that decision of yours, sir? Well, I presume many people have asked that question since the decision was made, and it was a very difficult one to make. But it was made sincerely, and after a very careful analysis of all the facts. The major factor in that decision was the fact that the great dairy industry, which is probably the most wide flung of any segment of our agricultural industry, asked for time to put their own house in order to get a program in operation that they could live with and one that would cost less to the taxpayer. Do you think, Mr. Benson, that they are carrying out their promises in this respect? Yes, I think we have good evidence that they're doing their very best. Is the dairy industry in trouble, sir? Well, yes, to some degree it is in trouble. Is it overproduction? Is it principal trouble? No, I think it's not overproduction. I think it's probably in part maldistribution, and it's the result of pegging prices at too high a level for certain dairy products. In terms of dairy policy, you in effect have given them a year to try to help relieve some of their own problems, or solve some of their own problems. That is true, I think. And you are continuing the same support policy that your predecessors had. Yes, we are continuing the support at 90% of parity to give them time to try and work out their problems, and we're working with them. Isn't it true, Mr. Benson, that you're required by law to support at 90% at this moment? That's true on the basic commodities, but in the case of dairy products there was some discretion. I could support them at any point between 75 and 90% of parity. How much discretion does the Secretary of Agriculture have in price supports? Well, he doesn't have any discretion on the basic commodities. When some of the other commodities, the perishable commodities, he does have some discretion. Well, on this business of more government and less government, do I understand that you want to have less government control of American agriculture than has existed in the past 20 years? Yes, I think that would be a fair statement, and I believe that farmers generally would welcome less control. You don't aspire to manage American agriculture then. I think it's physically impossible to manage it efficiently. You think that with price supports it becomes necessary for the government to control production to a certain extent? It seems to me inevitable if you're going to have price supports at a high level would stimulate production to a high degree. Then there must be some control of production. Mr. Benson, if price supports were lowered in certain cases, do you think that many farmers would be forced to shift to other economic activity? They may find it advantageous to shift. In other words, there would be a decrease in our farming population. Well, that's possible. Well, over the past 50 years, as a matter of fact, our farming population has been decreasing each year. Yes. The percentage of farmers. Yes, in proportion to our total, that's been true, and that's been due largely to the increased efficiency of our farmers. They have become the most efficient in all the world. Well, on this business of limiting production, do you expect that your department will limit their productions on such commodities as wheat and cotton within the immediate future? Well, as near as we can estimate now, it appears that acreage control will be necessary on the 1953 crops. And acreage control, that once again is by law, isn't it? By law you are required to control acreage on wheat and cotton and the other basic crops. That's right. That's right. When the production reaches a certain level or the anticipated production is such as to result in a production at a certain figure, then the secretary has no choice. That law, Mr. Benson, comes up for review in 1954, doesn't it? The present legislation expires at the end of 54. And if no action is taken by the Congress, then the old basic legislation of 4849 becomes effective, which provides for a program of flexible price. Speaking of surpluses in wheat and other basic commodities, Mr. Benson, has the cabinet discussed using those surpluses to help feed starving asiatics or what have you? Well, there's been a lot of discussion, of course, of the question. It isn't as easy as it might appear on the surface. The secretary first has to explore all other possibilities. He can move certain products through school lunches to the Indians to relief agencies here, and then the relief agencies abroad. And he can put corners on the end of the queue. That's right. Some of us feel that it might be wise for the president to have discretionary authority so that he could give some of these food products, particularly in surplus, away to needing people. Do you think Congress might give him that power? Well, I think there's a very good possibility they might. Moving into the field of practical politics, Mr. Benson, do you feel that these policies of yours have the support of the majority of America's farmers? I'm not sure that I'm very well acquainted with the field of practical politics, Mr. Huey, but judging by the response we've had in meetings and the mail we've received from farmers, I believe that they're pretty much in sympathy with the policies which we've tried to express. Philosophy, you might call it. Who was it, Mr. Benson, that objected to the various speeches you've made on your feeling? Well, there have been two or three members in the Congress that have been rather outspoken, and I presume there's a segment in agriculture that is opposed to some of what you've said. The three large agricultural organizations are behind you, though, are they? Yes, I feel I have the support. Well, now, in the business of actually getting control of the Department of Agriculture, you're coming in there after 20 years of where the department was ruled by Mr. Henry Wallace, Mr. Brannon, people of that sort who have a philosophy somewhat different than yours, and most of the employees were hired under those administrations. Are you getting effective control of the Department of Agriculture? It's a very large department and rather unwieldy. We have made some changes in organization in grouping the agencies, which we feel have resulted in greater efficiency and management. I think the great bulk of the employees of the department are loyal, devoted public servants. Have you found that veterans' preference and civil service has hindered you in reorganizing the department? It has tended to slow us up somewhat, and yet I'm in favor of a civil service program for employees in the government. I think probably it could be improved somewhat. Now, the point has been made by even some Republicans, such as a man like Senator Capehart on this program, that farm prices simply cannot be allowed to fall much further because falling farm prices usually mean a depression ahead. Now, do you feel, sir, that farm prices will fall much further than they are now? Well, I don't know that I'm ready to predict what will happen to farm prices. Certainly, it's a serious matter when farm prices decline. But more important than the level of prices is the margin of return which the farmer has after he sells his products and pays his costs. I think the farmer is always interested in a stable price level. Is the average farmer still prosperous? Well, some of them, of course, are taking a very substantial loss, particularly the cattle feeders. They have been caught in a squeeze. Their value of cattle has depreciated greatly. Their feed costs remained high. Well, that's a final question, Mr. Benson. You have been the one member of the cabinet who's really taken a stand against what was known as paternalism. More and more government. You've tried to reverse a trend. Now, do you feel that the American people are willing to support this philosophy of yours now? I think it will not be done overnight, Mr. Huey, but I really believe that the rank and file of our citizens would like to see a change in the trend of the last few years. Well, thank you very much for being with us this evening, sir. The opinions that you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Longeen Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Elliott Haynes. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Ezra Taft Benson, United States Secretary of Agriculture. North, south, east or west, no other name on a watch means so much as Longeen, the world's most honored watch. Now, actually, Longeen watches are sold in all the capitals of the free world for the appreciation of things fine and beautiful is universal. And in all these countries, millions of discriminating men and women own and cherish a Longeen, the world's most honored watch. And it is significant that among the finest watches in all the world, only Longeen watches have won ten World Fair Grand Prizes, twenty-eight gold medals, and so many prizes, bulletins and citations from the leading government observatories. At this season of gifts, these are important facts to remember. For a birthday or an anniversary, an important present to a graduate is a gift to a bride or groom. No other name on a watch means so much as Longeen. And yet you know that you may buy and own or proudly give a Longeen watch for as little as seventy-one fifty. Longeen, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift, premier product of the Longeen 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 Longeen Chronoscope, the television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Longeen, the world's most honored watch, and Witner, distinguished companion to the world honored Longeen. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Longeen and Witner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than four thousand leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem, agency for Longeen Witner watches.