AmericanRhetoric.com

Richard M. Nixon:
“Checkers”

delivered
23
September
1952

AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED:
Text
version below
transcribed
directly
from
audio

My Fellow Americans,

I come before you
tonight as a candidate for the Vice Presidency and as a man whose honesty
and integrity has been questioned.

Now, 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'm sure that you
have read the charge, and you've heard it, that
I, Senator Nixon, took 18,000 dollars 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, 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 dollars 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.

Transcription by
Michael
E. Eidenmuller. Copyright Status: Restricted, seek permission.
Page
1

AmericanRhetoric.com

And now
to answer those questions let
me say this: Not one cent of the 18,000 dollars 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
[Edson] his [Smith's] address. And I said 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 campaigns, 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.

Well, 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 dollars 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 13 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 pay
roll. 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 Veteran's 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's 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.

Well, then the question arises, you
say, "Well, how do you pay for 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.

Transcription by
Michael
E. Eidenmuller. Copyright Status: Restricted, seek permission.
Page
2

AmericanRhetoric.com

Another way that is used is to put your wife on
the pay roll. Let
me say, incidentally, that
my
opponent, my opposite number for the Vice Presidency on
the Democratic ticket, does have
his wife on
the pay roll and has had
it
her
on his pay roll for the ten
years for
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 pay roll. 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 am
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 pay roll.

What 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 so 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 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'm 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 of 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 proof?" And I'd like to tell you
this evening that just an
hour ago
we received an
independent audit of this entire fund. I suggested to
Governor
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 hands. It's
an audit
made by the Price Waterhouse
& Company
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.

Transcription by
Michael
E. Eidenmuller. Copyright Status: Restricted, seek permission.
Page
3

AmericanRhetoric.com

I am 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. Quote:

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 Elmo
H. Conley

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 am not afraid of
having independent people go in and check the facts, and that is exactly what they did. But
then
I realized that there are still
some who
may say, and rightfully 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 are
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 to this television and radio audio
audience,
a complete financial
history, everything I've earned, everything I've
spent, everything I own. 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. The 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's 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 returned
to
the United States, and in 1946, I
ran for the
Congress.

Transcription by
Michael
E. Eidenmuller. Copyright Status: Restricted, seek permission.
Page
4

AmericanRhetoric.com

When we came out of the war Pat
and I
Pat
during the war had worked as a
stenographer, and in a bank, and as an economist
for a Government agency and
when we
came out, the total of our savings, from both
my law practice,
her teaching and all
the time
that
I was in
the war, the total for that entire period was just a little less than 10,000 dollars.
Every cent of that, incidentally, was in
Government bonds. Well
that's where we start, when I
go into politics.

Now, what have I
earned since I went into politics?
Well, here it is. I've 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 dollars from estates which were in my law
firm at 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 into
the firm after I went
into politics. I have made an average of approximately 1500
dollars 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 dollars, and I
inherited 1500 dollars from my grandfather. We lived rather
modestly. For four years we lived in an apartment in Parkfairfax, in Alexandria,
Virginia. The
rent was 80 dollars a month. And we saved for the time that we could buy a house. Now, that
was what we took in. What did we do with this money? What do we have today to show for it?
This will surprise you because it
is so
little,
I suppose, as standards generally go of people in
public life.

First of all, we've got a house in
Washington, which cost
41,000 dollars and on which we owe
20,000 dollars.
We have a house in
Whittier, California which cost
13,000 dollars and on which
we owe 3000 dollars. My folks are living there at the present time. I
have just
4000 dollars in
life insurance, plus my GI policy which I've never been able to convert, and which will
run out
in two years.
I
have no
life insurance whatever
on Pat. I
have no
life insurance on our two
youngsters, Tricia and Julie. I own a 1950 Oldsmobile car. We have our furniture. We have no
stocks and bonds of any type.
We have no interest of any kind, direct or indirect, in any
business. Now, that's what we have.
What do we owe?

Well
in addition to
the mortgage,
the 20,000 dollar mortgage on the house in Washington, the
10,000 dollar one on the house in
Whittier, I owe 4500 dollars to
the Riggs Bank in
Washington, D.C., with interest
4 and 1/2 percent. I owe 3500 dollars to
my parents, and the
interest on that loan, which I pay regularly, because it's the part of the savings they made
through the years they were working so
hard I
pay regularly 4 percent
interest. And then
I
have a 500 dollar loan, which I
have on my life insurance.

