Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains:
Statement by Richard Nixon about Hughes Loan. 2 pgs. [Report], 1962
Statement by Richard Nixon about Water Policy. 2 pgs. [Report], 4/26/1962
Informational sheet about Richard Nixon. 1 pg. Duplicate not scanned. [Memo], n.d.
Statement by Richard Nixon about Senate Reapportionment. 1 pg. Duplicate not scanned. [Report], 3/28/1962
Statement by Richard Nixon about the Coouncil on Foreign Relations. 1 pg. Duplicate not scanned. [Report], 3/10/1962
Statement by Richard Nixon about Connally Reservation. 1 pg. Attached to previous. Duplicate not scanned. [Report], 3/1/1962
Statement by Richard Nixon about Francis Ammendment. 1 pg. Attached to previous. Duplicate not scanned. [Report], 5/3/1962
Copy of the Santa Barbara News article, Picking Course to Fight Reds Is Real problem, Nixon Says. 1 pg. Not scanned. Attached to previous. [Newspaper], 3/16/1962
Copy of the Bnai Brith Messenger article Calling Nixon "Anti-Semetic" Is a Disservice to Jewry. 1 pg. Not scanned. Attached to previous. [Newspaper], 9/7/1956
Copy of the San Diego Union article, Nixon Outlines Plan to Counter Reds Inside US. 1 pg. Not scanned. Attached to previous. [Newspaper], 4/3/1962
Statement by Richard Nixon about campaign. 2 pgs. Duplicate not scanned. [Report], 5/7/1962
Statement by Richard Nixon about support of school construction bonds. 1 pg. Duplicate not scanned. [Report], 9/14/1962
Letter to Mrs. Valley Knudson from Dick Nixon. 1 pg. Duplicate not scanned. [Letter], 5/15/1962
Statement by Richard Nixon about state loyalty oath. 1 pg. Duplicate not scanned. [Report], 3/10/1962
Statement by Richard Nixon about Right to Work legislation. 1 pg. Duplicate not scanned. [Report], 3/23/1962
Statement by Richard Nixon about New Industry Means Employment. 2 pgs. Duplicate not scanned. [Report], 9/12/1962
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26127872
label
WHSF: Returned, 59-12
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26127872
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Returned, 59-12
description
This file contains:
Statement by Richard Nixon about Hughes Loan. 2 pgs. [Report], 1962
Statement by Richard Nixon about Water Policy. 2 pgs. [Report], 4/26/1962
Informational sheet about Richard Nixon. 1 pg. Duplicate not scanned. [Memo], n.d.
Statement by Richard Nixon about Senate Reapportionment. 1 pg. Duplicate not scanned. [Report], 3/28/1962
Statement by Richard Nixon about the Coouncil on Foreign Relations. 1 pg. Duplicate not scanned. [Report], 3/10/1962
Statement by Richard Nixon about Connally Reservation. 1 pg. Attached to previous. Duplicate not scanned. [Report], 3/1/1962
Statement by Richard Nixon about Francis Ammendment. 1 pg. Attached to previous. Duplicate not scanned. [Report], 5/3/1962
Copy of the Santa Barbara News article, Picking Course to Fight Reds Is Real problem, Nixon Says. 1 pg. Not scanned. Attached to previous. [Newspaper], 3/16/1962
Copy of the Bnai Brith Messenger article Calling Nixon "Anti-Semetic" Is a Disservice to Jewry. 1 pg. Not scanned. Attached to previous. [Newspaper], 9/7/1956
Copy of the San Diego Union article, Nixon Outlines Plan to Counter Reds Inside US. 1 pg. Not scanned. Attached to previous. [Newspaper], 4/3/1962
Statement by Richard Nixon about campaign. 2 pgs. Duplicate not scanned. [Report], 5/7/1962
Statement by Richard Nixon about support of school construction bonds. 1 pg. Duplicate not scanned. [Report], 9/14/1962
Letter to Mrs. Valley Knudson from Dick Nixon. 1 pg. Duplicate not scanned. [Letter], 5/15/1962
Statement by Richard Nixon about state loyalty oath. 1 pg. Duplicate not scanned. [Report], 3/10/1962
Statement by Richard Nixon about Right to Work legislation. 1 pg. Duplicate not scanned. [Report], 3/23/1962
Statement by Richard Nixon about New Industry Means Employment. 2 pgs. Duplicate not scanned. [Report], 9/12/1962
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Returned White House Special Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26127872
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a9bd54c31693ab09
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
White House Special Files Collection
Folder List
Box Number Folder Number Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
59
12
1962
Report
Statement by Richard Nixon about Hughes
Loan. 2 pgs.
