以下是為大家整理的《英文演講翻譯：＂Checkers＂》的文章，供大家參考
"...the kids, like all kids, love the dog, and...regardless of what they say about it, we're gonna keep it." [AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from the 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 am 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 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 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 is 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 [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 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, 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 13 people. And let me say, incidentally, that that 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? 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 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 her on his pay roll for the past ten years. Now let me just say this: That' 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 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'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 have 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 am so far away from California that 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 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 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 shouldn't be charged to the taxpayers. Let me say, incidentally, that some of you may say, "Well, that is 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 in my hands. 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 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: "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 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 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 might have feathered your own nest?" And so now, that 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'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 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 -- 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 I was 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 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 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, fortunately, 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 Parkfairfax, in Alexandria Virginia. The rent was $80.00 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 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'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 mortgage on the house in Washington, the $10,000 one on the house in Whittier, I owe $4500 to the Riggs Bank in Washington, D.C., with interest 4 and 1/2 percent. I owe $3,500 to my parents, and the interest on that loan, which I pay regularly, because it's a 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 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 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, 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 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'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 Hiss case 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 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 to all of you that a policy that results in the loss of 600 million people to the Communists, and a war that 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 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 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 pooh-poohed 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 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, 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'm 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.
[真?zhèn)握J(rèn)證：下面的文字版直接從音頻轉(zhuǎn)錄] 我的美國(guó)同胞們， 我來之前你今晚作為副總統(tǒng)候選人，并作為一個(gè)人的誠(chéng)實(shí)和誠(chéng)信受到了質(zhì)疑。 現(xiàn)在，通常政治的事情向你收費(fèi)時(shí)是忽略或否認(rèn)他們沒有透露更多細(xì)節(jié)。我相信，我們已經(jīng)吃夠了在美國(guó)，特別是與現(xiàn)政府在華盛頓特區(qū)，我的美國(guó)副總統(tǒng)的辦公室是一個(gè)偉大的辦公室，我覺得，人一定有運(yùn)行該辦公室的男人誰，誰可能獲得它的完整性的信心。 我有一個(gè)理論，那就是，好的，只回答一抹黑或一個(gè)誠(chéng)實(shí)的誤解的事實(shí)是，說實(shí)話。這就是為什么我今晚會(huì)在這里。我想告訴你我身邊的情況。我敢肯定，你必須讀出控罪，你聽說過它，那我 - 參議員尼克松，我的支持者從一組18,000元。 現(xiàn)在，這種做法是錯(cuò)誤的嗎？讓我說，這是錯(cuò)誤的。我說，順便說一下，這是錯(cuò)誤的，只要不違法，因?yàn)樗皇且粋€(gè)問題，無論是合法的還是非法的，這是不夠的?，F(xiàn)在的問題是，它在道德上是錯(cuò)誤的嗎？我說，這是道德上是錯(cuò)誤的 - 如果有的話，港幣18,000元去參議員尼克松，我私人使用的。我說，這是道德上是錯(cuò)誤的，如果它是秘密給予并秘密處置。我說，這是道德上是錯(cuò)誤的，如果任何的貢獻(xiàn)者為他們所作出的貢獻(xiàn)，得到了特殊照顧。 現(xiàn)在回答這些問題讓我這樣說：沒有一美分$ 18,000或任何其他的錢該類型的我曾經(jīng)去我私人使用的。它的每一分錢用于支付政治上的開支，我不認(rèn)為美國(guó)的納稅人應(yīng)收取。這不是一個(gè)秘密基金。事實(shí)上，當(dāng)我在“與媒體見面” - 有些人可能已經(jīng)看到它的后一個(gè)星期日 - 彼得·埃德森來到了我的方案后，他說，“迪克，什么是基金，我們聽到什么？“ 我說，“那么，有沒有它的秘密。走出去，看到達(dá)納·史密斯誰是基金的管理人。” 我給他[埃德森]他的[史密斯]地址。我說，你會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，該基金的目的僅僅是支付政治上的費(fèi)用，我沒有覺得應(yīng)收取的政府。第三，讓我指出 - 我要讓這個(gè)特別清楚 - 曾經(jīng)收到本基金沒有貢獻(xiàn)，沒有我的任何活動(dòng)的貢獻(xiàn)者，作為一個(gè)普通的成分，他不會(huì)收到任何代價(jià)。 我只是不相信，我可以說，從來沒有，雖然我一直在美國(guó)參議院，盡可能促成該基金的人來說，我為他們做了一個(gè)電話到一個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)，或我下去給一個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)，代表他們。記錄表明，記錄在政府手中。 好吧，那么，有些人會(huì)說，正確，“那么，是什么您使用的基金，參議員，你為什么要有呢？” 讓我告訴你如何參議院辦公室工作只是一個(gè)字。首先，參議員獲得每年15,000美元的工資。他獲得足夠的資金來支付每年的旅行，往返，那就是為自己和他的家人，他的家和華盛頓特區(qū)，然后他得到的免稅額處理的人，在他的辦公室的工作來處理他的郵件。我加利福尼亞州的津貼，聘請(qǐng)13人是不夠的。讓我說，順便說一句，那津貼不被參議員。它是直接支付到個(gè)人的參議員把他的工資輥。但是，所有的這些人，這些津貼是嚴(yán)格公務(wù)，業(yè)務(wù)，例如，當(dāng)某一成份股中寫道，并希望你去退伍軍人管理局，并得到了一些有關(guān)他的GI政策 - 該類型的項(xiàng)目，例如。但也有不包括政府的其他開支。而且我認(rèn)為好的，我可以問你一些問題，討論這些費(fèi)用。 你認(rèn)為當(dāng)我或任何其他參議員的政治講話，印刷，應(yīng)收取的納稅人，語音郵件，語音和印刷？你認(rèn)為，例如，當(dāng)我或任何其他參議員，使他的家鄉(xiāng)一趟，做一個(gè)純粹的政治演講，這一趟的成本，應(yīng)當(dāng)向納稅人收??？你覺得當(dāng)參議員使得政治的廣播或政治電視廣播，廣播或電視，應(yīng)該向納稅人收取費(fèi)用的那些廣播？嗯，我知道你的答案是什么。這是相同的，觀眾給我，每當(dāng)我討論這個(gè)問題的答案：答案是否定的。納稅人不應(yīng)該要求融資項(xiàng)目，這是不是官方的業(yè)務(wù)，但主要是政治業(yè)務(wù)。 好吧，那么問題出現(xiàn)了，你說，“嗯，怎么你支付這些，你怎么能這樣做合法嗎？” 有幾種方法，它可以做的，順便說一句，是做合法在美國(guó)參議院和國(guó)會(huì)。第一種方式是一個(gè)富有的人。我不碰巧是一個(gè)富有的人，所以我不能使用那個(gè)。使用另一種方法，就是把你的妻子的薪酬輥。順便說一句，我說，我的對(duì)手，民主黨票的副行長(zhǎng)，我的相反數(shù)的薪酬輥，確實(shí)有他的妻子有她對(duì)他的付出滾過去十年。現(xiàn)在讓我只是說：那是他的生意，我不是批評(píng)他這樣做。你必須通過特定的點(diǎn)上的判斷。 但我從來沒有這樣做，因?yàn)檫@個(gè)原因：我發(fā)現(xiàn)有這么多值得速記員和秘書在華盛頓需要的工作，我只是不覺得它是正確的把老婆的薪酬輥。我的妻子坐在這里。她是一個(gè)美妙的速記員。她教速記，她在高中教速記。這是我見到她的時(shí)候。而且我可以告訴你，她的工作很多個(gè)小時(shí)在晚上多小時(shí)的周六和周日在我的辦公室里，和她的做了很好的工作，和我很自豪，六年中我都一直在眾議院今晚說和鄉(xiāng)親美國(guó)參議院，帕特·尼克松從來就不是由政府支付輥。 有什么其他的方法可以采取這些財(cái)政照顧？有些人是律師，而我恰巧是一個(gè)律師，繼續(xù)執(zhí)業(yè)律師，但我一直沒能做到這一點(diǎn)。我來自加州那么遠(yuǎn)，我一直這么忙，我參議院的工作，我沒有從事任何法律實(shí)踐中，也盡可能法律實(shí)踐而言，在我看來，律師之間的關(guān)系和客戶端是這么個(gè)人，你不能代表一個(gè)人作為律師，然后有一個(gè)公正的看法時(shí)，他提出了他的事件，政府之前，他有一個(gè)例子給你聽。 所以我認(rèn)為，好的方式來處理這些必要的政治開支得到我的消息，美國(guó)人民和我所做的發(fā)言 - 我已經(jīng)印大部分發(fā)言暴露本屆政府關(guān)注這一消息，共產(chǎn)主義它，在它的腐敗 - 在我的家鄉(xiāng)加利福尼亞州的人，誰貢獻(xiàn)，我的競(jìng)選，并繼續(xù)做出這些貢獻(xiàn)，我當(dāng)選后，我可以做的辦法，是接受救助的，很高興能使。 讓我說，我感到非常自豪的事實(shí)，他們沒有一個(gè)人曾經(jīng)問我一個(gè)特殊的青睞。我感到非常自豪，他們沒有一個(gè)人曾經(jīng)問我要投票表決一項(xiàng)法案，將決定自己的良心以外的事實(shí)。我很自豪的托詞或以其他方式從未支付納稅人的開支，我認(rèn)為是政治不應(yīng)該向納稅人收取一毛錢。 順便說一下，讓我說，你們有些人可能會(huì)說，“嗯，這是所有的權(quán)利，參議員，你的解釋，但你有什么證據(jù)證明嗎？” 我想告訴你，今天晚上，短短一個(gè)小時(shí)前，我們收到了獨(dú)立審計(jì)這整個(gè)基金。我建議，誰是首席員工艾森豪威爾競(jìng)選州長(zhǎng)謝爾曼·亞當(dāng)斯，獲得一個(gè)獨(dú)立的審計(jì)，法律報(bào)告，在我的手里，我的審計(jì)。這是一個(gè)審計(jì)由普華永道事務(wù)所有限公司，吉布森，鄧恩的法律意見，＆Crutcher的律師在洛杉磯，大的律師事務(wù)所，順便說一下，在洛杉磯好的之一。 我很自豪能夠向你匯報(bào)，今晚審計(jì)及本法律意見轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)給艾森豪威爾將軍。