Well, that's about it. That's what we have.
And that's what we owe. It
isn't
very much. But Pat
and I have the satisfaction
that every dime that
we've got
is honestly ours. I should say this,
that Pat doesn't have a mink coat. But she does
have a respectable Republican cloth
coat, and
I always tell her she'd look good in anything.

Transcription by
Michael
E. Eidenmuller. Copyright Status: Restricted, seek permission.
Page
5

AmericanRhetoric.com

One other thing I probably should tell you, because if I 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 six 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.

It
isn't easy to
come before a nationwide audience and bare your life, as I've done.
But
I want
to say some things before I conclude that I
think most of you will agree on. Mr. Mitchell, the
Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, made this statement
that
if a man
couldn't afford to be in
the United States Senate, he shouldn't run for the Senate.
And I just
want
to
make my position clear. I don't agree with Mr. Mitchell when
he says that only a rich
man
should serve his Government
in the United States Senate or in the Congress. I don't
believe that represents the thinking of the Democratic Party, and I know
that
it doesn't
represent the thinking of the Republican Party.

I believe that
it's fine that a man
like Governor Stevenson, who inherited a fortune from his
father, can
run
for President. But I also
feel
that it's essential in this country of ours that a
man of modest means can also run
for President, because, you know, remember Abraham
Lincoln, you
remember what
he said: "God must have loved the common
people he
made
so many of them."

And now
I'm going to
suggest some courses of conduct. First of all, you
have read
in the
papers about other funds,
now. Mr. Stevenson apparently had a couple one
of them in
which a group of business people paid and helped to supplement
the salaries of State
employees. Here is where the money went directly into their pockets, and I think that what
Mr. Stevenson should do should be to come before the American
people, as I have, give the
names of the people that
contributed to that fund, give the names of the people who put
this
money into their pockets at the same time that
they were receiving money from their State
government and see what favors, if any, they gave out
for that.

I don't condemn Mr. Stevenson for what
he did,
but until
the facts are in there is a doubt
that
will be raised.
And as far as Mr.
Sparkman is concerned,
I would suggest the same thing. He's
had
his wife on
the payroll. I don't condemn him for that, but I
think that he should come
before the American people and indicate what outside sources of income he has had. I would
suggest
that under the circumstances both Mr.
Sparkman and Mr. Stevenson
should come
before the American people, as I
have, and make a complete financial
statement as to
their
financial
history, and if they don't
it will be an admission
that
they have something to hide.
And I
think you will agree with me because,
folks, remember, a man
that's to be President
of the United States, a man
that's to be Vice President of the United States, must
have the
confidence of all
the people. And that's why I'm doing what I'm doing.
And that's why I
suggest
that Mr. Stevenson and Mr. Sparkman, since they are under attack, should do what
they're doing.

Transcription by
Michael
E. Eidenmuller. Copyright Status: Restricted, seek permission.
Page
6

AmericanRhetoric.com

Now let me say this: I know that
this is not the last of the smears. In spite of my explanation
tonight, other smears will be made. Others have been made in the past. And the purpose of
the smears, I
know, is this: to
silence me. to
make me let up.
Well, they just don't know who
they're dealing with. I'm going to tell you
this: I remember in the dark days of the
some of the same columnists, some of the same radio
commentators who are attacking me
now and misrepresenting my position, were violently opposing me at
the time I was after
Alger Hiss. But I continued to fight because I
knew I was right, and I can say to this great
television and radio audience that I have no apologies to
the American people for my part
in
putting Alger Hiss where he is today. And as far as this is concerned, I intend to continue to
fight.

Why do
I feel so deeply? Why do
I
feel that
in
spite of the smears, the misunderstanding,
the
necessity for a man
to come up here and bare his soul as I
have why
is it necessary for me
to continue this fight? And I want
to
tell
you why. Because, you see, I
love my country. And I
think my country is in danger.
And I think the only man
that can save America at
this time is
the man
that's running for President, on my ticket Dwight
Eisenhower. You say, "Why do I
think it is in danger?" And I
say, look at the record. Seven years of the TrumanAcheson
Administration, and what's happened? Six hundred million people lost to
the Communists. And
a war in Korea in which we have lost
117,000 American casualties, and I say to all of you that
a policy that
results in
the loss of 600 million people to the Communists, and a war which
cost
us 117,000 American casualties isn't good enough for America.
And I
say that those in
the
State Department
that made the mistakes which caused that war and which resulted in
those
losses should be kicked out of the State Department just as fast as we get
them out of there.