59
12
04/26/1962
Report
Statement by Richard Nixon about Water
Policy. 2 pgs.
59
12
n.d.
Memo
Informational sheet about Richard Nixon. 1
pg. Duplicate not scanned.
59
12
03/28/1962
Report
Statement by Richard Nixon about Senate
Reapportionment. 1 pg. Duplicate not
scanned.
59
12
03/10/1962
Report
Statement by Richard Nixon about the
Coouncil on Foreign Relations. 1 pg.
Duplicate not scanned.
59
12
03/1962
Report
Statement by Richard Nixon about Connally
Reservation. 1 pg. Attached to previous.
Duplicate not scanned.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Page 1 of 3
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
59
12
05/03/1962
Report
Statement by Richard Nixon about Francis
Ammendment. 1 pg. Attached to previous.
Duplicate not scanned.
59
12
03/16/1962
Newspaper
Copy of the Santa Barbara News article,
Picking Course to Fight Reds Is Real
problem, Nixon Says. 1 pg. Not scanned.
Attached to previous.
59
12
09/07/1956
Newspaper
Copy of the Bnai Brith Messenger article
Calling Nixon "Anti-Semetic" Is a Disservice
to Jewry. 1 pg. Not scanned. Attached to
previous.
59
12
04/03/1962
Newspaper
Copy of the San Diego Union article, Nixon
Outlines Plan to Counter Reds Inside US. 1
pg. Not scanned. Attached to previous.
59
12
05/07/1962
Report
Statement by Richard Nixon about campaign.
2 pgs. Duplicate not scanned.
59
12
09/14/1962
Report
Statement by Richard Nixon about support of
school construction bonds. 1 pg. Duplicate
not scanned.
59
12
05/15/1962
Letter
Letter to Mrs. Valley Knudson from Dick
Nixon. 1 pg. Duplicate not scanned.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Page 2 of 3
Box Number Folder Number
Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
59
12
03/10/1962
Report
Statement by Richard Nixon about state
loyalty oath. 1 pg. Duplicate not scanned.
59
12
03/23/1962
Report
Statement by Richard Nixon about Right to
Work legislation. 1 pg. Duplicate not
scanned.
59
12
09/12/1962
Report
Statement by Richard Nixon about New
Industry Means Employment. 2 pgs.
Duplicate not scanned.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Page 3 of 3
As
400
Cacal leich for
destrict between
Nixon for Governor
3908 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles 5, California
Richard Nixon explained the Hughes Loan on October 1, 1962
during his joint appearance with Governor Brown at the UPI Editors
Conference in San Francisco. When he was asked the question about
the loan, Mr. Nixon stated the facts of the loan as follows, and
challenged Mr. Brown on the spot:
Six years ago, my brother was in deep financial trouble. He
borrowed $205,000 from the Hughes Tool Company. My mother put up
as security for that loan practically everything she had - a piece
of property, which, to her was fabulously wealthy and which now is
producing an income of $10,000.00 a year to the creditor.
My brother went bankrupt six years ago. My mother turned
over the property to the Hughes Tool Company. Two years ago at
the Presidential Election, President Kennedy refused to make a
political issue out of my brother's difficulties and out of my
mother's problems, just as I refused to make a political issue of
any of the charges made against the members of his family.
I had no part or interest in my brother's business. I had
no part whatever in the negotiation of this loan. I was never
asked to do anything by the Hughes Tool Company and never did any-
thing for them. And yet, despite President Kennedy refusing to
use this as an issue , Mr. Brown, privately, in talking to some of
the newsmen here in this audience, and his hatchetmen have been
constantly saying that I must have gotten some of the money - that
I did something wrong.