我想讀給你聽吉布森，鄧恩，＆Crutcher的準(zhǔn)備，所有相關(guān)的法律，法規(guī)的基礎(chǔ)上，再加上由注冊(cè)會(huì)計(jì)師審計(jì)報(bào)告的意見： “這是我們的結(jié)論是，參議員尼克松沒有獲得任何財(cái)政收益的收集和發(fā)放達(dá)納·史密斯基金;參議員尼克松因基金運(yùn)作中沒有違反任何聯(lián)邦或州的法律;，無論是部分基金支付由達(dá)納·史密斯直接到第三人，也沒有支付的部分參議員尼克松的人償付他指定的辦公開支，收入構(gòu)成報(bào)告或應(yīng)稅收入適用稅法下的參議員?！? ?。ê炞郑? 吉布森，鄧恩，＆Crutcher的， 由H.康利埃爾莫 現(xiàn)在，我的朋友，是不是尼克松說，但是，是被要求獨(dú)立的審計(jì)，因?yàn)槲蚁胫烂绹?guó)人民所有的事實(shí)，和我不害怕獨(dú)立的人去中和核對(duì)事實(shí)，并認(rèn)為正是他們做了什么。但后來我意識(shí)到，仍然有一些人可能會(huì)說，這樣做是正確的 - 讓我說，我承認(rèn)，有些人會(huì)繼續(xù)涂抹，無論什么樣的真相可能是 - ，但一直存在理解的是，一些誠(chéng)實(shí)的誤解在這個(gè)問題上，有些人會(huì)說，“好吧，也許你能，參議員，偽造這個(gè)東西，我們?nèi)绾文芟嘈拍阏f的話嗎？畢竟，有一種可能性，也許你有一些大筆現(xiàn)金是否有可能，你可能已經(jīng)羽化自己的窩？“ 所以現(xiàn)在，我要做的 - 順便說一句，這在美國(guó)政治是前所未有的 - 我要在這個(gè)時(shí)候給這個(gè)電視觀眾和廣播聽眾，一個(gè)完整的金融歷史，我已經(jīng)贏得的一切我已經(jīng)花了，一切，我所擁有的一切。我想讓你知道的事實(shí)。 我將不得不提前啟動(dòng)。我出生于1913年。我們的家庭是一個(gè)溫和的情況下，我早期的生活大部分是在商店花東惠蒂爾。這是一個(gè)雜貨鋪，這些家族企業(yè)之一。我們能夠讓它走的原因是因?yàn)槲业膵寢尯桶职钟形鍌€(gè)男孩，我們都在店里工作。讀完大學(xué)，我的工作我的方式，在很大程度上，通過法律學(xué)校。然后在1940年，可能是有史以來好的事情發(fā)生在我身上發(fā)生。我是誰坐在在這里娶了帕特。我們有一個(gè)非常困難的時(shí)期，我們結(jié)婚后，像這么多誰可能是聽我們的年輕夫婦。我從事法律。她繼續(xù)教書。 然后，在1942年，我去服兵役。讓我說，我的服務(wù)紀(jì)錄是不是一個(gè)特別不尋常。我去了南太平洋。我想我有權(quán)爭(zhēng)斗星的一對(duì)夫婦。我有一對(duì)夫婦的表揚(yáng)信。但我只是有炸彈時(shí)被落下。然后我就回來了 - 回到美國(guó)，并于1946年，我競(jìng)選國(guó)會(huì)。當(dāng)我們來到的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)帕特 - 我和帕特 - 在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)期間曾作為速記員，并在銀行，政府機(jī)構(gòu)作為一個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家 - 我們出來的時(shí)候，總的儲(chǔ)蓄，我的法律實(shí)踐中，她的教學(xué)，所有的時(shí)間我是在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中，整個(gè)期間，總還是一個(gè)小少于$ 10,000 - 每一分錢，順便說一下，在政府債券。嗯，這是我們的起點(diǎn)，當(dāng)我進(jìn)入政壇。 現(xiàn)在，我賺什么，因?yàn)槲易哌M(jìn)了政治？嗯，在這里。我已經(jīng)記下來。讓我讀的音符。首先，我有我的工資作為眾議員和參議員。第二，我一共收到1,600元屋切斷我與它的連接時(shí)間，我在我的律師事務(wù)所在這過去的六年。而且，順便說一下，正如我之前說的，我并沒有從事任何法律實(shí)踐中并沒有接受任何收費(fèi)業(yè)務(wù)進(jìn)入公司后，我進(jìn)入政界。從非政治化的演講活動(dòng)和講座，我有一個(gè)平均約1,500元。 然后，幸運(yùn)的是，我們繼承了一點(diǎn)錢。帕特在她父親的遺產(chǎn)3000美元賣掉了她的興趣，我繼承了$ 1,500從我的祖父。我們生活相當(dāng)溫和。四年來，我們住在一個(gè)公寓在Parkfairfax，在弗吉尼亞州亞歷山德里亞。租金為80.00個(gè)月。我們保存的時(shí)間，我們可以買房子。現(xiàn)在，這是我們把我們做了什么用這筆錢嗎？我們有什么今天來顯示它？這會(huì)令你感到驚訝，因?yàn)樗侨绱酥?，我想，作為?biāo)準(zhǔn)，一般的人在公共生活中去。 首先，我們已經(jīng)得到了在華盛頓的一所房子，花費(fèi)$ 41,000上，我們欠20000美元的。我們有一個(gè)房子在加利福尼亞州惠蒂爾，耗資13,000上，我們欠3000美元的。在目前的時(shí)間，我的鄉(xiāng)親們都生活在那里。我剛剛4000美元的人壽保險(xiǎn)，再加上我的胃腸道的政策，我從來沒有能夠轉(zhuǎn)換，這將在兩年內(nèi)用完。我有沒有生命保險(xiǎn)無論從帕特。我對(duì)我們的兩個(gè)女兒特里西婭和朱莉就沒有生命保險(xiǎn)。我自己1950年的奧茲莫比爾汽車。我們有我們的家具。我們沒有任何類型的股票和債券。我們有沒有興趣，任何形式的直接或間接的任何業(yè)務(wù)?，F(xiàn)在，這是我們所擁有的。我們究竟虧欠？ 除了按揭，20,000美元的房子抵押在華盛頓，$ 10,000的Whittier房子之一，我欠4500美元，在華盛頓特區(qū)，里格斯銀行，利息4和1/2％。我欠我的父母，和那筆貸款的利息，這是我定期繳納3,500美元，因?yàn)樗撬麄內(nèi)绱伺ぷ?，通過多年的儲(chǔ)蓄，他們的一部分 - 我定期繳納4％的利息。然后，我有500美元的貸款，這是我對(duì)我的人生保險(xiǎn)。 嗯，這就是它。這是我們所擁有的。這是我們欠的債。這是不是很喜歡。但帕特和我很滿意，是誠(chéng)實(shí)勞動(dòng)所得的每一分錢，我們已經(jīng)有了。我應(yīng)該說的是，帕特沒有貂皮大衣。但她確實(shí)有一個(gè)可敬的共和黨布大衣，而我總是告訴她，她會(huì)穿什么都好看。 另一件事情是我應(yīng)該告訴你，因?yàn)槿绻也贿@么做，他們可能會(huì)說這句話的我，太。我們沒有得到的東西，禮物，在大選后。一個(gè)人在德州聽到帕特在電臺(tái)提到的事實(shí)，我們的兩個(gè)孩子想有一只狗。并相信它或沒有，在這次競(jìng)選之旅的前一天，我們離開，我們得到一個(gè)消息從巴爾的摩聯(lián)合車站的，說他們有一個(gè)包我們。我們?nèi)サ玫剿?。你知道這是什么嗎？這是一個(gè)有點(diǎn)卡犬的狗，一個(gè)箱子，他曾派人一路從得克薩斯州，黑色和白色，斑點(diǎn)，和我的小女兒特里西婭，六歲的，把它命名為跳棋。你知道，孩子，所有的孩子一樣，喜歡狗，我只想說，現(xiàn)在，不管他們?cè)趺凑f，我們要保持它。 這是不容易的，來之前在全國(guó)范圍內(nèi)的觀眾和袒露你的生活，因?yàn)槲乙呀?jīng)做了。但在我結(jié)束之前，我想說一些事情，我想你們會(huì)同意。米切爾先生，民主黨全國(guó)委員會(huì)主席，這一說法，如果一個(gè)人無法負(fù)擔(dān)在美國(guó)參議院，他應(yīng)該不會(huì)競(jìng)選參議員。我只想讓我的位置清晰。我不同意米切爾先生時(shí)，他說只有一個(gè)富人應(yīng)該為他的政府在美國(guó)參議院或在國(guó)會(huì)。我不相信，代表民主黨的思維，我知道這并不代表共和黨的思想。 我相信，它的罰款州長(zhǎng)史蒂文森，從父親那里繼承了一筆，這樣的人可以競(jìng)選總統(tǒng)。但我也覺得這是在我們這個(gè)國(guó)家，一個(gè)人的綿薄之力，也可以競(jìng)選總統(tǒng)，因?yàn)椋阒?，記得亞伯拉罕·林肯，你還記得他說：“上帝一定愛老百姓 - 他做了這么多?！? 現(xiàn)在我要去的行為提出了一些課程。首先，您已經(jīng)閱讀關(guān)于其他資金在報(bào)紙上，現(xiàn)在，史蒂文森先生顯然有一對(duì)夫婦。其中之一，其中一組商務(wù)人士的高薪和幫助，以補(bǔ)充國(guó)家員工的工資。