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:
Notes about UPI video tape. 1 pg. [Memo], n.d.
Text of Nixon-Brown Discussion at National Conference of UPI Editors and Publishers. 15 pgs. [Report], 10/1/1962
Reaction comments about UPI Editor's meeting. 5 pgs. [Report], 10/2/1962
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26127994
label
WHSF: Returned, 62-4
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26127994
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Returned, 62-4
description
This file contains:
Notes about UPI video tape. 1 pg. [Memo], n.d.
Text of Nixon-Brown Discussion at National Conference of UPI Editors and Publishers. 15 pgs. [Report], 10/1/1962
Reaction comments about UPI Editor's meeting. 5 pgs. [Report], 10/2/1962
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
26127994
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
badad2f75d205271
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
White House Special Files Collection
Folder List
Box Number Folder Number Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
62
4
n.d.
Memo
Notes about UPI video tape. 1 pg.
62
4
10/01/1962
Report
Text of Nixon-Brown Discussion at National
Conference of UPI Editors and Publishers.
15 pgs.
62
4
10/02/1962
Report
Reaction comments about UPI Editor's
meeting. 5 pgs.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Page 1 of 1
But do we know
Re: UPI video tape
they are keeping them ?
KNXT has tape available for showing - but of course
will have to have advance notice (Dick Bower
reported)
also - KRCA has a tape -- out of town now - but
they are getting it back.
- so we will have two places to call upon.
10-5
TEXT OF NIXON-BROWN DISCUSSION AT NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF UPI
EDITORS AND PUBLISHERS
OCTOBER 1, 1962
FAIRMONT HOTEL - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
MODERATOR: Dr. 0. Preston Robinson, Editor and General Manager, Salt
Lake City Deseret News & Telegram
DR. ROBINSON: Ladies and gentlemen, we have here today two
distinguished Americans who right now seem to disagree on many things
somewhat violently but who, at least, have one thing in common.
Later this fall they both want to be elected to the same job. I am
sure this audience is reasonably well acquainted with the background
of these two candidates. However, despite their differences there
are still other things which they have in common; in their political
experiences they both have enjoyed some important firsts or near
firsts. When Pat Brown was first elected to the office of Attorney
General, he was the only Democrat to hold an elective state office
in California. As California's Governor, he is only the second
Democrat to hold that high office during the twentieth century. As
Vice President of the United States, Mr. Nixon was the first man
west of Texas - I think that must have some significance - to hold
that high office and the second youngest Vice President in our
nation's history. He also was given more authority in that office
than any other man, so despite their differences, they have some
things in common. In fact, even the name Pat, which Governor Brown
absorbed. I think you may know that on one occasion he won first
prize for a high school oration and ended with the stirring and
unusual statement, "Give me liberty or give me death" and he was
promptly dubbed "Patrick Henry Brown" and it stuck, but Mr. Nixon
married his Pat. As you know, prior to this meeting, seconds to
these contestants met and flipped a coin to determine not merely
the weapons but who would fire the first shot. Mr. Nixon won and
he decided to allow Governor Brown to shoot first. I am not sure
whether this decision was made out of magnimity or if Mr. Nixon
believes Governor Brown to be a poor shot, or whether Mr. Nixon
remembers from a previous well-known experience in an important
political campaign that he can fight most effectively when he is
wounded. It's a great pleasure for me and an honor to present Edmond
Gerald Brown, Governor of the great state of California.
GOVERNOR BROWN: Mr. Chairman, delegates to this great con-
vention, my distinguished opponent and my friends, at the very out-
set I would like to ask you all to put away your transistors. This
campaign is tough enough without competing with the little World
Series that we have to compete with during the forthcoming three
days. Now, on my way down on the train this morning I made a very
few notes on the back of an envelope. I hope that my opponent will
not object to my using these few notes during this opening seven and
a half minutes. My friends, within a period of sixty days, California
will pass the state of New York in population. This factor I have
known since I took office on the fifth day of January as the thirty-
second Governor of the State of California. Every act that I have
committed, every move I have made as Governor has been with the
thought in mind that California would be the biggest state in the
Union and would continue its growth over a period of years. The
first thing that I had to do as Governor of this state was to assure
the people of the state that they would have fiscal responsibility
in their state government. My friends, they have had it. I in-
herited a deficit of sixty-eight million dollars from the previous
administration and within six months, by reason of rigid economies
and by reason of the insurance industries of the State of California
agreeing to pay their taxes in April, rather than October, we ended
the first six months of my administration with a balanced budget.
-MORE-
Page Two
We have had four balanced budgets since that time without any new
taxes since the first new revenues that we had to have in the first
six months. We have had two reductions of taxes, one of ten million
dollars when we eliminated the prescription drugs, and this year
when we conformed to the federal new statute on depreciation which
amounted to fifteen million dollars for the business industries of
the State of California. Next year I have committed myself to the
fact of there will be no new taxes. We have done this in the face
of the greatest growth and the greatest migration in the history of
the entire world.