Now it is time to have this out. I was in government for four
years as a Congressman, as a Senator, as Vice President. I went
to Washington for 5 years with a car and a house and a mortgage.
I came back with a car and a house and a bigger mortgage.
I have made mistakes, but I am an honest man. And if the
Governor of this state has any evidence pointing up that I did
anything wrong in this case, that I did anything for the Hughes
Tool Company, that I asked them for this loan, then instead of
doing it privately, doing it slyly, the way he has -- and he
cannot deny it -- because newsmen in this office have told me that
he has said, "we are going to make a big issue out of the Hughes
Tool Company loan".
Now, he has a chance. All the people of California are
listening on television. The people of this audience are listening.
Governor Brown has a chance to stand up as a man and charge me
with misconduct. Do it, Sir!"
(Mr. Brown did not do it)
Text of Water Policy Speech
by RICHARD M. NIXON
Irrigation Districts Association
Sheraton-Palace Hotel, San Francisco
12 p.m., April 26, 1962
One of the greatest challenges to the dynamic growth of California is that of
water development. Potentially, there is enough water to meet all our needs. Our
job is to redistribute it - fairly and equitably.
The history of water development in California is a long one. The credit
belongs to no one man. Since the beginning of this century we have been developing
water. We will continue to do so imaginatively and creatively.
The East Bay Municipal Water District, the Hetch-Hetchy system, the Owens River
Aqueduct, the Metropolitan Water District, the Central Valley Project, the Imperial
Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley County Water District all deserve mention
as do many others. As a result of these programs we have some of the richest farmland
in the world and the resources for a burgeoning population.
The state entered the water development picture in 1947 when the Legislature
authorized a comprehensive study of all water resources, and from that study evolved
the California Water Plan in 1957. The first step of the Plan that will eventually
encompass many water programs was to be the Feather River Project.
Californians approved the financing of the Project in good faith. We must keep
faith with them. It is only fair to tell the people of California that the $1 3/4
billion price tag never will cover the costs of the program. This was known at the
time but nobody wanted the responsibility of putting a $2 billion bond issue on the
ballot. So the situation was conveniently compromised. The truth of the matter is
that no one can honestly say what the Feather River Project will cost, and we must
face that fact.
Like the Feather River financing approach, the entire program has been a
bipartisan achievement. Until recently water has been non-political, and properly SO.
It is much too vital for party credits. Although he was a Republican, Harvey Banks,
former Director of Water Resources, served in two administrations. He handled the
assignment as a non-political one.
Indeed, those were the days -- before politics began to poison the water
situation -- when the present Governor could truthfully declare:
"When I walked in as Governor of this State there were great
pressures back and forth as to whether I should retain Harvey
Banks as the head of the Department of Water Resources. But I
had worked with him as Attorney General and I knew there wasn't
a better water engineer in this State, and the water program of
California as it moves ahead will be a monument to Harvey Banks."
We know, of course, what happened. The Governor lost the services of Harvey
Banks, the man whom he praised for taking the Feather River Project to the voters so
successfully. Until then, water was free from politics. I am determined to return
it to that freedom.
OVER
Water also needs freedom from federal meddling. California's water develop-
ments prove that self-government at the local level is the best government. This is
basic to my philosophy. Water projects already built are the best possible evidence
of the effectiveness of local self-government. The vast irrigation works built by
the irrigation districts, the municipal systems constructed by public agencies of one
kind or another, and the works of private utilities all testify to the resourcefulness
and achievement of local units. The job of the state should be to encourage this kind
of achievement, not displace it with larger government. This philosophy should be
basic to the state as well as to the federal government.
The function of the state is to guide and encourage local communities to help
themselves. There is considerable criticism that local units are not getting the
help they need. This can be cured only by a direct and able Director of Water
Resources who has the confidence of his staff and the people in the communities which
his department serves.
What is needed is not more layers of government -- but fewer. Getting rid of
the present Governor's super-cabinet will be one of my first acts. Replacing the
present water director with a man of Harvey Banks' calibre will be next.
