美国总统尼克松“西洋跳棋”小猎犬英文演讲稿[权威资料]

美国总统尼克松“西洋跳棋”小猎犬 英文演讲稿

本文档格式为WORD,感谢你的阅读。

最新最全的 学术论文 期刊文献 年终总结 年终报告 工作总结 个人总结 述职报告 实习报告 单位总结 演讲稿

美国总统尼克松“西洋跳棋”小猎犬 英文演讲稿

导语：在针对有人指控尼克松“私下接受赠款”时，尼克松做了如下著名演讲，对这件事的来龙去脉做了详细说明，同时也说明了自己从出道以来的详细财政情况。标题中的“Checkers”是别人赠送给他的一只小狗的名字，意为“跳棋”。

Richard M. Nixon

"Checkers"

delivered and broadcast live on television 23

September 1952

My Fellow Americans,

I come before you tonight as a candidate for the

Vice Presidency and as a man whose honesty and -- and

integrity has been questioned.

Now, the usual political thing to do when charges

are made against you is to either ignore them or to

deny them without giving details. I believe we've had

enough of that in the United States, particularly with

the present Administration in Washington, D.C. To me

the office of the Vice Presidency of the United States

is a great office, and I feel that the people have got

to have confidence in the integrity of the men who run

for that office and who might obtain it.

I have a theory, too, that the best and only

answer to a smear or to an honest misunderstanding of

the facts is to tell the truth. And that's why I'm

here tonight. I want to tell you my side of the case.

I'm sure that you have read the charge, and you've

heard it, that I, Senator Nixon, took 18,000 dollars

from a group of my supporters.

Now, was that wrong? And let me say that it was

wrong. I'm saying, incidentally, that it was wrong,

not just illegal, because it isn't a question of

whether it was legal or illegal, that isn't enough.

The question is, was it morally wrong? I say that it

was morally wrong -- if any of that 18,000 dollars

went to Senator Nixon, for my personal use. I say that

it was morally wrong if it was secretly given and

secretly handled. And I say that it was morally wrong

if any of the contributors got special favors for the

contributions that they made.

And now to answer those questions let me say this:

Not one cent of the 18,000 dollars or any other money

of that type ever went to me for my personal use.

Every penny of it was used to pay for political

expenses that I did not think should be charged to the

taxpayers of the United States. It was not a secret

fund. As a matter of fact, when I was on "Meet the

Press" -- some of you may have seen it last Sunday --

Peter Edson came up to me after the program, and he

said, "Dick, what about this "fund" we hear about?"

And I said, "Well, there's no secret about it. Go out

and see Dana Smith who was the administrator of the

fund." And I gave him [Edson] his [Smith's] address.

And I said you will find that the purpose of the fund

simply was to defray political expenses that I did not

feel should be charged to the Government.

And third, let me point out -- and I want to make

this particularly clear -- that no contributor to this

fund, no contributor to any of my campaigns, has ever

received any consideration that he would not have

received as an ordinary constituent. I just don't

believe in that, and I can say that never, while I

have been in the Senate of the United States, as far

as the people that contributed to this fund are

concerned, have I made a telephone call for them to an

agency, or have I gone down to an agency in their

behalf. And the records will show that, the records

which are in the hands of the administration.

Well, then, some of you will say, and rightly,

"Well, what did you use the fund for, Senator?" "Why

did you have to have it?" Let me tell you in just a

word how a Senate office operates. First of all, a

Senator gets 15,000 dollars a year in salary. He gets

enough money to pay for one trip a year -- a round

trip, that is -- for himself and his family between

his home and Washington, D.C. And then he gets an

allowance to handle the people that work in his office

to handle his mail. And the allowance for my State of

California is enough to hire 13 people. And let me say,

incidentally, that that allowance is not paid to the

Senator. It's paid directly to the individuals that

the Senator puts on his pay roll. But all of these

people and all of these allowances are for strictly

official business; business, for example, when a

constituent writes in and wants you to go down to the

Veteran's Administration and get some information

about his GI policy -- items of that type, for example.

But there are other expenses which are not covered by

the Government. And I think I can best discuss those

expenses by asking you some questions.

Do you think that when I or any other Senator

makes a political speech, has it printed, should

charge the printing of that speech and the mailing of

that speech to the taxpayers? Do you think, for

example, when I or any other Senator makes a trip to

his home State to make a purely political speech that

the cost of that trip should be charged to the

taxpayers? Do you think when a Senator makes political

broadcasts or political television broadcasts, radio

or television, that the expense of those broadcasts

should be charged to the taxpayers? Well I know what

your answer is. It's the same answer that audiences

give me whenever I discuss this particular problem:

The answer is no. The taxpayers shouldn't be required

to finance items which are not official business but

which are primarily political business.

Well, then the question arises, you say, "Well,

how do you pay for these and how can you do it

legally?" And there are several ways that it can be

done, incidentally, and that it is done legally in the

United States Senate and in the Congress. The first

way is to be a rich man. I don't happen to be a rich

man, so I couldn't use that one. Another way that is

used is to put your wife on the pay roll. Let me say,

incidentally, that my opponent, my opposite number for

the Vice Presidency on the Democratic ticket, does

have his wife on the pay roll and has had it -- her on

his pay roll for the ten years -- for the past ten

years. Now just let me say this: That's his business,

and I'm not critical of him for doing that. You will

have to pass judgment on that particular point.