The second thing that I had to concentrate on was water. As
the Attorney General of this state, I was in every major water case
during the past eight years. I knew that without water, I knew with
the sectional differences, that California could not grow, so I
moved in the first six months to put over a water project, a bill of
one billion seven hundred and fifty million dollars, committed the
Tideland 011 revenues to the program. The people confirmed this
water program of mine and we have moved ahead. California now can
assure industry when they come in to Southern California or into
Northern California or into the Valley, that they will have water.
This is the greatest project, the greatest engineering water project
in the history of the world, and it's being done with California
money and California credit.
The third thing that I want to talk about is education. I knew
that the space age industries could not move into California unless
they found the intellectual climate that they must have in order to
do the work that they must do in the thirty-eight years ahead in
this century. For that reason we pass the master plan of higher
education. This is one of the greatest programs for planning
curriculum and growth of higher education in this state and everyone
that's watched it knows that it is a great program for the State of
California and for the entire United States if they will only copy
it. We started three new Universities of California. Six new State
Colleges. We have given aid to the junior colleges for the first
time in the history of this State. We firmed up elementary education
because we knew that the youngsters have to have greater discipline,
and despite the great growth, despite the fact they have had no
additional State taxes we have cut the half-day sessions, we have cut
them in half in the State of California.
In connection with law enforcement, it has been somewhat of an
issue during this campaign. Chief Justice Warren, within the past
three weeks, in dedicating a new courthouse said that California had
the finest law enforcement in the entire United States, and J. Edgar
Hoover in his report said that California was one of the few states
in the union that had gone down in per capita crime in the entire
United States. In addition to that, we have put into effect an
Economic Development agency, a Consumer Counsel and a Fair Employment
Practices Commission that is an example to the entire United States-
I might say at this time of peril, to the entire world. We have
made great break-throughs in all of these things, my friends. It's
now necessary to push ahead based upon the foundations we have laid
during the past four years. I regret to say that my opponent in
his campaign for almost a year has discussed nothing but gloom and
doom and generalities and personalities. He stated that this State
is on the way to the rocks. I tell you that we are on the way to
the stars and I want to be the navigator for the next four years.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN ROBINSON: It's now my great pleasure and honor to
present Mr. Richard Nixon.
MR. NIXON: Doctor Robinson, Governor Brown, all of the dis-
tinguished guests of the United Press International and all of those
who are not fans of the Giants and Dodgers. In case this question
should come up in the question and answer period I have an answer
for it. As a Californian I am for the Angels.
-MORE-
Page Three
I appreciate the opportunity that has been provided by United
Press International to Governor Brown and myself to appear before
this distinguished audience and before millions on television and
radio, and I trust that our experience today may make it possible
for us to get together again in joint press conferences and in face-
to-face debates because I believe that such appearances do serve a
very useful purpose in first acquainting the people with the issues
and also in acquainting the people with the candidates. I think
there is a little of the latter needed. I recall a little experience
I had up in the little town of Susanville, California, a few days
ago. I was over in a shopping center shaking hands. A small boy
spotted me, walked up to me, looked at me for a moment and said,
"Are you the President?" I said, "No, Mr. Kennedy is the President."
He said, "Are you the Vice-President?" I said, "No, Mr. Johnson is
the Vice-President." By that time I was feeling a little let down.
Then his next question reassured me because he asked: "Are you the
Governor?" He didn't know Brown either. I can assure all of you
here that through the medium of this broadcast on television and
radio and this report taken by the newspapers of this state and
nation, the people of this state will know Mr. Brown, they will know
me. And they will know better where we stand and where we differ.
He has presented his case eloquently. Like Abraham Lincoln,
he did make some notes on the back of an envelope and he provided
himself very well during the course of his own delivery.
I obviously differ, and I present those differences as con-
structively and effectively as I can today. I think California
needs new leadership. I think it needs new leadership first because
I do not believe that we can afford four more years of the cost of
government which has been imposed upon the people of California by
the Brown administration.
Today, we have the most costly state government in America.
Our taxes are the highest in America. We can't blame this on in-
creased population because government expenses have gone up three
times as fast as population and taxes have gone up three times as
fast as population, and as far as balanced budgets are concerned,
we find that the only reason we have them is that the Brown
administration has imposed a billion dollars over four years in new
taxes on the people of California.
Now this is the record of the past. What does the future hold?
Will the future hold the promise that there will be no new tax
increases if the Brown administration goes back into office? But
also the future holds the promise of carrying out the democratic
platform as adopted by its State's Central Committee. I have had
that platform and crossed it out. It will cost a minimum of one
billion three hundred sixty million dollars over four years.
Now we can't do both. We cannot keep the promise that has been
made by Mr. Brown not to raise taxes, and still keep the promises
contained in the platform, and so the choice is clear; his re-election
will mean either a raise in taxes or reneging on the promises he has
made in his platform. That is why I say we need to cut government
expenses.
I have offered a constructive program which will cut fifty
million dollars without cutting any essential service of the State
of California. I believe that this choice is one that the voters
will want to make on election day.