At all costs, the counties of origin of the water must be protected. Present
population distribution does not necessarily reflect the population of the future.
There is enough water available, if properly harnessed, to serve all the people of
the state. In the meantime, we must not make the same mistake in philosophy that the
federal government makes when it tries to lay claim to all California water. We
believe in the water rights of the counties of origin and of the original users. But
unless our resistance to federal encroachment is extraordinarily vigorous, the question
of protecting the rights of the counties of origin may well be merely academic.
In my opinion, as far as the Feather River Project is concerned, too much power
has been vested in the Administrative branch of state government. The plan would be
sounder if it contained more inherent checks than the Governor's vague promises to
deal fairly with all sections of the state. Under the super-agency program of the
present Administration, the Governor has virtual life and death power over the units
of the Feather River Project and at the same time he has delegated that authority to
an appointee who is not accountable to the people. The super-agency only dilutes the
responsibility of putting the water program into effect. Besides these serious draw-
backs, it adds a considerable burden of unnecessary expense.
Whole civilizations have been buried under the dust of parched lands. New ones
rise up where there is water. This is California -- rising as the giant among the
50 states.
California's population will pass the 20 million mark by 1970.
This is why our water must be harnessed to the fullest possible extent. This is
why we must learn to tap the ocean economically and sift the work of our scientists
and the ideas of our dreamers for new breakthroughs. This is why we need top leaders
in state government -- leaders who will keep politics out of water.
###
RICHARD M. NIXON
born in Yorba Linda, California, January 9, 1913;
second of five sons of Hannah Milhous and Francis
Anthony Nixon; married Patricia Ryan, 1940; two
daughters, Tricia and Julie.
Education
elementary and secondary education in California
public schools; graduate of Whittier College (A. B. 1934)
and Duke University Law School (LL. B. 1937).
Professional Career
General practice of law in firm of Bewley, Knoop and
Nixon, Whittier, California, 1937-42; attorney in
Office of Emergency Management, Washington, D. C.,
Jan to Aug 1942; of Counsel, firm of Adams, Duque
and Hazeltine, Los Angeles, California, 1961 to
present.
Service Record
Commissioned in the Navy as a Lt. (j.g.) in 1942;
served in the South Pacific for 13 months; stateside
duty in Ottumwa (Iowa), New York City, Philadelphia,
and Baltimore; discharged as Lt. Commander in
Jan, 1946; presently Commander, USNR.
Public Service
U. S. Representative from California, 80th and 81st
Congress, 1947-51 (Un-American Activities Committee,
Select (Herter) Committee on Foreign Aid, Education
and Labor Committee).
U.S. Senator from California, 82nd Congress, 1951-
53, elected by a majority of 700, 000 votes (Expendi-
tures in the Executive Departments Committee, Labor
and Public Welfare Committee).
Vice President of the U.S., 1953-61 (President of the
Senate, statutory member of the National Security
Council; personal representative of President Eisen-
hower on goodwill trips to 54 countries; Chairman of
the President's Committee on Government Contracts;
Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Price Stability
for Economic Growth).
Republican nominee for President, 1960, barely
defeated in the closest popular vote in history.
Candidate for Governor of California, 1961
Nixon for Governor Committee
3908 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California
DUnkirk 8-3385
SENATE REAPPORTIONMENT
RICHARD NIXON
MARCH 28, 1962
More representation in the State Senate for the growing metropolitan
areas of California is a matter of simple justice.
Reapportionment of our State Senate is an important, serious, difficult
and controversial matter. But the furure well-being of our metropolitan
areas and of our state as a whole is involved. I am convinced that
the State Senate will be reapportioned.
The solution, whenever it comes, must be based on sound principle,
one which will serve our growing state for at least until 1970.
Changing the make-up of the Senate must not be decided upon political
expedience.
The problem before the people of California is how to give our urban
areas a more equitable voice in their government without usurping
the influence of the less populous areas of our state.
We must maintain our traditional system of balances between urban
and rural areas of our state, and this can only be accomplished
through a bicameral legislature. This is the principle for which we
must strive.