這里是錢花哪里去了，直接進(jìn)入他們的口袋，我認(rèn)為史蒂文森先生應(yīng)該做的應(yīng)該是美國(guó)人民來之前，我有，給該基金的人的名字，給的名字人誰把這個(gè)錢落入他們的口袋的同時(shí)，他們收到的錢從他們的國(guó)家政府，看到什么有利于，如果有的話，他們給出了。 我不譴責(zé)史蒂文森先生為他的所作所為，但直到事實(shí)都在那里將提出一個(gè)疑問。斯帕克曼先生，我建議同樣的事情。他有他的妻子的工資輥。我不譴責(zé)他，但我認(rèn)為他之前，應(yīng)該先表明美國(guó)人民和外部的收入來源，他已經(jīng)有了。我會(huì)建議的情況下斯帕克曼先生和施文信先生來之前，美國(guó)人民，因?yàn)槲?，使一個(gè)完整的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表，其財(cái)務(wù)的歷史，如果他們不這樣做，這將是一個(gè)入場(chǎng)他們有東西要隱藏。我想你會(huì)同意我的看法 - 因?yàn)?，鄉(xiāng)親們，請(qǐng)記住，這是一個(gè)男人的美國(guó)總統(tǒng)，這是美國(guó)的副總統(tǒng)，一個(gè)人必須有信心，所有的人。這就是為什么我在做什么我做什么。這就是為什么我建議施文信先生和先生斯帕克曼，因?yàn)樗麄兪艿焦簦瑧?yīng)該做他們正在做什么。 現(xiàn)在讓我說：我知道這是不是后的涂片。在盡管今晚我解釋，其他涂片將會(huì)作出修改。其他已過去。和涂片檢查的目的，我知道，是這樣的，我保持沉默，讓我讓。嗯，他們只是不知道是誰，他們正在處理。我要告訴你一些相同的專欄作家，一些攻擊我現(xiàn)在和歪曲我的位置，相同的無線電評(píng)論員堅(jiān)決反對(duì)我的時(shí)候，我是這樣的：我記得在黑暗的日子里，希斯案件后阿爾杰希斯。但我繼續(xù)打，因?yàn)槲抑牢沂菍?duì)的，我可以說，我有這個(gè)偉大的電視觀眾和廣播聽眾沒有我把阿爾杰希斯他是今天向美國(guó)人民道歉。就這方面來說，我打算繼續(xù)戰(zhàn)斗。 為什么我感覺如此之深？為什么我覺得，盡管涂片，誤解，需要一個(gè)人來這里，并袒露自己的靈魂，因?yàn)槲矣?？為什么我有必要繼續(xù)開展這場(chǎng)斗爭(zhēng)？而且我要告訴你為什么。因?yàn)椋憧?，我愛我的?guó)家。而且我覺得我的國(guó)家正處于危險(xiǎn)之中。我認(rèn)為的人可以拯救美國(guó)在這個(gè)時(shí)候是競(jìng)選總統(tǒng)的人，我的票 - 德懷特·艾森豪威爾。你說，“為什么我認(rèn)為它正處于危險(xiǎn)之中？” 我說，看看記錄。七的多年杜魯門艾奇遜管理的，發(fā)生了什么事？六百萬人失去共產(chǎn)黨人。朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中，我們已經(jīng)失去了117,000美國(guó)傷亡，我要告訴大家，一個(gè)政策，共產(chǎn)黨的損失為600萬人，花費(fèi)了我們117,000名美國(guó)人員傷亡和戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的結(jié)果是不好的足夠?yàn)槊绹?guó)。我說，在國(guó)務(wù)院作出錯(cuò)誤導(dǎo)致戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)和導(dǎo)致這些損失應(yīng)該被踢出國(guó)務(wù)院一樣快，因?yàn)槲覀冏屗麄冸x開那里。 讓我說，我知道史蒂文森先生不會(huì)這么做的，因?yàn)樗鹏旈T的政策辯護(hù)，我知道德懷特·艾森豪威爾將做到這一點(diǎn)，他會(huì)給它需要美國(guó)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)。采取的腐敗問題。你讀過華盛頓亂七八糟。史蒂文森先生無法清除，因?yàn)樗贿x中的人，杜魯門在其管理的混亂。 你不會(huì)相信誰做的一塌糊涂的人把它清理干凈。這是杜魯門。出于同樣的原因，你不能信任的人，誰做的一塌糊涂的人，誰把它清理干凈，史蒂文森被拾起。所以我說，艾森豪威爾，杜魯門，沒有大城市老板誰欠什么 - 他是男人，可以收拾殘局，在華盛頓。以共產(chǎn)主義。我說盡可能的主題是關(guān)注美國(guó)的危險(xiǎn)是很大的。在希斯的情況下，他們得到的秘密，使他們打破了美國(guó)秘密國(guó)務(wù)院的代碼。他們有秘密原子彈的情況下，使他們得到了原子彈的秘密，五年前，他們會(huì)得到它自己的設(shè)備。我說，任何人稱為阿爾杰希斯情況下，一個(gè)紅色的鯡魚不適合當(dāng)美國(guó)總統(tǒng)。 我說，一個(gè)人，像史蒂文森先生，不善和嘲笑在美國(guó)共產(chǎn)黨的威脅 - 他說，他們是在自己的幻影。他指責(zé)我們?cè)噲D揭露共產(chǎn)黨，尋找漁業(yè)和野生動(dòng)物局的共產(chǎn)黨人。我說，一個(gè)人說，是沒有資格成為美國(guó)總統(tǒng)的。我說的的人誰可以帶領(lǐng)我們?cè)谶@場(chǎng)斗爭(zhēng)中擺脫那些誰是共產(chǎn)黨員，這些人已經(jīng)敗壞了這個(gè)政府，政府是艾森豪威爾，因?yàn)榘劳枺憧梢钥隙?，承認(rèn)這一問題，他知道如何對(duì)付它。 現(xiàn)在，讓我終于，今天晚上，我想讀給你聽，只是簡(jiǎn)要摘錄了一封信，我收到了一封信，畢竟這是不超過一個(gè)遠(yuǎn)離我們可以采取。其內(nèi)容如下： 親愛的參議員尼克松， “因?yàn)槲抑挥?9歲，我不能在這次總統(tǒng)選舉中投票，但相信我，如果我能你和艾森豪威爾將軍肯定會(huì)得到我的投票，我的丈夫是在艦隊(duì)海軍陸戰(zhàn)隊(duì)在韓國(guó)，他是一個(gè)醫(yī)務(wù)兵在前線和我們有一兩個(gè)個(gè)月的老兒子，他從來沒有見過，而且我覺得相信偉大的美國(guó)人像你和在白宮的艾森豪威爾將軍，像我一樣孤獨(dú)的美國(guó)人將團(tuán)結(jié)與他們的親人現(xiàn)在在韓國(guó)，我只有向上帝祈禱，你會(huì)不會(huì)太晚了。封閉是一個(gè)小的檢查，以幫助你在你的競(jìng)選。每月85元的生活，這是我目前能買得起，但讓我知道我還能做些什么。“ 伙計(jì)們，這是一個(gè)10美元的支票，這是一個(gè)我永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)兌現(xiàn)。只是讓我這樣說：我們聽到了很多關(guān)于繁榮這些天，但我說，我們?yōu)槭裁床荒苡蟹睒s建立在和平，而不是建立在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的繁榮？為什么我們不能有一個(gè)誠(chéng)實(shí)的政府在華盛頓特區(qū)，繁榮和在相同的時(shí)間呢？相信我，我們可以。和艾森豪威爾是男人，可導(dǎo)致這場(chǎng)運(yùn)動(dòng)給我們帶來的那種繁榮。 而現(xiàn)在，終于，我知道你不知道我是否打算留在共和黨票或辭職。讓我這樣說：我不相信，我應(yīng)該退出，因?yàn)槲也皇且粋€(gè)半途而廢的人。順便說一句，帕特不是一個(gè)半途而廢的人。畢竟，她的名字叫帕特里夏·瑞安，她出生于圣帕特里克節(jié)，你知道愛爾蘭人從來不干。但決定的，我的朋友，不是我的。我會(huì)做什么，會(huì)造成傷害的可能性成為美國(guó)總統(tǒng)的艾森豪威爾。這個(gè)原因，我提交給共和黨全國(guó)委員會(huì)今晚通過電視播出，這是他們做出的決定。讓他們決定是否將幫助或傷害我的票上的地位。我要問你，以幫助他們決定。電線和寫入共和黨全國(guó)委員會(huì)是否你覺得我應(yīng)該留在或者我是否應(yīng)該下車。無論他們的決定，我一定會(huì)嚴(yán)格遵守。 但是，僅僅讓我說這后一句話。無論發(fā)生什么事，我要繼續(xù)戰(zhàn)斗。我要運(yùn)動(dòng)起來，在美國(guó)，直到我們開車的騙子和共產(chǎn)黨人和那些保衛(wèi)他們離開華盛頓。記得鄉(xiāng)親，艾森豪威爾是一個(gè)偉大的人，相信我。他是一個(gè)偉大的人。艾森豪威爾一票是一票什么是對(duì)美國(guó)有利。