And let
me say that
I
know Mr.
Stevenson won't do that because he defends the Truman
policy, and I know that Dwight Eisenhower will do that, and that
he will give America the
leadership that
it needs.
Take the problem of corruption. You've read about
the mess in
Washington. Mr. Stevenson can't clean it up because he was picked by the man, Truman,
under whose Administration
the mess was made. You wouldn't trust
the man who
made
the
mess to
clean
it up. That's Truman. And by the same token you can't trust
the man who was
picked by the man that made the mess to clean
it up and
that's Stevenson.

And so I say, Eisenhower, who owed nothing to
Truman, nothing to
the big city bosses he
is
the man
that
can clean up the mess in Washington. Take Communism. I say that as far as
that subject
is concerned the danger is great to
America.
In the Hiss case they got the secrets
which
enabled them to break the American
secret
State Department
code. They got
secrets in
the atomic bomb case which enabled them to get
the secret of the atomic bomb five years
before they would have gotten
it
by their own devices. And I
say that any man who called the
Alger Hiss case a red herring isn't fit to be President of the United States. I say that a man
who, like Mr. Stevenson, has poohpoohed
and ridiculed the Communist threat
in the United
States he
said that they are phantoms among ourselves. He has accused us that
have
attempted to expose the Communists, of looking for Communists in the Bureau of Fisheries
and Wildlife. I say that a man who says
that
isn't qualified to be President of the United
States. And I say that the only man who can lead us in this fight
to rid the
Government of
both
those who are Communists and those who
have corrupted this Government
is
Eisenhower, because Eisenhower, you
can be sure, recognizes the problem, and he knows
how to deal with
it.

Transcription by
Michael
E. Eidenmuller. Copyright Status: Restricted, seek permission.
Page
7

AmericanRhetoric.com

Now let me that finally, this evening,
I want
to read to
you, just briefly, excerpts from a letter
which
I received, a letter which after all
this is over no one can
take away from us. It reads as
follows:

Dear Senator Nixon,

Since I am only 19 years of age, I
can't vote in this presidential election, but believe me if I
could you and General
Eisenhower would certainly get my vote. My husband is in the Fleet
Marines in Korea.
He' a corpsman on
the front lines and we have a two
month old son
he's
never seen. And I feel confident that with great
Americans like you and General Eisenhower in
the
White
House, lonely Americans like myself will be united with their loved ones now
in
Korea. I only pray to God that you won't be too
late. Enclosed is a small check
to
help you in
your campaign. Living on $85 a month, it is all
I can afford at present, but let
me know what
else I
can do.

Folks, it's a check for 10 dollars, and it's one that I will never cash. And just
let me say this:
We hear a lot about prosperity these days, but I say why can't we have prosperity built on
peace, rather than prosperity built on war? Why can't we have prosperity and an honest
Government
in Washington, D.C., at
the same time? Believe me, we can. And Eisenhower is
the man
that
can lead this crusade
to bring us that kind of prosperity.

And now, finally, I know
that you wonder whether or not
I am going to stay on the Republican
ticket or resign. Let
me say this: I don't believe that
I ought
to quit, because I am not a
quitter. And,
incidentally, Pat's not a quitter. After all, her name was Patricia Ryan and she
was born
on
St. Patrick's day, and you
know
the Irish
never quit. But the decision, my friends,
is not mine. I would do nothing that would harm the possibilities of Dwight
Eisenhower to
become President of the United States. And for that reason I am submitting to
the Republican
National Committee tonight
through
this television broadcast
the decision which
it is theirs to
make. Let
them decide whether my position on
the ticket will
help or hurt. And I am going to
ask you
to help them decide.
Wire and write the Republican National Committee whether you
think I should stay on or whether I
should get off. And whatever their decision is, I will abide
by it.

But just let
me say this last word: Regardless of what happens, I'm going to continue this
fight. I'm going to campaign
up and down in America until we drive the crooks and the
Communists and those that defend them out of
Washington. And remember folks, Eisenhower
is a great man, believe me.
He's a great man. And a vote for Eisenhower is a vote for what's
good for America.

Transcription by
Michael
E. Eidenmuller. Copyright Status: Restricted, seek permission.
Page
8