It is painfully obvious that the Brown reapportionment plan, drawn
from his own blue-ribbon commission after two years of delay, was a
gross affront to the expectations of the people. He offered 3 more
senators to Los Angeles as a sop and a tranquillizer. It was no re-
apportionment plan at all. Lacking even a shred of principle, the
Brown plan already has gone down the drain.
The surprise amendment to the Brown plan, submitted by Jesse Unruh,
the Assembly Majority Leader, would provide the same 3 additional
senators for Los Angeles and give one additional senator each to San
Diego, Orange, San Francisco, Alameda and Santa Clara counties.
The scheme, devised in a day or so, although better than that of his
protege (Governor Brown), still suffers from the mark of political
expedience. Mr. Unruh does not hesitate to juggle his figures to fit
his plan: he asks that four populous counties have 700,000 citizens
for an extra senator but that Los Angeles must have 1, 200,000 for
an added representative in the Senate.
I have studied the various reapportionment plans and weighed the
pros and cons of each. One stands out as the best, giving fair repre-
sentation to both our urban and more rural areas. It is a carefully
considered plan, already in operation elsewhere, which will stand
the test of time and principle. This is the modified Colorado Plan.
California. We have urgent urban pronlems to meet, such as traffic
congestion, rapid transit, air pollution and others, and important
work to do in our state legislature. Our urban areas need and deserve
adequate representation.
California is a constantly growing state and progress cannot be stopped.
The Senate will be reapportioned one day and it should be reapprotioned
with justice, wisdom and a sense of principle.
Having studied this problem, I am proud to pledge that, if elected
Governor, I will seek to lead the forces of progress in California
in effecting the enactment of a reapportionment plan as I have out-
lined here.
Reply by RICHARD NIXON
to a question concerning
The Council on Foreign Relations
March 10, 1962
In response to your question, I am a non-resident mem-
ber of the Council on Foreign Relations. I believe that there is some
confusion between the Foreign Policy Association and the Council on
Foreign Relations -- they are, in fact, altogether separate. I share
membership in the Council with General Eisenhower, former Presi-
dent Herbert Hoover and a host of other distinguished Americans.
The late Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, was throughout his
life an active member.
There may also be some confusion as to the purpose of
the Council on Foreign Relations. It is purely and simply a group
which supports independent research in world affairs. It takes no
positions. It is not a policy-making body. It advocates nothing but
sound research on foreign affairs -- to which findings, in any case,
the individual member is in no way bound -- as a contribution to
public opinion.
********
Statement by RICHARD NIXON
concerning the Connally Reservation
March, 1962
Domestic matters must remain within the jurisdiction
of our own courts. The Connally Reservation was originally
adopted for the purpose of assuring that this would be the case.
The Eisenhower Administration in 1960 called for a modifica-
tion of the Reservation because its language was obscure and
confusing. The primary purpose of the proposal was to estab-
lish a clear definition of what was domestic and what was foreign.
In no way did I support then nor do I support now any
proposal which infringes upon or diminishes the sovereignty of
the United States. The United States retained the right to get
out of the World Court on six months' notice and the right to
veto any action of the Court by reason of our veto in the United
Nations, the enforcing body of the World Court.
In any case, the overriding consideration is United States
security and United States control over its own sovereignty.
Because of the increasingly intransigent attitude of the Soviet
Union, there is, in my opinion, no possibility that a modifica-
tion of the Connally amendment will be approved until that
attitude changes.
********
FRANCIS AMENDMENT
REMARKS BY RICHARD NIXON
BEFORE THE
JUNIOR BARRISTERS OF LOS ANGELES
MAY 3, 1962
No one concerned with the security of our State and Nation can quarrel with the aims
of the Francis Amendment, which is designed to combat the communist menace in
California.
Governor Brown says this is "a very, very bad bill. " He says, "I am against it in every
way. " I emphatically disagree with Brown. There is an urgent need for a more effective
program to combat communism in California. Our State cannot stand pat on the commu-
nist threat. And we cannot tolerate a State Administration that substitutes smugness for
action.