"...the kids, like all kids, love the dog, and...regardless of what they say about it, we're gonna keep it." [AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from the 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 am 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 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 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 is 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 [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 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, 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 13 people. And let me say, incidentally, that that 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? 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 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 her on his pay roll for the past ten years. Now let me just say this: That' 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 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'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 have 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 am so far away from California that 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 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 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 shouldn't be charged to the taxpayers. Let me say, incidentally, that some of you may say, "Well, that is 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 in my hands. 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 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: "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 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 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 might have feathered your own nest?" And so now, that 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'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 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 -- 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 I was 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 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 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, fortunately, 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 Parkfairfax, in Alexandria Virginia. The rent was $80.00 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 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'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 mortgage on the house in Washington, the $10,000 one on the house in Whittier, I owe $4500 to the Riggs Bank in Washington, D.C., with interest 4 and 1/2 percent. I owe $3,500 to my parents, and the interest on that loan, which I pay regularly, because it's a 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 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 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, 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 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'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 Hiss case 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 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 to all of you that a policy that results in the loss of 600 million people to the Communists, and a war that 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 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 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 pooh-poohed 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 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, 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'm 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.
[真?zhèn)握J(rèn)證：下面的文字版直接從音頻轉(zhuǎn)錄] 我的美國(guó)同胞們， 我來之前你今晚作為副總統(tǒng)候選人，并作為一個(gè)人的誠(chéng)實(shí)和誠(chéng)信受到了質(zhì)疑。 現(xiàn)在，通常政治的事情向你收費(fèi)時(shí)是忽略或否認(rèn)他們沒有透露更多細(xì)節(jié)。我相信，我們已經(jīng)吃夠了在美國(guó)，特別是與現(xiàn)政府在華盛頓特區(qū)，我的美國(guó)副總統(tǒng)的辦公室是一個(gè)偉大的辦公室，我覺得，人一定有運(yùn)行該辦公室的男人誰，誰可能獲得它的完整性的信心。 我有一個(gè)理論，那就是，好的，只回答一抹黑或一個(gè)誠(chéng)實(shí)的誤解的事實(shí)是，說實(shí)話。這就是為什么我今晚會(huì)在這里。我想告訴你我身邊的情況。我敢肯定，你必須讀出控罪，你聽說過它，那我 - 參議員尼克松，我的支持者從一組18,000元。 現(xiàn)在，這種做法是錯(cuò)誤的嗎？讓我說，這是錯(cuò)誤的。我說，順便說一下，這是錯(cuò)誤的，只要不違法，因?yàn)樗皇且粋€(gè)問題，無論是合法的還是非法的，這是不夠的?，F(xiàn)在的問題是，它在道德上是錯(cuò)誤的嗎？我說，這是道德上是錯(cuò)誤的 - 如果有的話，港幣18,000元去參議員尼克松，我私人使用的。我說，這是道德上是錯(cuò)誤的，如果它是秘密給予并秘密處置。我說，這是道德上是錯(cuò)誤的，如果任何的貢獻(xiàn)者為他們所作出的貢獻(xiàn)，得到了特殊照顧。 現(xiàn)在回答這些問題讓我這樣說：沒有一美分$ 18,000或任何其他的錢該類型的我曾經(jīng)去我私人使用的。它的每一分錢用于支付政治上的開支，我不認(rèn)為美國(guó)的納稅人應(yīng)收取。這不是一個(gè)秘密基金。事實(shí)上，當(dāng)我在“與媒體見面” - 有些人可能已經(jīng)看到它的后一個(gè)星期日 - 彼得·埃德森來到了我的方案后，他說，“迪克，什么是基金，我們聽到什么？“ 我說，“那么，有沒有它的秘密。走出去，看到達(dá)納·史密斯誰是基金的管理人。” 我給他[埃德森]他的[史密斯]地址。我說，你會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，該基金的目的僅僅是支付政治上的費(fèi)用，我沒有覺得應(yīng)收取的政府。第三，讓我指出 - 我要讓這個(gè)特別清楚 - 曾經(jīng)收到本基金沒有貢獻(xiàn)，沒有我的任何活動(dòng)的貢獻(xiàn)者，作為一個(gè)普通的成分，他不會(huì)收到任何代價(jià)。 我只是不相信，我可以說，從來沒有，雖然我一直在美國(guó)參議院，盡可能促成該基金的人來說，我為他們做了一個(gè)電話到一個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)，或我下去給一個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)，代表他們。記錄表明，記錄在政府手中。 好吧，那么，有些人會(huì)說，正確，“那么，是什么您使用的基金，參議員，你為什么要有呢？” 讓我告訴你如何參議院辦公室工作只是一個(gè)字。首先，參議員獲得每年15,000美元的工資。他獲得足夠的資金來支付每年的旅行，往返，那就是為自己和他的家人，他的家和華盛頓特區(qū)，然后他得到的免稅額處理的人，在他的辦公室的工作來處理他的郵件。我加利福尼亞州的津貼，聘請(qǐng)13人是不夠的。讓我說，順便說一句，那津貼不被參議員。它是直接支付到個(gè)人的參議員把他的工資輥。但是，所有的這些人，這些津貼是嚴(yán)格公務(wù)，業(yè)務(wù)，例如，當(dāng)某一成份股中寫道，并希望你去退伍軍人管理局，并得到了一些有關(guān)他的GI政策 - 該類型的項(xiàng)目，例如。但也有不包括政府的其他開支。而且我認(rèn)為好的，我可以問你一些問題，討論這些費(fèi)用。 你認(rèn)為當(dāng)我或任何其他參議員的政治講話，印刷，應(yīng)收取的納稅人，語音郵件，語音和印刷？你認(rèn)為，例如，當(dāng)我或任何其他參議員，使他的家鄉(xiāng)一趟，做一個(gè)純粹的政治演講，這一趟的成本，應(yīng)當(dāng)向納稅人收??？你覺得當(dāng)參議員使得政治的廣播或政治電視廣播，廣播或電視，應(yīng)該向納稅人收取費(fèi)用的那些廣播？嗯，我知道你的答案是什么。這是相同的，觀眾給我，每當(dāng)我討論這個(gè)問題的答案：答案是否定的。納稅人不應(yīng)該要求融資項(xiàng)目，這是不是官方的業(yè)務(wù)，但主要是政治業(yè)務(wù)。 好吧，那么問題出現(xiàn)了，你說，“嗯，怎么你支付這些，你怎么能這樣做合法嗎？” 有幾種方法，它可以做的，順便說一句，是做合法在美國(guó)參議院和國(guó)會(huì)。第一種方式是一個(gè)富有的人。我不碰巧是一個(gè)富有的人，所以我不能使用那個(gè)。使用另一種方法，就是把你的妻子的薪酬輥。順便說一句，我說，我的對(duì)手，民主黨票的副行長(zhǎng)，我的相反數(shù)的薪酬輥，確實(shí)有他的妻子有她對(duì)他的付出滾過去十年。現(xiàn)在讓我只是說：那是他的生意，我不是批評(píng)他這樣做。你必須通過特定的點(diǎn)上的判斷。 但我從來沒有這樣做，因?yàn)檫@個(gè)原因：我發(fā)現(xiàn)有這么多值得速記員和秘書在華盛頓需要的工作，我只是不覺得它是正確的把老婆的薪酬輥。我的妻子坐在這里。她是一個(gè)美妙的速記員。她教速記，她在高中教速記。這是我見到她的時(shí)候。而且我可以告訴你，她的工作很多個(gè)小時(shí)在晚上多小時(shí)的周六和周日在我的辦公室里，和她的做了很好的工作，和我很自豪，六年中我都一直在眾議院今晚說和鄉(xiāng)親美國(guó)參議院，帕特·尼克松從來就不是由政府支付輥。 有什么其他的方法可以采取這些財(cái)政照顧？有些人是律師，而我恰巧是一個(gè)律師，繼續(xù)執(zhí)業(yè)律師，但我一直沒能做到這一點(diǎn)。我來自加州那么遠(yuǎn)，我一直這么忙，我參議院的工作，我沒有從事任何法律實(shí)踐中，也盡可能法律實(shí)踐而言，在我看來，律師之間的關(guān)系和客戶端是這么個(gè)人，你不能代表一個(gè)人作為律師，然后有一個(gè)公正的看法時(shí)，他提出了他的事件，政府之前，他有一個(gè)例子給你聽。 所以我認(rèn)為，好的方式來處理這些必要的政治開支得到我的消息，美國(guó)人民和我所做的發(fā)言 - 我已經(jīng)印大部分發(fā)言暴露本屆政府關(guān)注這一消息，共產(chǎn)主義它，在它的腐敗 - 在我的家鄉(xiāng)加利福尼亞州的人，誰貢獻(xiàn)，我的競(jìng)選，并繼續(xù)做出這些貢獻(xiàn)，我當(dāng)選后，我可以做的辦法，是接受救助的，很高興能使。 讓我說，我感到非常自豪的事實(shí)，他們沒有一個(gè)人曾經(jīng)問我一個(gè)特殊的青睞。我感到非常自豪，他們沒有一個(gè)人曾經(jīng)問我要投票表決一項(xiàng)法案，將決定自己的良心以外的事實(shí)。我很自豪的托詞或以其他方式從未支付納稅人的開支，我認(rèn)為是政治不應(yīng)該向納稅人收取一毛錢。 順便說一下，讓我說，你們有些人可能會(huì)說，“嗯，這是所有的權(quán)利，參議員，你的解釋，但你有什么證據(jù)證明嗎？” 我想告訴你，今天晚上，短短一個(gè)小時(shí)前，我們收到了獨(dú)立審計(jì)這整個(gè)基金。我建議，誰是首席員工艾森豪威爾競(jìng)選州長(zhǎng)謝爾曼·亞當(dāng)斯，獲得一個(gè)獨(dú)立的審計(jì)，法律報(bào)告，在我的手里，我的審計(jì)。這是一個(gè)審計(jì)由普華永道事務(wù)所有限公司，吉布森，鄧恩的法律意見，＆Crutcher的律師在洛杉磯，大的律師事務(wù)所，順便說一下，在洛杉磯好的之一。 我很自豪能夠向你匯報(bào)，今晚審計(jì)及本法律意見轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)給艾森豪威爾將軍。