It don't get any better than this.
One other thing I probably should tell you because if we don't they'll
probably be saying this about me too, we did get something-a gift-after the
election. A man down in Texas heard Pat on the radio mention the fact that our
two youngsters would like to have a dog. And, believe it or not, the day before
we left on this campaign trip we got a message from Union Station in Baltimore
saying they had a package for us. We went down to get it. You know what it was.
It was a little cocker spaniel dog in a crate that he'd sent all the way
from Texas. Black and white spotted. And our little girl-Tricia, the 6-year
old-named it Checkers. And you know, the kids, like all kids, love the dog and I
just want to say this right now, that regardless of what they say about it,
we're gonna keep it.
<link>
<link>
My Fellow Americans:
I come before you tonight as a candidate for the
Vice Presidency and as a man whose honesty and integrity have been questioned.
The usual political thing to do when charges are made against you is to
either ignore them or to deny them without giving details.
I believe we've had enough of that in the United States, particularly with
the present Administration in Washington, D.C. To me the office of the Vice
Presidency of the United States is a great office and I feel that the people
have got to have confidence in the integrity of the men who run for that office
and who might obtain it.
I have a theory, too, that the best and only answer to a smear or to an
honest misunderstanding of the facts is to tell the truth. And that's why I'm
here tonight. I want to tell you my side of the case.
I am sure that you have read the charge and you've heard that I, Senator
Nixon, took $18,000 from a group of my supporters.
Now, was that wrong? And let me say that it was wrong—I'm saying,
incidentally, that it was wrong and not just illegal. Because it isn't a
question of whether it was legal or illegal, that isn't enough. The question is,
was it morally wrong?
I say that it was morally wrong if any of that $18,000 went to Senator Nixon
for my personal use. I say that it was morally wrong if it was secretly given
and secretly handled. And I say that it was morally wrong if any of the
contributors got special favors for the contributions that they made.
And now to answer those questions let me say this:
Not one cent of the $18,000 or any other money of that type ever went to me
for my personal use. Every penny of it was used to pay for political expenses
that I did not think should be charged to the taxpayers of the United States.
It was not a secret fund. As a matter of fact, when I was on "Meet the
Press," some of you may have seen it last Sunday—Peter Edson came up
to me after the program and he said, "Dick, what about this fund we hear
about?" And I said, "Well, there's no secret about it. Go out and see
Dana Smith, who was the administrator of the fund."
And I gave him his address, and I said that you will find that the purpose
of the fund simply was to defray political expenses that I did not feel should
be charged to the Government.
And third, let me point out, and I want to make this particularly clear,
that no contributor to this fund, no contributor to any of my campaign, has ever
received any consideration that he would not have received as an ordinary
constituent.
I just don't believe in that and I can say that never, while I have been in
the Senate of the United States, as far as the people that contributed to this
fund are concerned, have I made a telephone call for them to an agency, or have
I gone down to an agency in their behalf. And the records will show that, the
records which are in the hands of the Administration.
But then some of you will say and rightly, "Well, what did you use the
fund for, Senator? Why did you have to have it?"
Let me tell you in just a word how a Senate office operates. First of all, a
Senator gets $15,000 a year in salary. He gets enough money to pay for one trip
a year, a round trip that is, for himself and his family between his home and
Washington, D.C.
And then he gets an allowance to handle the people that work in his office,
to handle his mail. And the allowance for my State of California is enough to
hire thirteen people.
And let me say, incidentally, that that allowance is not paid to the Senator—it's
paid directly to the individuals that the Senator puts on his payroll, but all
of these people and all of these allowances are for strictly official business.
Business, for example, when a constituent writes in and wants you to go down to
the Veterans Administration and get some information about his GI policy. Items
of that type for example.
But there are other expenses which are not covered by the Government. And I
think I can best discuss those expenses by asking you some questions.
Do you think that when I or any other Senator makes a political speech, has
it printed, should charge the printing of that speech and the mailing of that
speech to the taxpayers? Do you think, for example, when I or any other Senator
makes a trip to his home state to make a purely political speech that the cost
of that trip should be charged to the taxpayers? Do you think when a Senator
makes political broadcasts or political television broadcasts, radio or
television, that the expense of those broadcasts should be charged to the
taxpayers?
Well, I know what your answer is. It is the same answer that audiences give
me whenever I discuss this particular problem. The answer is, "no."
The taxpayers shouldn't be required to finance items which are not official
business but which are primarily political business.
But then the question arises, you say, "Well, how do you pay for l
these and how can you do it legally?" And there are several ways that it
can be done, incidentally, and that it is done legally in the United States
Senate and in the Congress.
The first way is to be a rich man. I don't happen to be a rich man so I
couldn't use that one.
Another way that is used is to put your wife on the payroll. Let me say,
incidentally, my opponent, my opposite number for the Vice Presidency on the
Democratic ticket, does have his wife on the payroll. And has had her on his
payroll for the ten years—the past ten years.
Now just let me say this. That's his business and I'm not critical of him
for doing that. You will have to pass judgment on that particular point. But I
have never done that for this reason. I have found that there are so many
deserving stenographers and secretaries in Washington that needed the work that
I just didn't feel it was right to put my wife on the payroll.
My wife's sitting over here. She's a wonderful stenographer. She used to
teach stenography and she used to teach shorthand in high school. That was when
I met her. And I can tell you folks that she's worked many hours at night and
many hours on Saturdays and Sundays in my office and she's done a fine job. And
I'm proud to say tonight that in the six years I've been in the House and the
Senate of the United States, Pat Nixon has never been on the Government payroll.