Unfortunately, there appears to be a fatal Constitutional flaw in the Francis Amendment.
Because of loose drafting in Section 3, which allows a wide assortment of groups and
individuals to designate subversives, the Amendment may inadvertently give the commu-
nists a constitutional escape hatch.
For 14 years in Washington -- as Congressman, Senator, and Vice President -- I dealt
with communist-control legislation, and I know that the communists ferret out a legal
loophole with the cunning of a rat after cheese. I was one of the sponsors of the Federal
Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 and I saw how communist tactics hog-tied this
in the courts for ten long years. If the communists could do this to a carefully constructed
law, which was finally held constitutional by the Supreme Court in 1961, it is easy to see
what a field-day they would have in attacking a piece of legislation with the potential defects
of the Francis Amendment.
This is why I regret that I can neither sign or support the Francis Amendment in its
present form.
My alternative in vigorously pursuing the fight against communism in California is this:
At the next session of the Legislature, I will present a first priority anti-communist
program. Among its provisions: it will deny the use of tax-supported institutions for
speeches by any individual who refuses to comply with Federal and State subversive con-
trol laws or refuses to testify before Grand Juries or legislative committees investigating
subversive activities; it will stress hard-hitting enforcement of laws now on the books,
including loyalty oaths; it will activate on a statewide basis educational programs on the
tactics and strategy of communism on the school and adult levels; it will emphasize the
teaching of teachers and the use of authoritative text-books to do this job.
On this issue -- fighting communism in California -- as on all issues, I aim to close the
"leadership gap" in Sacramento. Under the next Administration, California will not stand
pat; we shall move forward in solving our state's problems. In so doing we shall set an
example for other states to follow.
Statement by Richard Nixon
Los Angeles
May 7, 1962
As the primary campaign for governor enters the final month, the issues
before the voters become increasingly clear.
Ahead lies a decade of decision. Will we move forward to assume our
rightful place as the number one state in the nation -- or will we stand on
the past?
Pat Brown has given us his answer. It is a white flag emblazoned with
the motto, "I stand pat on my record."
Just what is this record?
Under the Brown Administration, the economic climate in California has
become overcast. Unemployment has soared above the national average. We
now have a serious job gap. The rate of new industry coming into the State
has decreased because of the threat of higher taxes and the anti-business
climate in state government. In a State that must create 20,000 new jobs
each month, we cannot attract businesses with an Administration that is the
handmaiden of the left-wing California Democratic Council. As Brown turns
to irresponsible spending, industry turns to other states.
The leadership climate under Brown has become equally cloudy. Brown's
speechwriters can put strong words in his mouth, but they can't cover his
wobbly knees. Instead of "The Twist," Brown dances "The Flip-Flop." There
was the Chessman case flip-flop, the flip-flop on the 1960 Democratic nominee
for President, another flip-flop on narcotic law enforcement, and most recently,
the Brown flip-flop on outlawing professional boxing.
Recognizing this leadership gap, Brown has tried to fill the void with an
extra layer of bureaucratic fat called a "Super Cabinet". As the Governor's
backstops, some of these Brown cronies are about as effective as a catcher
with a hole in his mitt. For example, William Warne, Brown's Water and
Natural Resources Director, appears to be too busy electioneering to bother
about administrating. However, considering his past fiascoes as a foreign aid
administrator, California taxpayers are probably better off with him on the
stump than behind a desk.
In contrast to Brown's bumbling record, on which he stands, I have been
systematically presenting to the people of California a realistic program of
decisions for progress.
I have advocated a complete overhaul of the State Government to streamline
the present bureaucratic sprawl -- not just put a shiny tin weathervane on top
of an old barn. My proposals for more effective government have also called
for continuous two-year legislative sessions and unfreezing the two-thirds of
the State budget that is not now subject to review or control by the legislature.
In the field of water development, I have proposed a 13-point program
to speed up construction of dams and aqueducts, to eliminate the present ad-
ministrative hodge-podge created by William Warne, to reactivate the Power
Committee, to put checks on executive power over water projects, and to
oppose the 160-acre limitation where State water development is concerned.