我想讀給你聽吉布森，鄧恩，＆Crutcher的準(zhǔn)備，所有相關(guān)的法律，法規(guī)的基礎(chǔ)上，再加上由注冊(cè)會(huì)計(jì)師審計(jì)報(bào)告的意見： “這是我們的結(jié)論是，參議員尼克松沒有獲得任何財(cái)政收益的收集和發(fā)放達(dá)納·史密斯基金;參議員尼克松因基金運(yùn)作中沒有違反任何聯(lián)邦或州的法律;，無論是部分基金支付由達(dá)納·史密斯直接到第三人，也沒有支付的部分參議員尼克松的人償付他指定的辦公開支，收入構(gòu)成報(bào)告或應(yīng)稅收入適用稅法下的參議員?！? ?。ê炞郑? 吉布森，鄧恩，＆Crutcher的， 由H.康利埃爾莫 現(xiàn)在，我的朋友，是不是尼克松說，但是，是被要求獨(dú)立的審計(jì)，因?yàn)槲蚁胫烂绹?guó)人民所有的事實(shí)，和我不害怕獨(dú)立的人去中和核對(duì)事實(shí)，并認(rèn)為正是他們做了什么。但后來我意識(shí)到，仍然有一些人可能會(huì)說，這樣做是正確的 - 讓我說，我承認(rèn)，有些人會(huì)繼續(xù)涂抹，無論什么樣的真相可能是 - ，但一直存在理解的是，一些誠(chéng)實(shí)的誤解在這個(gè)問題上，有些人會(huì)說，“好吧，也許你能，參議員，偽造這個(gè)東西，我們?nèi)绾文芟嘈拍阏f的話嗎？畢竟，有一種可能性，也許你有一些大筆現(xiàn)金是否有可能，你可能已經(jīng)羽化自己的窩？“ 所以現(xiàn)在，我要做的 - 順便說一句，這在美國(guó)政治是前所未有的 - 我要在這個(gè)時(shí)候給這個(gè)電視觀眾和廣播聽眾，一個(gè)完整的金融歷史，我已經(jīng)贏得的一切我已經(jīng)花了，一切，我所擁有的一切。我想讓你知道的事實(shí)。 我將不得不提前啟動(dòng)。我出生于1913年。我們的家庭是一個(gè)溫和的情況下，我早期的生活大部分是在商店花東惠蒂爾。這是一個(gè)雜貨鋪，這些家族企業(yè)之一。我們能夠讓它走的原因是因?yàn)槲业膵寢尯桶职钟形鍌€(gè)男孩，我們都在店里工作。讀完大學(xué)，我的工作我的方式，在很大程度上，通過法律學(xué)校。然后在1940年，可能是有史以來好的事情發(fā)生在我身上發(fā)生。我是誰坐在在這里娶了帕特。我們有一個(gè)非常困難的時(shí)期，我們結(jié)婚后，像這么多誰可能是聽我們的年輕夫婦。我從事法律。她繼續(xù)教書。 然后，在1942年，我去服兵役。讓我說，我的服務(wù)紀(jì)錄是不是一個(gè)特別不尋常。我去了南太平洋。我想我有權(quán)爭(zhēng)斗星的一對(duì)夫婦。我有一對(duì)夫婦的表揚(yáng)信。但我只是有炸彈時(shí)被落下。然后我就回來了 - 回到美國(guó)，并于1946年，我競(jìng)選國(guó)會(huì)。當(dāng)我們來到的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)帕特 - 我和帕特 - 在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)期間曾作為速記員，并在銀行，政府機(jī)構(gòu)作為一個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家 - 我們出來的時(shí)候，總的儲(chǔ)蓄，我的法律實(shí)踐中，她的教學(xué)，所有的時(shí)間我是在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中，整個(gè)期間，總還是一個(gè)小少于$ 10,000 - 每一分錢，順便說一下，在政府債券。嗯，這是我們的起點(diǎn)，當(dāng)我進(jìn)入政壇。 現(xiàn)在，我賺什么，因?yàn)槲易哌M(jìn)了政治？嗯，在這里。我已經(jīng)記下來。讓我讀的音符。首先，我有我的工資作為眾議員和參議員。第二，我一共收到1,600元屋切斷我與它的連接時(shí)間，我在我的律師事務(wù)所在這過去的六年。而且，順便說一下，正如我之前說的，我并沒有從事任何法律實(shí)踐中并沒有接受任何收費(fèi)業(yè)務(wù)進(jìn)入公司后，我進(jìn)入政界。從非政治化的演講活動(dòng)和講座，我有一個(gè)平均約1,500元。 然后，幸運(yùn)的是，我們繼承了一點(diǎn)錢。帕特在她父親的遺產(chǎn)3000美元賣掉了她的興趣，我繼承了$ 1,500從我的祖父。我們生活相當(dāng)溫和。四年來，我們住在一個(gè)公寓在Parkfairfax，在弗吉尼亞州亞歷山德里亞。租金為80.00個(gè)月。我們保存的時(shí)間，我們可以買房子。現(xiàn)在，這是我們把我們做了什么用這筆錢嗎？我們有什么今天來顯示它？這會(huì)令你感到驚訝，因?yàn)樗侨绱酥?，我想，作為?biāo)準(zhǔn)，一般的人在公共生活中去。 首先，我們已經(jīng)得到了在華盛頓的一所房子，花費(fèi)$ 41,000上，我們欠20000美元的。我們有一個(gè)房子在加利福尼亞州惠蒂爾，耗資13,000上，我們欠3000美元的。在目前的時(shí)間，我的鄉(xiāng)親們都生活在那里。我剛剛4000美元的人壽保險(xiǎn)，再加上我的胃腸道的政策，我從來沒有能夠轉(zhuǎn)換，這將在兩年內(nèi)用完。我有沒有生命保險(xiǎn)無論從帕特。我對(duì)我們的兩個(gè)女兒特里西婭和朱莉就沒有生命保險(xiǎn)。我自己1950年的奧茲莫比爾汽車。我們有我們的家具。我們沒有任何類型的股票和債券。我們有沒有興趣，任何形式的直接或間接的任何業(yè)務(wù)?，F(xiàn)在，這是我們所擁有的。我們究竟虧欠？ 除了按揭，20,000美元的房子抵押在華盛頓，$ 10,000的Whittier房子之一，我欠4500美元，在華盛頓特區(qū)，里格斯銀行，利息4和1/2％。我欠我的父母，和那筆貸款的利息，這是我定期繳納3,500美元，因?yàn)樗撬麄內(nèi)绱伺ぷ?，通過多年的儲(chǔ)蓄，他們的一部分 - 我定期繳納4％的利息。然后，我有500美元的貸款，這是我對(duì)我的人生保險(xiǎn)。 嗯，這就是它。這是我們所擁有的。這是我們欠的債。這是不是很喜歡。但帕特和我很滿意，是誠(chéng)實(shí)勞動(dòng)所得的每一分錢，我們已經(jīng)有了。我應(yīng)該說的是，帕特沒有貂皮大衣。但她確實(shí)有一個(gè)可敬的共和黨布大衣，而我總是告訴她，她會(huì)穿什么都好看。 另一件事情是我應(yīng)該告訴你，因?yàn)槿绻也贿@么做，他們可能會(huì)說這句話的我，太。我們沒有得到的東西，禮物，在大選后。一個(gè)人在德州聽到帕特在電臺(tái)提到的事實(shí)，我們的兩個(gè)孩子想有一只狗。并相信它或沒有，在這次競(jìng)選之旅的前一天，我們離開，我們得到一個(gè)消息從巴爾的摩聯(lián)合車站的，說他們有一個(gè)包我們。我們?nèi)サ玫剿?。你知道這是什么嗎？這是一個(gè)有點(diǎn)卡犬的狗，一個(gè)箱子，他曾派人一路從得克薩斯州，黑色和白色，斑點(diǎn)，和我的小女兒特里西婭，六歲的，把它命名為跳棋。你知道，孩子，所有的孩子一樣，喜歡狗，我只想說，現(xiàn)在，不管他們?cè)趺凑f，我們要保持它。 這是不容易的，來之前在全國(guó)范圍內(nèi)的觀眾和袒露你的生活，因?yàn)槲乙呀?jīng)做了。但在我結(jié)束之前，我想說一些事情，我想你們會(huì)同意。米切爾先生，民主黨全國(guó)委員會(huì)主席，這一說法，如果一個(gè)人無法負(fù)擔(dān)在美國(guó)參議院，他應(yīng)該不會(huì)競(jìng)選參議員。我只想讓我的位置清晰。我不同意米切爾先生時(shí)，他說只有一個(gè)富人應(yīng)該為他的政府在美國(guó)參議院或在國(guó)會(huì)。我不相信，代表民主黨的思維，我知道這并不代表共和黨的思想。 我相信，它的罰款州長(zhǎng)史蒂文森，從父親那里繼承了一筆，這樣的人可以競(jìng)選總統(tǒng)。但我也覺得這是在我們這個(gè)國(guó)家，一個(gè)人的綿薄之力，也可以競(jìng)選總統(tǒng)，因?yàn)椋阒?，記得亞伯拉罕·林肯，你還記得他說：“上帝一定愛老百姓 - 他做了這么多?！? 現(xiàn)在我要去的行為提出了一些課程。首先，您已經(jīng)閱讀關(guān)于其他資金在報(bào)紙上，現(xiàn)在，史蒂文森先生顯然有一對(duì)夫婦。其中之一，其中一組商務(wù)人士的高薪和幫助，以補(bǔ)充國(guó)家員工的工資。