Evening star., 1945-06-22

GlGlcu w rfShA H. AeA@
lightenment and assurance. One is
the question of cost: another is the
questios of competency; third is
the question of permanency.
Take, first, the matter of money.
The Owl asked for $4,000 900: the
House committee cut this to $685.
100000; the House cut it to $l8,000,-
900; the Senate Committee a few
days ago made it $39,000,000. Ulti-
mately this will be compromised in
conference. The claim has been
that to hold Owl to $18,000,000 will
kill it; that, If this figure stands,
there will be nothing for Owl to do
save fold up and 60 out of business.
Is Is Million a Trife?
Why?
OF course, to those who have
been accustomed TO dealing in bill
lions, Sl8,OO0,O00 may seem the
merest tri1e. To the OWL, which
last year had s58,OoO,000, it prob
ably seems insulting to be told to
get along on Is when it asked for As.
This is the view taken by some of its
left-Wing journalistic defenders who
recently have leaped into print to
berate Congress and explain their
own superior qualities to judge in
these matters.
Despite these widely advertised
pronouncements, SO far as Congress
is concerned, there are certain facts
which seem pertinent for its con-
sideration. One is that Government
agencies always ask for great deal
more than they expect to get, being
completely certain that Congress
will reduce. The consistency with
which Owl has been cut and criti-
cized from the start makes it more
likely that its request would be we'll
over its requirements than any
other.
A second fact is belief that in the
past Owl has not been economi-
cally or efficiently administered but,
on the contrary, has been wasteful
and extravagant This conviction
has been firmly held in Congress
and outside for a long time. 1t even
to small degree prevails on the in
side of the Owl.
A third fact is the feeling that it
will be a distinct gain if Owl is
compelled to go out of business so
far as its domestic activities are
concerned and thus the whole $18,-
100000 would be available for Euro
pean propaganda.
If efficiently administered, 1t
would seem that considerable propa-
gandizing could be done in Europe
and Japan, too-on $18,000,000 a |
year. Perhaps it is inadequate, but |
Congress ought to make the Owl
prove it.
Take now the question of COM
potency. Some of the newspapers
which are now most strongly asking
for more Owl money at the same
time criticize it as incompetent and
Wasteful.
Question of Time.
In view of this, it would seem
that whether it gives Owl more
money or not Congress might ex-
press itself on this score in a way
to insure more, and not less, Army
direction and control. Finally, there
is the question of time. Before the
appropriation is granted at all, it
seems that we should know from
the Army whether, now the war is
over, it expects the Owl European
propaganda to go on for one year.
for two years or for an indefinite
number of years.
Is this to be a temporary or a
permanent propaganda arrange
ment? Is the Army going to in
sist upon a necessity of the Owl
in Europe as long as we have a
soldier in Europe? Or is this next
year going to be all that is needed?
An answer to these questions might
make a good deal of difference in
the way Congress finally determines
whether to hold Owl to $18,000,O0
or give it more.
And there is one other question:
Ought not some one in either State
Department or War Department
make it clear why this business of
Speaking for America" and pre-
senting the American view" could
not be we'll done by the gifted and
able Assistant Secretary of State,
Mr.. Archibald McLeish?
Perhaps, there is a good reason
this kind of propaganda should not
be handled by the State Depart
ment, but when Mr. McLeish's lob
was created certainly it was under