The second reason I think that California needs new leadership
is because we have to have leadership that will provide a million
new jobs for the increasing population of this State and for the
unemployed which now amounts to 380,000 in the State of California.
Which man can do it the best? Well, the record again runs
against the Brown administration. Unemployment from August, 1959,
-MORE-
Page Four
to August, 1962, went up three times as fast as did population in
California. This is the Brown record. We find today that the rate
of growth in California is only one-half as great as is necessary
to provide the million new jobs in four years that we need. We find
that California, over the last nineteen months, has been ninth among
all the states of the nation in the number of new businesses. We
find that New York, our major competitor, has gotten three times
as many new plants in the last nineteen months as has California.
We find that 41 industries have either left California or have cur-
tailed their activities in the past three years of the Brown
administration. Now, who can do something about this trend?
Obviously I don't think my opponent can, because he ignores the
problem. He says everything in effect is fine. I believe that we
need new leadership, and I believe that my leadership can provide
the new investment that will produce jobs for Californians. It will
provide it, first, because my fiscal policies will give assurance to
any potential investor that he won't be sandbagged by higher taxes
if he comes into this State. It will provide it, second, because
my philosophy of government is that it will give assurance to any
potential investor that will have gone ahead rather than be harrassed
by a point the government makes to State Bureaus and agencies, and
it will be provided, third, because I have a policy, a program, a
crusade of new business investment which will have California lead
as a nation in opportunity for new business investments.
Mr. Brown has made reference to law enforcement. I am glad to
accept that challenge. I wish it were not necessary for me to state
that the facts are these: California is first in crime in all the
states. More crimes are committed in California than in New York,
New Jersey and Pennsylvania combined. Crime has gone up four times
as fast as population in the 35 years that Mr. Brown has been
Governor of this State. He says, and he offers no program to deal
with this situation. We have a vital difference of opinion. The
blame cannot be placed on local law enforcement officials, as he
has tried to place it. It rests squarely on the Governor of this
State for failing to back the legislation that was necessary, for
failing to give leadership by his executive actions. Our difference
on capital punishment points up the differences in our approach to
this problem. He believes it should be abolished. I believe we
have to have it. Much as I regret, as he does, the necessity to
take a life. But California is first in crime. We must have
capital punishment to deal with it.
And now, finally, I come to the last point. I want California
as the first State to lead the nation, but I want California as the
first State to lead it not just in population, but to lead it in
opportunity. I want California to be the leading opportunity in all
of the United States. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nixon.
For our radio and television audience I should like again to
just reiterate a bit the ground rules. We have time limits on the
answers and on the responses which we will enforce. Questions
cannot go outside of the California issues or the effect of those
issues upon national politics.
I believe the first question will be asked of Governor Brown.
Where do I see that question? Here is one right over here.
Will you please state your name for affiliation?
I am Miss Jane Stretch, Courier Post from Camden, New Jersey.
Governor, I read in the East that Mr. Nixon opposes allowing
speakers on University campuses who have taken the Fifth Amendment
on questions regarding Communist affiliations. Reports in dictate
that there is a basic difference between you. Is it correct to
assume that you believe Communists should be allowed to speak on
University campuses even though they have failed to register under
orders from the Supreme Court and the Attorney General of the
United States.
-MORE-
Page Five
GOVERNOR BROWN: No, that is not a fair conclusion to be drawn
from any statements that have been made. The University of
California and the Board of Regents have adopted a rule that no
Communist or subversive should speak on the campus of the University
of California.
I believe the President of the University and the fine Board
of Regents composed of people like Mrs. Hearst and Mrs. Chandler
can well take care of the speakers on the campuses of the University
of California, and I agree with their position with respect to
people that have taken the Fifth Amendment. I think that has to be
decided on the individual speaker. Communists and subversives or
people who fail to register as Communists should not be permitted
to speak on the campus, but to censor anyone else is something I am
willing to leave to the Board of Regents. Mr. Nixon has made a
statement that he will issue an executive order banning anybody who
has taken the Fifth Amendment from speaking on the campus of the
University. The Governor of the State of California has no such
power. The Board of Regents are an independent agency and I don't
believe in political control of the University of California in any
shape, form or manner.
CHAIRMAN ROBINSON: Mr. Nixon, do you care to pass or do you
wish to make a reply?
MR. NIXON: The Governor of the State of California is a
member of the Board of Regents and can give leadership as Governor
and as a member of the Board of Regents. I believe that any
individual who refuses to cooperate in exposing the Communist
conspiracy aimed against this country by refusing to answer questions
when asked about Communist activities, questions put by Legislative
Investigating Committee or by a Grand Jury should not be given the
dignity of a forum on a tax-supported institution in the State of
California.
I believe that as far as our Universities are concerned, we
find that over the past four years there have been eight occasions
in which individuals who have refused to answer questions by
Legislative Committes and by Grand Juries have appeared on tax-
supported institutions in the State of California.