這里是錢花哪里去了，直接進(jìn)入他們的口袋，我認(rèn)為史蒂文森先生應(yīng)該做的應(yīng)該是美國(guó)人民來之前，我有，給該基金的人的名字，給的名字人誰把這個(gè)錢落入他們的口袋的同時(shí)，他們收到的錢從他們的國(guó)家政府，看到什么有利于，如果有的話，他們給出了。 我不譴責(zé)史蒂文森先生為他的所作所為，但直到事實(shí)都在那里將提出一個(gè)疑問。斯帕克曼先生，我建議同樣的事情。他有他的妻子的工資輥。我不譴責(zé)他，但我認(rèn)為他之前，應(yīng)該先表明美國(guó)人民和外部的收入來源，他已經(jīng)有了。我會(huì)建議的情況下斯帕克曼先生和施文信先生來之前，美國(guó)人民，因?yàn)槲?，使一個(gè)完整的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表，其財(cái)務(wù)的歷史，如果他們不這樣做，這將是一個(gè)入場(chǎng)他們有東西要隱藏。我想你會(huì)同意我的看法 - 因?yàn)?，鄉(xiāng)親們，請(qǐng)記住，這是一個(gè)男人的美國(guó)總統(tǒng)，這是美國(guó)的副總統(tǒng)，一個(gè)人必須有信心，所有的人。這就是為什么我在做什么我做什么。這就是為什么我建議施文信先生和先生斯帕克曼，因?yàn)樗麄兪艿焦簦瑧?yīng)該做他們正在做什么。 現(xiàn)在讓我說：我知道這是不是后的涂片。在盡管今晚我解釋，其他涂片將會(huì)作出修改。其他已過去。和涂片檢查的目的，我知道，是這樣的，我保持沉默，讓我讓。嗯，他們只是不知道是誰，他們正在處理。我要告訴你一些相同的專欄作家，一些攻擊我現(xiàn)在和歪曲我的位置，相同的無線電評(píng)論員堅(jiān)決反對(duì)我的時(shí)候，我是這樣的：我記得在黑暗的日子里，希斯案件后阿爾杰希斯。但我繼續(xù)打，因?yàn)槲抑牢沂菍?duì)的，我可以說，我有這個(gè)偉大的電視觀眾和廣播聽眾沒有我把阿爾杰希斯他是今天向美國(guó)人民道歉。就這方面來說，我打算繼續(xù)戰(zhàn)斗。 為什么我感覺如此之深？為什么我覺得，盡管涂片，誤解，需要一個(gè)人來這里，并袒露自己的靈魂，因?yàn)槲矣?？為什么我有必要繼續(xù)開展這場(chǎng)斗爭(zhēng)？而且我要告訴你為什么。因?yàn)椋憧?，我愛我的?guó)家。而且我覺得我的國(guó)家正處于危險(xiǎn)之中。我認(rèn)為的人可以拯救美國(guó)在這個(gè)時(shí)候是競(jìng)選總統(tǒng)的人，我的票 - 德懷特·艾森豪威爾。你說，“為什么我認(rèn)為它正處于危險(xiǎn)之中？” 我說，看看記錄。七的多年杜魯門艾奇遜管理的，發(fā)生了什么事？六百萬人失去共產(chǎn)黨人。朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中，我們已經(jīng)失去了117,000美國(guó)傷亡，我要告訴大家，一個(gè)政策，共產(chǎn)黨的損失為600萬人，花費(fèi)了我們117,000名美國(guó)人員傷亡和戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的結(jié)果是不好的足夠?yàn)槊绹?guó)。我說，在國(guó)務(wù)院作出錯(cuò)誤導(dǎo)致戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)和導(dǎo)致這些損失應(yīng)該被踢出國(guó)務(wù)院一樣快，因?yàn)槲覀冏屗麄冸x開那里。 讓我說，我知道史蒂文森先生不會(huì)這么做的，因?yàn)樗鹏旈T的政策辯護(hù)，我知道德懷特·艾森豪威爾將做到這一點(diǎn)，他會(huì)給它需要美國(guó)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)。采取的腐敗問題。你讀過華盛頓亂七八糟。史蒂文森先生無法清除，因?yàn)樗贿x中的人，杜魯門在其管理的混亂。 你不會(huì)相信誰做的一塌糊涂的人把它清理干凈。這是杜魯門。出于同樣的原因，你不能信任的人，誰做的一塌糊涂的人，誰把它清理干凈，史蒂文森被拾起。所以我說，艾森豪威爾，杜魯門，沒有大城市老板誰欠什么 - 他是男人，可以收拾殘局，在華盛頓。以共產(chǎn)主義。我說盡可能的主題是關(guān)注美國(guó)的危險(xiǎn)是很大的。在希斯的情況下，他們得到的秘密，使他們打破了美國(guó)秘密國(guó)務(wù)院的代碼。他們有秘密原子彈的情況下，使他們得到了原子彈的秘密，五年前，他們會(huì)得到它自己的設(shè)備。我說，任何人稱為阿爾杰希斯情況下，一個(gè)紅色的鯡魚不適合當(dāng)美國(guó)總統(tǒng)。 我說，一個(gè)人，像史蒂文森先生，不善和嘲笑在美國(guó)共產(chǎn)黨的威脅 - 他說，他們是在自己的幻影。他指責(zé)我們?cè)噲D揭露共產(chǎn)黨，尋找漁業(yè)和野生動(dòng)物局的共產(chǎn)黨人。我說，一個(gè)人說，是沒有資格成為美國(guó)總統(tǒng)的。我說的的人誰可以帶領(lǐng)我們?cè)谶@場(chǎng)斗爭(zhēng)中擺脫那些誰是共產(chǎn)黨員，這些人已經(jīng)敗壞了這個(gè)政府，政府是艾森豪威爾，因?yàn)榘劳枺憧梢钥隙?，承認(rèn)這一問題，他知道如何對(duì)付它。 現(xiàn)在，讓我終于，今天晚上，我想讀給你聽，只是簡(jiǎn)要摘錄了一封信，我收到了一封信，畢竟這是不超過一個(gè)遠(yuǎn)離我們可以采取。其內(nèi)容如下： 親愛的參議員尼克松， “因?yàn)槲抑挥?9歲，我不能在這次總統(tǒng)選舉中投票，但相信我，如果我能你和艾森豪威爾將軍肯定會(huì)得到我的投票，我的丈夫是在艦隊(duì)海軍陸戰(zhàn)隊(duì)在韓國(guó)，他是一個(gè)醫(yī)務(wù)兵在前線和我們有一兩個(gè)個(gè)月的老兒子，他從來沒有見過，而且我覺得相信偉大的美國(guó)人像你和在白宮的艾森豪威爾將軍，像我一樣孤獨(dú)的美國(guó)人將團(tuán)結(jié)與他們的親人現(xiàn)在在韓國(guó)，我只有向上帝祈禱，你會(huì)不會(huì)太晚了。封閉是一個(gè)小的檢查，以幫助你在你的競(jìng)選。每月85元的生活，這是我目前能買得起，但讓我知道我還能做些什么。“ 伙計(jì)們，這是一個(gè)10美元的支票，這是一個(gè)我永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)兌現(xiàn)。只是讓我這樣說：我們聽到了很多關(guān)于繁榮這些天，但我說，我們?yōu)槭裁床荒苡蟹睒s建立在和平，而不是建立在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的繁榮？為什么我們不能有一個(gè)誠(chéng)實(shí)的政府在華盛頓特區(qū)，繁榮和在相同的時(shí)間呢？相信我，我們可以。和艾森豪威爾是男人，可導(dǎo)致這場(chǎng)運(yùn)動(dòng)給我們帶來的那種繁榮。 而現(xiàn)在，終于，我知道你不知道我是否打算留在共和黨票或辭職。讓我這樣說：我不相信，我應(yīng)該退出，因?yàn)槲也皇且粋€(gè)半途而廢的人。順便說一句，帕特不是一個(gè)半途而廢的人。畢竟，她的名字叫帕特里夏·瑞安，她出生于圣帕特里克節(jié)，你知道愛爾蘭人從來不干。但決定的，我的朋友，不是我的。我會(huì)做什么，會(huì)造成傷害的可能性成為美國(guó)總統(tǒng)的艾森豪威爾。這個(gè)原因，我提交給共和黨全國(guó)委員會(huì)今晚通過電視播出，這是他們做出的決定。讓他們決定是否將幫助或傷害我的票上的地位。我要問你，以幫助他們決定。電線和寫入共和黨全國(guó)委員會(huì)是否你覺得我應(yīng)該留在或者我是否應(yīng)該下車。無論他們的決定，我一定會(huì)嚴(yán)格遵守。 但是，僅僅讓我說這后一句話。無論發(fā)生什么事，我要繼續(xù)戰(zhàn)斗。我要運(yùn)動(dòng)起來，在美國(guó)，直到我們開車的騙子和共產(chǎn)黨人和那些保衛(wèi)他們離開華盛頓。記得鄉(xiāng)親，艾森豪威爾是一個(gè)偉大的人，相信我。他是一個(gè)偉大的人。艾森豪威爾一票是一票什么是對(duì)美國(guó)有利。