In a speech before the California Teachers Association, I spelled out
my top-priority program for solving our problem of overcrowded classrooms
and other critical educative problems without turning to the federal govern-
ment for the kind of aid that might lead to federal control of our schools.
My 4-point program for combatting the Communist menace in California
calls for preventing our tax-supported institutions from being used as forums
for individuals who refuse to comply with subversive control laws or refuse
to testify before grand juries or legislative committees investigating sub-
versive activities, as well as for hard-hitting enforcement of existing laws,
and vital school and adult education programs on the tactics and strategy of
communism.
I have stated my position on such other issues as the proper role of
California government -- reversing the Brown trend of abdicating State re-
sponsibility to Washington; the State Budget; the best way to attract new
industries to California and to create new jobs; and the shameful shenanigans
that Brown apparently condones, such as his crony William Newsom's contract
on Squaw Valley.
In the weeks and months ahead, I shall detail my plans for a more prosper-
ous agriculture, a workable transportation program, more effective and least
costly public welfare, and other vital topics that will concern the next State
Administration. Moreover, I shall continue to expose the ineptitudes and
irregularities of the present Administration.
My program means Decisions for Progress for a greater California. Brown's
program is to stand pat on the record, a dismal record of bungling, indecision
and wasteful spending of the taxpayer's money.
SUPPORT OF SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BONDS (PROPOSITION 1-A)
Remarks by
RICHARD NIXON
Turlock
September 14, 1962
We cannot short change the youth of California. As we become the
first State in the nation, our future depends on the education of our young
people. It is therefore imperative that we have the necessary school con-
struction funds for our rapidly expanding educational needs.
That is why I strongly endorse Proposition 1-A. This is why I
endorsed the original school construction bond issue on April 28th in an
address before the California Teachers Association and the National Education
Association. This is why I reaffirmed my strong views by approval of a
school construction bond issue on June 6th, the day after the primary.
In June, when I called upon my opponent to call a special session of
the Legislature, I urged him to separate the education aspects of the Proposition
from the other issues. To have had a straight school construction proposition
on the ballot, unencumbered by other questions, would have shown good faith
in the educational system of our State. For I believe that the people will vote
for school construction when it is a legitimate need.
But the present State Administration placed politics above education
and insisted on putting the bond issue before the people in November in exactly
the same form in which it was defeated three months ago.
While I strongly favor Proposition 1-A, I regret that my opponent's
administration has planned its budget so badly that the money for school con-
struction cannot be raised unless the people further mortgage their future
through more bonded indebtedness.
My opponent's irresponsible spending policies have made this bond
issue necessary. But our worthy institutions, such as Stanislaus State College,
must not be penalized for his recklessness. We must continue to expand our state
colleges and universities to produce the type of young men and women who will
be able to build a greater California.
The present administration is the first government in California history
that has attempted to finance current expenditures from the proceeds of a bond
issue that the people have not yet approved. I am sure that my opponent does
not kite his personal checks. Why should he then kite the public checks of
our state?
The history of Proposition 1-A is graphic proof of the fiscal chaos
in Sacramento under the present State government.
COPY
May 15, 1962
Mrs. Valley Knudsen
3034 Edgewick Road
Glendale, California
Dear Valley:
Of course, I am opposed to socialized medicine.
I am surprised that anyone has any doubt about
this. It was one of the major issues of the
1960 campaign and time and time again I made my
position clear. That issue is still with us
today, and I am still opposed to any plan which
would inject the federal government directly into
medical care, and that includes the King-Anderson
Bill, now being sponsored by the Kennedy Adminis-
tration.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Dick Nixon
STATE LOYALTY OATH
RICHARD NIXON
MARCH 10, 1962
I support the California state loyalty oath. I believe
it should be applied with its full legislative intent.
Public employment is a privilege as opposed to a right
and we have every reason to require public employees
to take the loyalty cath.
RIGHT TO WORK LEGISLATION
RICHARD NIXON
MARCH 23, 1962
As one who helped to draft the Taft-Hartley Law and who
supported the Landrum-Griffin Act, I recognize that
labor legislation is not only complex but also far-
reaching. Right-to-work legislation on the other hand,
in the states where it has become law, has not been
effective as a labor reform device.
I oppose a right-to-work law in California because we
need a more selective method of dealing with corrupt
and dictatorial labor and management practices, one
that avoids penalizing the good along with the bad.
The application on the state level of the principles
of the Landrum-Griffin Act would be one means of achiev-
ing the ends we seek. This bill has been well character-
ized as a "Bill of Rights" for the worker -- a charter
of self-government for every responsible organization.
I think that is the goal we should seek.
NEW INDUSTRY MEANS EMPLOYMENT
RICHAROHMRD NIXON
at Republican Associates Luncheon
San Diego
September 12, 1962
The job gap in California must be of vital concern to every citizen.
For as long as any section of California suffers from unemployment, or not
producing up to its potential, all Californians suffer.
This applies equally to the depression in the lumber and mining industries
in the northern counties, the depressed film industry in Los Angeles, or con-
struction stoppage in San Francisco.
But it is particularly true in San Diego. For, as you know, San Diego
has been a major labor surplus area since September, 1960. Today, aircraft
industry employment alone is 12,800 below a year ago.
Two years ago, on the day I arrived in San Diego, my present opponent
announced, "Unemployment is something that I am deeply concerned about. At
that time, the unemployment rate in San Diego was 6.7% Now, after two more
years of the present State Administration, the latest complete monthly figures
show that unemployment in San Diego is 8.4%
In fact, these current figures show that San Diego has its highest unem-
ployment rate since 1950 and its lowest employment rate since 1956.
The way to solve this problem is not to sweep it under the rug and say
that everything is fine.
The way to solve this problem is not to appoint another meaningless study
committee or phony task force.
The present State Administration has done both these things. And last week
the study committee chairman, when asked for a progress report by a San Diegan
said, "The fact is the key to an early reversal of the downward employment trend
in San Diego is in obtaining Federal recognition of the economic value of, and
high utilization of, the air frame and aerospace production potential."
In other words, the State committee to solve San Diego's unemployment
problem has made this record in seven months: 1) It has abdicated its res-
ponsibility to Washington; 20 It has done nothing.
San Diegans have done a first-rate job on their own to attract industry
and to diversify. This is a city of unusual vitality and one with an even
greater future. You are people who do things and do them well. San Diego has
fought for its city's development in the best tradition of our state. But, as
I have sate, this is all California's fight -- not just San Diego's. And this
city needs forceful state action to build an economic climate which will help
attract the new industry needed here.
I believe that the only way to honestly make new progress in San Diego --
and throughout the State -- is to end economic ignorance in California government.
NEW INDUSTRY MEANS EMPLOYMENT - 2
As long as we retain a State Administration that has brought to California
the most costly and wasteful government in the nation and the highest taxes
in the nation, we cannot expect new industries to locate in California in the
numbers we need to provide jobs we must have.
As long as we retain a State Administration whose answer to our economic
problems is to sit back and hope for Federal contracts, we cannot expect
businesses to remain in California. We will continue to lose too many.
We must fight for California's fair share of Federal contracts, but we
cannot expect this to solve our problems alone.
The way to bring business and jobs to California is threefold:
1) We must have a vigorous, dynamic "California Crusade for New Business
Investment" that will help our chambers of commerce and others as they search
out and attract new industries.
2) We must have a state government that cares for the people's welfare
while living within its means, so that businessess can operate with the assurance
that taxes will not continue to skyrocket.
3) We must have a state government in which there is confidence --
an administration that is known throughout the nation for its dedication to
private initiative, not government handout.
* * *
I believe that discerning Democrats agree with this analysis and this
program. And the presence here today of so many good Democrats attests to this.
As Democrats, you are not deserting your party. Your party in California,
under the radical influence of the CDC, has deserted you and the true principles
of Democracy.
The handpicked candidates of the leftwing CDC, including my opponent,
have put too much faith in government and too little faith in people. And they
will find, on November 6th, that the people of California have lost faith in them.