My views on this are not because I want to deny freedom of
speech, but because I am for it. I believe that it is essential for
us to recognize that the Communist conspiracy is dedicated to deny
freedom of speech every place in the world, and I think it is vital
that in this particular period when the United States finds it is
threatened all over the world by more activity on the part of
Communists, that we back up our law enforcement agencies and our
legislative committees by not dignifying an individual who refuses
to answer questions on the grounds of self-incrimination when they
are investigating such activities.
CHAIRMAN ROBINSON: The next question will be asked of Mr.
Nixon. (A. W. Bramwell of Chico Enterprise Record) Mr. Nixon, a
little over two weeks ago, raised this point on college campuses
in a speech in Chico. Now I think the point has been made by the
Governor that this would impair academic freedom and that he would
be "boss" of the campus. I would like to ask Mr. Nixon how he
thinks this would affect the academic freedom, if it would impair,
and what he would do to perfect that particular part of it.
MR. NIXON: Academic freedom to me means the freedom to bring
under the campus of our great universities and colleges individuals
who have different points of view. If an individual, for example,
complies with the laws of the land, if he registers with the Attorney
General of the United States as the agent of a foreign government,
I would defend his rights to appear under the proper auspices in a
tax supported institution in this nation and in this state, and I
would defend it because I want our people to have the opportunity to
-MORE-
Page Six
be exposed to all points of views, even unpopular points of views.
But what is involved here is defiance of the law of the land. What
is involved here is defiance of the legally constituted investigating
agencies of this nation. I have experience in this field. I know
how hard it is to get information when we are attempting to expose
and when we are attempting to find espionage against the United
States of America. And when you give aid and comfort to witnesses
who defy committees of the Congress, to witnesses who refuse to
testify before Grand Juries, all you do is make the job of those
committees under those Grand Juries that much harder. I say that
as far as our Universities are concerned that the least they should
do in cooperating with and in backing the committees of Congress
and the Grand Juries of this nation that are investigating Communist
activities, the least that should be done is to deny such individuals
who refuse to so testify the dignity of a forum in the great
universities in the State of California.
CHAIRMAN ROBINSON: Governor Brown, do you wish to respond?
GOVERNOR BROWN: The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is
part of our Bill of Rights. I cannot envision all of the situations
where a person might use the Fifth Amendment. He might do it under
advice of counsel and be completely free of any subversion or any
Communism. I believe that the University of California and Doctor
Clark Kerr is as competent as I am to judge whom those students
should hear. I agree with Doctor Clark Kerr when he says that
students should be made safe for ideas, not ideas safe for the
student. I don't know whether the person who takes the Fifth
Amendment would be the president of General Electric or some other
person, in connection with an anti-trust case, and to bar everyone
from the campus from speaking merely because he has taken his con-
stitutional rights is something that I do not agree with. I don't
want any Communists speaking on the campus. I don't want them to
use that as a platform to spread their poison. But to go as far as
Mr. Nixon wants to go is to go much further than I desire to go.
CHAIRMAN ROBINSON: The next question is directed to Governor
Brown.
MR. HOUGHTELING: Mr. Houghtelling of the Sunnyvale Standard.
You have listed a variety of things that you have done in the past
three and a half years. Which was the most difficult program of
these to achieve, Governor Brown?
GOVERNOR BROWN: I think the most difficult program, and
probably the most important in retrospect, was putting over this
Water Program. For a period of eight years I was engaged as the
Attorney General in every major lawsuit in this state - Arizona
versus California, Ivanhoe Irrigation District versus all persons,
Rank versus Crew. I won the election four years ago by a million
votes plurality. I knew that to resolve their sectional differences
I would have to use all the muscle of that one million votes
plurality to bring the North and the South and the mountains and
valleys together. And we did. It was the toughest fight I have
ever had, either in my private or my political life, but I knew that
it had to be done during the honeymoon of my campaign, of my
administration as Governor of this state, and I do think that
California could not grow if we had not moved ahead with the Water
Program in this state.
People could not come in to Los Angeles and invest money because
in '70 or '71, without the resolution of the Water Program, they
just couldn't invest their money.
I think that this is the toughest fight that I have had and I
really feel that despite master plan of higher education, despite
the Fisher Bill and Senate Bill 57, a connection with firming up
elementary education, the Water Program is the most important thing
that has been accomplished and the toughest fight that I have had.
-MORE-
Page Seven
MR. NIXON: When Mr. Brown was campaigning for the Water
Program he very effectively and fairly pointed out that it was not
a Democratic Program, but that it was a California Program, He
pointed out that the water program began under a Republican Admin-
istration, that of Earl Warren, and was worked for under both
Republican Administrations of Warren and Knight. He gave particu-
lar treatment to a Republican, Mr. Harvey Banks, who was the first
Director of Water Resources in his administration. Water is aim
partisan in California. Governor Brown gets credit for the leader-
ship that he gave here, but there are others who deserve credit too,
and I can point to a wire in my file in which he very generously
gave me the credit for the deadlock in the rules committee for the
San Luis Project which the President of the U. .S. just recently
dedicated. I would add one other thing with regard to the previous
question. Governor Brown made a comment to the point that the
President of General Electric might plead the Fifth Amendment-- he
distorted completely what I said. I made it clear that the Fifth
Amendment pleaders were those who would be barred because they
refuse to answer questions about Communist Activities and only on
those activities.