But I have never done that for this reason: I have

found that there are so many deserving stenographers

and secretaries in Washington that needed the work

that I just didn't feel it was right to put my wife on

the pay roll.

My wife's sitting over here. She's a wonderful

stenographer. She used to teach stenography and she

used to teach shorthand in high school. That was when

I met her. And I can tell you folks that she's worked

many hours at night and many hours on Saturdays and

Sundays in my office, and she's done a fine job, and I

am proud to say tonight that in the six years I've

been in the House and the Senate of the United States,

Pat Nixon has never been on the Government pay roll.

What are other ways that these finances can be

taken care of? Some who are lawyers, and I happen to

be a lawyer, continue to practice law, but I haven't

been able to do that. I'm so far away from California

that I've been so busy with my senatorial work that I

have not engaged in any legal practice. And, also, as

far as law practice is concerned, it seemed to me that

the relationship between an attorney and the client

was so personal that you couldn't possibly represent a

man as an attorney and then have an unbiased view when

he presented his case to you in the event that he had

one before Government.

And so I felt that the best way to handle these

necessary political expenses of getting my message to

the American people and the speeches I made -- the

speeches that I had printed for the most part

concerned this one message of exposing this

Administration, the Communism in it, the corruption in

it -- the only way that I could do that was to accept

the aid which people in my home State of California,

who contributed to my campaign and who continued to

make these contributions after I was elected, were

glad to make.

And let me say I'm proud of the fact that not one

of them has ever asked me for a special favor. I'm

proud of the fact that not one of them has ever asked

me to vote on a bill other than of my own conscience

would dictate. And I am proud of the fact that the

taxpayers, by subterfuge or otherwise, have never paid

one dime for expenses which I thought were political

and shouldn't be charged to the taxpayers.

Let me say, incidentally, that some of you may say,

"Well, that's all right, Senator, that's your

explanation, but have you got any proof?" And I'd like

to tell you this evening that just an hour ago we

received an independent audit of this entire fund. I

suggested to Governor Sherman Adams, who is the Chief

of Staff of the Dwight Eisenhower campaign, that an

independent audit and legal report be obtained, and I

have that audit here in my hands. It's an audit made

by the Price Waterhouse

Company firm, and the legal opinion by Gibson, Dunn,

Crutcher, lawyers in Los Angeles, the biggest law

firm, and incidentally, one of the best ones in Los

Angeles.

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.

Gibson, Dunn,

Crutcher,

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.

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."

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 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

the Communists. And a war in Korea in which we have

lost 117,000 American casualties, and I say to all of

you that a policy that results in the loss of 600

million people to the Communists, and a war which cost

us 117,000 American casualties isn't good enough for

America. And I say that those in the State Department

that made the mistakes which caused that war and which

resulted in those losses should be kicked out of the

State Department just as fast as we get them out of

there.

And let me say that I know Mr. Stevenson won't do

that because he defends the Truman policy, and I know

that Dwight Eisenhower will do that, and that he will

give America the leadership that it needs. Take the

problem of corruption. You've read about the mess in

Washington. Mr. Stevenson can't clean it up because he

was picked by the man, Truman, under whose

Administration the mess was made. You wouldn't trust

the man who made the mess to clean it up. That's

Truman. And by the same token you can't trust the man

who was picked by the man that made the mess to clean

it up -- and that's Stevenson.

And so I say, Eisenhower, who owed nothing to

Truman, nothing to the big city bosses -- he is the

man that can clean up the mess in Washington. Take

Communism. I say that as far as that subject is

concerned the danger is great to America. In the Hiss

case they got the secrets which enabled them to break

the American secret State Department code. They got

secrets in the atomic bomb case which enabled them to

get the secret of the atomic bomb five years before

they would have gotten it by their own devices. And I

say that any man who called the Alger Hiss case a red

herring isn't fit to be President of the United States.

I say that a man who, like Mr. Stevenson, has 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 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. And what's good

美国总统尼克松“西洋跳棋”小猎犬 英文演讲稿

./yingyuyuedu/

阅读相关文档:的Facebook宣布将研发用人脑操控电脑新技术【双语阅读】

Facebook推出人工智能翻译【双语阅读】 Facebook调整算法 着手应对消息流垃圾广告【双语新闻】 知行哈哈糖英语笑话阅读：工作篇 谢耳朵与交往14年的男友完婚【双语新闻】 日本五万人票选女星没人排行榜 北川景子夺冠【双语新闻】 全国‘新一线’15城市出炉【双语新闻】 国统局称4月份我国经济保持稳中向好态势【双语新闻】 特雷莎·梅首相在英国议会就伦敦事件发表的讲话附视频 希腊议会通过新紧缩法案

确保获得救助金【双语新闻】 《爱是什么》双语美文阅读最新 最新报告指出 北京深圳上海金融实力居国内前三

最新最全【办公文献】【心理学】【毕业论文】【学术论文】【总结报告】 【演讲致辞】【领导讲话】 【心得体会】 【党建材料】 【常用范文】【分析报告】

【应用文档】 免费阅读下载

*本文若侵犯了您的权益，请留言。我将尽快处理，多谢。*