There are other ways that these finances can be taken care of. Some who are
lawyers, and I happen to be a lawyer, continue to practice law. But I haven't
been able to do that. I'm so far away from California that I've been so busy
with my Senatorial work that I have not engaged in any legal practice.
And also as far as law practice is concerned, it seemed to me that the
relationship between an attorney and the client was 80 personal that you
couldn't possibly represent a man as an attorney and then have an unbiased view
when he presented his case to you in the event that he had one before the
Government.
And so I felt that the best way to handle these necessary political expenses
of getting my message to the American people and the speeches I made, the
speeches that I had printed, for the most part, concerned this one message—of
exposing this Administration, the communism in it, the corruption in it—the
only way that I could do that was to accept the aid which people in my home
state of California who contributed to my campaign and who continued to make
these contributions after I was elected were glad to make.
And let me say I am proud of the fact that not one of them has ever asked me
for a special favor. I'm proud of the fact that not one of them has ever asked
me to vote on a bill other than as my own conscience would dictate. And I am
proud of the fact that the taxpayers by subterfuge or otherwise have never paid
one dime for expenses which I thought were political and shouldn't be charged to
the taxpayers.
Let me say, incidentally, that some of you may say, "Well, that's all
right, Senator; that's your explanation, but have you got any proof7"
And I'd like to tell you this evening that just about an hour ago we
received an independent audit of this entire fund. I suggested to Gov. Sherman
Adams, who is the chief of staff of the Dwight Eisenhower campaign, that an
independent audit and legal report be obtained. And I have that audit here in my
hand.
It's an audit made by the Price, Waterhouse & Co. firm, and the legal
opinion by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, lawyers in Los Angeles, the biggest law
firm and incidentally one of the best ones in Los Angeles.
I'm proud to be able to report to you tonight that this audit and this legal
opinion is being forwarded to General Eisenhower. And I'd like to read to you
the opinion that was prepared by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and based on all
the pertinent laws and statutes, together with the audit report prepared by the
certified public accountants.
It is our conclusion that Senator Nixon did not obtain any financial gain
from the collection and disbursement of the fund by Dana Smith; that Senator
Nixon did not violate any Federal or state law by reason of the operation of the
fund, and that neither the portion of the fund paid by Dana Smith directly to
third persons nor the portion paid to Senator Nixon to reimburse him for
designated office expenses constituted income to the Senator which was either
reportable or taxable as income under applicable tax laws. (signed) Gibson, Dunn
& Crutcher by Alma H. Conway."
Now that, my friends, is not Nixon speaking, but that's an independent audit
which was requested because I want the American people to know all the facts and
I'm not afraid of having independent people go in and check the facts, and that
is exactly what they did.
But then I realize that there are still some who may say, and rightly so,
and let me say that I recognize that some will continue to smear regardless of
what the truth may be, but that there has been understandably some honest
misunderstanding on this matter, and there's some that will say:
"Well, maybe you were able, Senator, to fake this thing. How can we
believe what you say? After all, is there a possibility that maybe you got some
sums in cash? Is there a possibility that you may have feathered your own nest?"
And so now what I am going to do-and incidentally this is unprecedented in the
history of American politics-I am going at this time to give this television and
radio audience a complete financial history; everything I've earned; everything
I've spent; everything I owe. And I want you to know the facts. I'll have to
start early.
I was born in 1913. Our family was one of modest circumstances and most of
my early life was spent in a store out in East Whittier. It was a grocery store
— one of those family enterprises. he only reason we were able to make it
go was because my mother and dad had five boys and we all worked in the store.
I worked my way through college and to a great extent through law school.
And then, in 1940, probably the best thing that ever happened to me happened, I
married Pat—who is sitting over here. We had a rather difficult time after
we were married, like so many of the young couples who may be listening to us. I
practiced law; she continued to teach school. Then in 1942 I went into the
service.
Let me say that my service record was not a particularly unusual one. I went
to the South Pacific. I guess I'm entitled to a couple of battle stars. I got a
couple of letters of commendation but I was just there when the bombs were
falling and then I returned. I returned to the United States and in 1946 I ran
for the Congress.
When we came out of the war, Pat and I—Pat during the war ad worked as
a stenographer and in a bank and as an economist for Government agency—and
when we came out the total of our saving from both my law practice, her teaching
and all the time that I as in the war—the total for that entire period was
just a little less than $10,000. Every cent of that, incidentally, was in
Government bonds.
Well, that's where we start when I go into politics. Now what I've I earned
since I went into politics? Well, here it is—I jotted it down, let me read
the notes. First of all I've had my salary as a Congressman and as a Senator.
Second, I have received a total in this past six years of $1600 from estates
which were in my law firm the time that I severed my connection with it.
And, incidentally, as I said before, I have not engaged in any legal
practice and have not accepted any fees from business that came to the firm
after I went into politics. I have made an average of approximately $1500 a year
from nonpolitical speaking engagements and lectures. And then, fortunately,
we've inherited a little money. Pat sold her interest in her father's estate for
$3,000 and I inherited $l500 from my grandfather.
We live rather modestly. For four years we lived in an apartment in Park
Fairfax, in Alexandria, Va. The rent was $80 a month. And we saved for the time
that we could buy a house.