CHAIRMAN ROBINSON: The next question will be directed to
Mr. Nixon.
JERRY BROWN: My name is Jerry Brown, Oceanside Blade Tribune.
Mr. Nixon, in a speech in Phoenix, Arizona, October 15, 1960, you
said if the time comes when I am not proud of my party and proud
of the candidates I am running with, then of course the thing for
me to do is get out of the party. Now my question is, "Are you
proud of the John Birch Society Members, Congressmen Rousselot and
Hiestand who are seeking re-election on the Republican ticket and
what are you doing to oppose their re-election?
MR. NIXON: I have stated my position with regard to the
John Birch Society long before Mr. Brown made it a political issue.
That position has not changed and I have re-stated it on several
occasions, as you, sir, are well aware. As far as endorsements of
any candidates are concerned, I have made it clear that I am not
endorsing any candidates for Federal office.
I am running for state office, and, in the California tradi-
tion, I am campaigning only for and with the candidates for state
office in the State of California. Now in that connection, I would
like to put a question to Governor Brown. On his ticket, not for
Federal Office but for State Office, are two candidates, O'Connell
and Burton, who helped to lead the riots against the Committee
of Unamerican Activities when it met here in San Francisco. Does
he endorse these candidates? Does he endorse them in view of his
statement recently that he approved of the Committee on Unamerican
Activities and did not agree, he said, with the opposition to that
committee of the Democratic Council of California which has
endorsed him.
CHAIRMAN ROBINSON: Mr. Brown, do you wish to respond to
that question because it is outside of the rules.
GOVERNOR BROWN: I think Mr. Nixon probably knew it was out-
side of the rules. We agreed not to ask each other questions,
but I will be very happy to answer his questions anyway. The
situation with respect to the John Birch Society is one that Mr.
Nixon stated early in the campaign. Whether he did it first or I
did first, is unimportant, and he stated he would repudiate any
candidates that were members of the John Birch Society. When he
found out that Murray Chotiner and some of the other people that
are now supporting him thought it was bad politics, he has retreated
from that position unless he'd like to change it today.
- More-
Page Eight
If there are any members of the John Birch Society in the Demo-
cratic party, I would repudiate them. We see what General Walker
is doing down there in Mississippi at the present time and it
imposes a great danger to the democracy of our country. Any organi-
zation that has within it a man, a president, that will say that
the President of the United States is a conscious agent of the
Democratic party is something the Democrats themselves would like
to repudiate.
Now, with respect to Mr. O'Connell and someone else, a Mr.
Burton, was it? Is that who you are referring to?
MR. NIXON: I would think, sir, you would know who the members
of your own ticket are, sir!
MR. NIXON: Sir, may I have just one moment. I figure Gover-
nor Brown does not want to leave on the record his suggestion a
moment ago that there was a repudiation of the Democratic party.
You misstated yourself sir, you meant a repudiation of the Com-
munist party.
GOVERNOR BROWN: A repudiation of the Communist Party and
the John Birch Society, that's correct. Thank you for correcting
me.
I would like to know who you are referring to in connection
with the two people that you now alleged led a riot here in San
Francisco.
MR. NIXON: Assemblymen Burton and Assemblymen O'Connell.
GOVERNOR BROWN: Now without
I'm not here to defend
anyone in the State of California or anyone else. I am sure Mr.
Burton and Mr. O'Connell can defend themselves.
Let me say this, Mr. Burton and Mr. O'Connell are Assemblymen
from San Francisco. Both of them have been up there in Sacramento
and they have been fine, excellent legislators in the State of
California.
They have led the fight for the blind and the lame and the
Aged in California.
I haven't agreed with everything that they -- every position
they have taken - any more than I agree with every position that
any of the other Senators or Assemblymen have taken. But, I will
say this, I am unequivocally supporting both Mr. O'Connell and
Mr. Burton.
CHAIRMAN ROBINSON: Governor Brown, I think we have probably
exhausted that question at the moment.
The next question will be directed to Governor Brown.
I have a questioner over here on the right hand side. Wait
for the microphone, please.
MR. FRED SPEERS: Mr. Fred Speers of the Escondido Daily Times
Examiner. My question is directed to Governor Brown.
I have been puzzled as to why you agonized so long over the
execution of Caryl Chessman and yet you quickly reached a deci-
sion to proceed with the execution of Melvin Darling, a man that
I understand many psychologists feel was mentally ill.
Are you now, automatically, rejecting pleas for reconsideration
of the death penalty?
