Here is the video clip. It is split into two parts. Scroll
down for the transcript.
It follows the full text transcript of
Richard Nixon's Checker speech, broadcast from Los Angeles,
C.A. - September 23, 1952.
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 have 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 attain them.
I have a theory, too, that the best and only
answer to a smear or an honest misunderstanding
of the facts is to tell the truth. And that is
why I am here tonight. I want to tell you my
side of the case.
I am sure that you have read the charges, and
you have heard it, 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 am saying it, incidentally, that it was
wrong, just not 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 to answer those questions, let me say this.
Not a 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 is 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,
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 to an agency, nor have I
gone down to an agency on 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, the 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 13 people. And let me say,
incidentally, that this allowance is not paid to
the Senator. It is 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 that 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?
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 should not 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 it is done legally in
the United States Senate and in the Congress.
The first way is to be a rich man. So I couldn't
use that.
Another way that is used is to put your wife on
the payroll. 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 her on his
pay roll for the past ten years. Now let me just
say this: That is his business, and I am 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 there [Nixon points to
his wife, Pat, who is sitting about ten feet
away.] She is 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 has
worked many hours on Saturdays and Sundays in my
office, and she has done a fine job, and I am
proud to say tonight that in the six years I
have been in the Senate of the United States,
Pat Nixon has never been on the Government pay
roll.
What are the 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 am so far away from California and I have 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 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 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 that I am proud of the fact
that not one of them has ever asked me for a
special favor. I am proud of the fact that not
one of them has ever asked me to vote on a bill
other than 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 should not be charged top the taxpayers.
Let me say, incidentally, that some of you may
say, "Well, that is all right, Senator, that is
your explanation, but have you got any proof?"
And I would 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 Eisenhower campaign, that an
independent audit and legal report be obtained,
and I have that audit in my hand.
It is 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 am proud to report to you tonight that this
audit and legal opinion is being forwarded to
General Eisenhower, and I would like to read to
you the opinion that was prepared by Gibson,
Dunn, & Crutcher, based on all the pertinent
laws, and statutes, together with the audit
report prepared by the certified public
accountants. [Nixon reads from report:]
It is our conclusion that Senator Nixon did not
obtain any financial gain from the collection
and disbursement of the funds 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 office expenses, constituted
income in a sense which was either reportable or
taxable as income under income tax laws.
(signed)
Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher,
by Elmo Conley
That is not Nixon speaking, but it is 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 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 are
some that will say, "well, maybe you were able,
Senator, to fake the 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 might 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
audience a complete financial history,
everything I have earned, everything I have
spent and everything I own, and I want you to
know the facts.
I will 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 is sitting over here. We had a
rather difficult time after we were married,
like so many of the young couples who might 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 Congress. When we came out of the
war, Pat and I, Pat, [who] 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 I
was in the war, the total for that entire period
was just 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, whatever I earned since I went into
politics, well, here it is. I jotted it down. Let
me read the notes. First of all, I have had my
salary as a Congressman and as a Senator.
Second, I have received a total in this past six
years of $1,600 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 $1,500 a year from nonpolitical
speaking engagements and lectures.
And then unfortunately, we have inherited little
money. Pat sold her interest in her father's
estate for $3,000, and I inherited $1,500 from
my grandfather. We lived rather modestly.
For four years, we lived in an apartment in Park
Fairfax, Alexandria Virginia. The rent was $80 a
month. And we saved for a time when 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 and on which we owe $20,000.
We have a house in Whittier, California, which
cost $13,000 and on which we owe $3,000. My
folks are living there at the present time.
I have just $4,000 in life insurance, plus my GI
policy which I have 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 Patricia
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, direct or
indirect, in any business. Now that is what we
have.
What do we owe?
Well, in addition to the mortgages, the $20,000
mortgage on the house in Washington and the
$10,000 mortgage on the house in Whittier, I owe
$4,000 to the Riggs Bank in Washington, D.C.,
with an interest at four percent.
I owe $3,500 to my parents, and the interest on
that loan, which I pay regularly, because it is
a part of the savings they made through the
years they were working so hard, I pay regularly
four percent interest. And then I have a $500 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 have 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 would look
good in anything.
One other thing I should probably tell you,
because if I don't, they will 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 that our two
youngsters would like to have a dog, and,
believe it or not, the day we left before 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 had 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, loved the
dog, and I just want to say this, right now,
that regardless of what they say about it, we
are going to keep it!
It isn't easy to come before a nation-wide
audience and bare your life, as I have 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 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 Congress. I don't
believe that represents the thinking of the
Democratic Party, and I know 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 is 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
would be raised. And as far as Mr. Sparkman is
concerned, I would suggest the same thing. He's
had his wife on the pay roll. 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 is 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 is why I suggest
that Mr. Stevenson and Mr. Sparkman, if they are
under attack, that should be what they are
doing.
Now let me say this: I know 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
are dealing with. I'm going to tell you this: I
remember in the dark days of the Hiss trial some
of the same columnists, some of the same radio
commentators who are attacking me know 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? 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
Truman-Acheson Administration, and what's
happened? Six hundred million people lost to
Communists.
And a war in Korea in which we have lost 117,000
American casualties, 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 can 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 he will give America the leadership that it
needs. Take the problem of corruption. You have
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 is Truman. And by the same
token, you can't trust the man who was picked by
the man who made the mess to clean it up and
that's Stevenson. And so I say, Eisenhower, who
owes nothing to Truman, nothing to the big city
bosses, he is the man who can clean up the mess
in Washington.
Take Communism. I say as far as that subject is
concerned, the danger is greater 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
pooh-poohed and ridiculed the Communist threat
in the United States, 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 into
this fight to rid the Government of both those
who are Communists and those who have corrupted
this Government is Eisenhower, because General
Eisenhower, you can be sure, recognizes the
problem, and knows how to handle it.
Let me say this, finally. This evening I want to
read to you just briefly excerpts from a letter
that I received, a letter which after all this
is over, no one can take away from us. It reads
as follows: [Nixon reads a letter.]
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 is in the front
lines. And we have a two month old son he has
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 with your
campaign. Living on $85 a month it is all I can
do.
Folks, it is a check for $10, and it is one that
I shall never cash. And let me just 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 the 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 is not a
quitter. After all, her name is 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, I
will abide by it.
But let me just say this last word. Regardless
of what happens, I am going to continue this
fight. I am going to campaign up and down
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. Folks, he is a great man, and a vote
for Eisenhower is a vote for what is good for
America....
[Nixon is cut off by the broadcasting station as
he runs beyond his time allowance.]
Also called the
Persian Wars, the Greco-Persian Wars were fought for almost half a century from 492 BC - 449 BC. Greece won against enormous odds. Here is more:
