<samp id="bud55"><video id="bud55"></video></samp>
          <optgroup id="bud55"></optgroup>
        2. 英語演講6. Richard Nixon - Checkers



          2008-10-16 22:19

          英語演講6. Richard Nixon - Checkers


          6. Richard Nixon - Checkers

          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

          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.

          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
          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. #p#副標題#e#

          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.
          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.

          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. #p#副標題#e#

          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

          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.

          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. #p#副標題#e#


          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.

          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. #p#副標題#e#

          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.

          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." #p#副標題#e#

          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.

          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

          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
          In the Hiss case they got the secrets
          enabled them to break the American
          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.

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

          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
          never seen. And I feel confident that with great
          Americans like you and General Eisenhower in
          House, lonely Americans like myself will be united with their loved ones now
          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.