- More -
Page Nine
GOVERNOR BROWN: No, I am not - at all., I think I have
stated my position time after time with respect to the death
penalty. I have been a District Attorney and I've asked for the
death penalty in the State of California. Since I have been
Governor thirty-two people have gone to the gas chamber and a
person went this morning at 10 o'clock, here in California.
My friend, I don't believe the death penalty should be a
political issue. It is tough on a Governor to be the last stand
between life and death in these cases. I don't know whether you
would call it agonizing on everyone of these cases, but I will tell
you this - every single one of these death penalty cases bothers
me tremendously. I'm against the death penalty. I've never been
for it.
I would substitute a long-term in prison at hard labor rather
than killing another human being because frankly, I don't think it
has done a single solitary bit of good.
As governor of this state my first job is to protect the
life and property of the people. I've taken an oath to uphold the
laws of this state. A death penalty is one of them and in every
single case, including the Chessman case, I have done exactly that.
MR. NIXON: I certainly respect Governor Brown's right to
disagree with the people of California and with me on the death
penalty, and he has expressed himself very eloquently in that
respect.
I feel just as strongly in the other direction. No one likes
to take the life of a guilty person, but you must compare the life
of the guilty person with that of the lives of the hundreds of
innocent ones which might be lost if there was not the deterent of
the death penalty.
I am for the death penalty, reluctantly, but I would extend it
to big-time dope peddlers as well.
My experience and my analysis of the situation shows that the
death penalty probably ended kidnapping in the United States.
I think that we have to have it in California, when we are
first in major crime in America, and I will not stand for a position
of getting rid of it.
CHAIRMAN ROBINSON: The next question is to be directed to
Mr. Nixon, and there is one hand up right back there.
MR. BRADEN: My name is Tom Braden and I am from Oceanside
Glen Tribune and I am going to ask you about the Hughes Tool
Company loan of $205,000.
I wanted to ask you whether you as Vice President, or as a
candidate for governor, think it proper for a candidate for
Governor, morally and ethically, to permit his family to receive
a secret loan from a major defense contractor in the United States?
CHAIRMAN ROBINSON: Mr. Nixon, you don't need to answer that
question if you don't want to. I would rule it out on the basis
that it is outside the issues of this campaign.
MR. NIXON: As a matter of fact, Dr. Robinson, I insist on
answering it.
CHAIRMAN ROBINSON: All right, fine.
MR. NIXON: I welcome the opportunity of answering it.
- More -
Page Ten
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 polit-
ical issue out of my brother's difficulties and out of my mother's
problems, just as I refused to make a political issue out 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 anything
for them. And yet, despite President Kennedy refusing to use this
as an issue, Mr. Brown, privately, in talking to some of the news-
men 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.
(See Insert Page 15)
Now, he has a chance. All tihe 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!
GOVERNOR BROWN: Mr. Nixon, in connection with the Hughes note,
I have said nothing about it to anyone whatsoever, other than to
ask some people as to why your campaign manager, when the note was
first disclosed, stated that the note was made by someone else, and
I wanted to know the facts in connection with that situation.
That's the only questions that I have asked of anyone in con-
nection with this campaign, and I have no comment to make, other
than that single fact - the fact that during the Presidential
campaign some question was asked of you, I can't remember what it
was, and someone brought that information to me. As a matter of
fact, a member of the Republican Party. And I did pursue it and
I did read the story in the Reporter Magazine, but until this
moment I never said anything about it other than in casual conver-
sation from time to time, in connection with reading a story in
the Reporter Magazine.
CHAIRMAN ROBINSON: Thank you, Governor Brown.
The next question will be directed to Governor Brown, and
there is one right here, Microphone Number Three.
MR. LESHER: Mr. Dean Lesher, Merced Sun Star, I don't happen
to be a political advocate of yours.
Our Unemployment Insurance rate taxes has gone up from six-
tenths or five-tenths of one per cent to two and six-tenths per-
cent because of the squandering of the reserve by your adminis-
tration.
Now, will you tell me whether or not that is calculated to
build a good business climate in California?
GOVERNOR BROWN: My friend, when you make a statement that
due to the squandering of my administration in connection with
- More
-
Page Eleven
Unemployment Insurance, you know that the laws with respect to
Unemployment Insurance are made by the Legislature of the State of
California. You do know that in the years "60 and '61 there was
tremendous unemployment in the State of California. You know that
the Unemployment Insurance takes care of people that are out of work,
and you know that the State of New York has had a higher loss ratio
than the State of California because they are both in the same
category.
We have tried to operate Unemployment Insurance just as
fairly as we can, but in every Administration - Warren, Knight, and
mine - there has been criticism of some of the alleged frauds in
that case, but we do have a Fraud Bureau and we work just as hard
to do it.
If you would favor the repeal of Unemployment Insurance I
would disagree with you. But there has been no squandering of any
kind, nature or description with respect to Unemployment Insurance
or any fund in the State of California. We have given the toughest,
tightest administration in this state, and, as a matter of fact,
we saved twenty-seven million dollars a year in our annual budget,
when the other administrations spent - saved twelve and fifteen
million dollars a year.
I think that's the answer to your question.
VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: Go home Yankee.
MR. NIXON: Go ahead. I'm sorry for the interruption, - I
can assure you, it wasn't a Dodger Fan.
I think the question here is not against Unemployment Insurance
and let's make it clear that I am not either.
What is involved here is, of course, not just the past, but
the future, and in the platform that Mr. Brown is running on is a
provision for extending unemployment insurance benefits and for
raising the benefits.
Now, the question is, where are you going to get the money?
Governor Brown has said there will be no increase in taxes.
Is the cost of business to be increased in California to keep this
campaign promise? Where are you going to get the money?
I don't ask the question except rhetorically today, because
this is something we have to consider, as we consider this fund.
CHAIRMAN ROBINSON: The next question will be directed to
Mr. Nixon.
Do we have a question? Right here in front. Will you bring
up the microphone please, Microphone Number 3.
VIRGIL PINKLEY: Virgil Pinkley of the Associated Desert
Newspapers.
Mr. Nixon, with a budget of roughly three billion dollars, or
very close to it, if the State of California would encounter a
deficit, would you apply the rules of private business and, if
necessary make a five or ten percent cut right across the board,
which would total, in a case of a ten percent cut, roughly 300
millions, or in the case of a five per cent cut, one hundred fifty
million. To try and get at your fiscal philosophy, would you be
willing to do as private business does and make an overall cut?
How would you handle a situation of that nature?
- More -
Page Twelve
MR. NIXON: Not only would I be willing and able to do it,
but I would have to do it, because as distinguished from the Federal
Government, the State of California cannot run a deficit. The State
of California has to have a balanced budget, and if that situation
should arise and there were no new taxes forthcoming it would be
necessary to make the cut. Now, as far as cuts are concerned,
they can be made without discharging any individual on Civil Service
who is doing a good job, simply by applying the rule that as people
leave jobs that their jobs will not be refilled. This is one way
that that can be accomplished.
A second area that I have discussed from time to time in this
campaign is the area of welfare. Now, Mr. Brown disagrees with
me on this. He pointed out recently that only one of ten people
were chiselers in the welfare rolls. Well, taking his figure of
one out of ten, which is the lowest figure I have seen, that would
save 17 million dollars a year to get them off. And Mr. Cobley,
a Democrat, a Senator from Merced, says that 58 per cent of the
ANC people are chiselers. Let me say this in that connection, that
the cost that concerns me as far as welfare is concerned is not the
27 million dollars that I believe can be saved by better adminis-
tration, but the cost in character. I say that when the time comes
when it is more profitable for a man not to work than to work,
something ought to be done about the law. I say that when the time
comes in our State, as it has in many counties, when it is better
for an individual to leave his family than to stay with it, some-
thing ought to be done about the law. That is why I am for getting
chiselers off the welfare rolls, and I believe that kind of a pro-
gram is in the best interest of the aged, the handicapped and the
blind. If we are going to maintain the highest standards in
America for those who truly deserve these payments then we are
going to have to get every chiseler off the rolls, and I have the
political program to do it.
GOVERNOR BROWN: When Mr. Nixon speaks of getting the
chislers off the relief rolls, he is referring primarily to the
mothers who have been deserted by their husbands. The fathers
have left their children and the mothers have to take care of these
children. We do have cases of illegitimacy and we have cases where
they have had six and seven children. They are very difficult
cases. They constitute a very small minority of the number of
people that are receiving it. I think it's far better that we do
that rather than go back to the orphan homes. We, under Jim
Cobley, made a survey of the absent father situation, and we did
find that there were things we should do. We found out the law
was bad, and, as a result of the law, we administratively compelled
the mother to take her relief in kind rather than respect to money.
I do believe that the Social Welfare Department and the County
Agencies are doing a good job, but it's not easy when you have a
mother with six or seven children to try to eliminate them; and
I never made any statement any place anywhere that one in ten was
guilty of chiseling on relief.
Now, with respect to making across-the-board decreases, I
certainly would like to do that in the event that there were not
enough money to take care of the bills, but unfortunately we have -
MR. ROBINSON: Governor Brown --
MR. NIXON: Let him finish.
GOVERNOR BROWN: I just wanted to say that the money goes to
people in penitentiaries and mental institutions, public health
programs and things like that and you just cannot make an across-
the-board cut. There are cuts that we are constantly making and
constantly re-examine in government, and the 27 million dollars
that we have saved every single year for the last three years in
- More -
Page Thirteen -
our budget is a clear example of the economic administration that
we have given California.
MR. ROBINSON: One other question and a brief answer.
This gentleman right here.
LEONARD FINDER: Governor Brown, if the principles being
discussed here are to have a national application in some instance,
and you believe that the Republican Party should repudiate the
Birch Society, with which I agree, of course, do you also believe
that the Democratic Party should repudiate the members of the
White Council, the Senators who do not conform to the National
Democratic program in terms of civil liberties, and other Democrats
who defy the Federal Government.
MR. ROBINSON: Make your answer short, Governor.
GOVERNOR BROWN: My answer to that one would be very short.
They are not my kind of Democrat and if it's necessary to repudiate
them I certainly would do it.
MR. ROBINSON: Mr. Nixon, a short response.
MR. NIXON: I also would hope that Governor Brown would take
the same position with regard to Speaker Unruh's resolution which
was defeated in the Democratic State Central Committee which would
have denied membership in the Democratic Party organization to any
members of the Communist Party. He has opposed that resolution -
I think he should support it unequivocally just as he denies mem-
bership to the Birch Society.
MR. ROBINSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Nixon.
We have time now for two closing statements from the gentlemen.
First, we will hear from Mr. Nixon for two and a half minutes.
MR. NIXON: I have appreciated the opportunity to appear with
my distinguished opponent and fellow Californian, Governor Brown,
on this program.
I would like to make my closing statement in terms of, perhaps,
a personal note. I am very proud, as I know Governor Brown is, of
my party and of my service to my State and to my Nation. I want
to win this campaign. I have never lost California. I am not
taking the easy road to win it. It's much easier to promise every-
thing to everybody. It's much easier to say to people, "Don't
worry about your problems, Government will take care of them, and
particularly Government in Washington, D. C." But I see our State
at a moment of destiny. California is the first State in the
Nation. I want it to lead the nation. I think California has a
message for the nation that the nation needs to hear, and this is
the message I want it to be:
Let California say, "What can Washington do for us?"
No!
Let us say, "What can California do for the nation?"
Let California, by her example, put our faith in individual
and private enterprise rather than turning to bigger and bigger
government which is the wrong way to progress.
Let California say, "Before we turn to the Government in
Washington for the solution of our problems, we are going to solve
our problems here in California."
- More -
Page Fourteen
Let us remember with Thomas Jefferson that concentration of
power in one body is the greatest danger to liberty and the rights
of man and let us, by our policies in California, welcome those
thousands that come into this State every week, every year, with
these words. In effect -- let us not say, "Come and get it - it's
free." But let us, on the other hand say, "Come and earn it. We
in California offer you the best jobs, the highest wages, the
greatest opportunity in America."
That is the kind of government I want California to have;
and if California gives that kind of example to the nation, America
will lead the world."
GOVERNOR BROWN: At the beginning of this discourse, Mr.
Nixon gave some figures with respect to the situation here in
California. I have in my hand a business report from the Financial
Editor of the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner. This is what it has to sa
say: "California's credit position in the New York Bond market,
a variable of major importance to growth and development of the
State, was evaluated as excellent last week by Wall Street finan-
ciers. In a survey conducted by the Herald-Examiner in New York
among leading bond houses, investment banking firms and powerful
sources of secondary financing, top executives declared the State's
borrowing power is strong and solid." They then go on, "Such an
evaluation by management spokesmen from big New York bond houses
amounts to certification that California State Government has
been operated by recent administrations upon sound business prin-
ciples and practice."
Now, not to give the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner all the
publicity, I have the Los Angeles Times here and this is what it
has to say with respect to growth in California: "Do you know
that the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area soon will pass Chicago as
the second largest industrial center in the United States, that
California is destined to surpass New York before the end of the
year as the nation's number one industrial state".
That looks to me like California is doing a pretty good job
with respect to its business climate, my friends.
I entered the Governor's office after eight years as the
Attorney General. I entered it after being the lawyer for two
Republican Governors and representing 300 boards and commissions.
I knew exactly where I was going as Governor of this State and
the things that I have asked a Democratic Legislature for they
have given me in nine out of the ten cases that I have asked for.
California is in excellent shape. It's in good shape.
Now, I want the people to know that the statements of Mr.
Nixon that would be downgrading our State are just not true.
California is in excellent shape, or we could not meet the problems
of growth without new taxes, and I have made a pledge that there
will be no new taxes next year, my friends.
Thank you very, very much.
I just asked Mr. Nixon whether we couldn't take a moratorium
for one day and go to the ball game.
MR. NIXON: Since he asked me a question, I am going to ask
him one:
"Who are you going to root for?"
GOVERNOR BROWN: I'm going to take the Fifth Amendment,
my friend.
(Conclusion of meeting)
Turn page for insert
noted on page 10
Page Fifteen
Insert as noted on page 10
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 any-
thing 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."
FROM: REPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE
914 South Olive Street
Los Angeles, California
(MAdison 5-1251)
Contact: Betty Williams
The following are reaction comments from prominent Californians
regarding the joint appearance of Richard Nixon and Edmund G. Brown before
the UPI Editor's Meeting in the Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco, Monday,
October 1, 1962.
CASPAR WEINBERGER, Chairman, Republican State Central Committee:
"The joint appearances of Richard Nixon and Governor Brown on
television, yesterday and today, demonstrate why Governor Brown has
refused to accept any form of face-to-face debates with Mr. Nixon.
Mr. Nixon's marked ability to answer any questions concerned with State
problems and his willingness to disclose fully his view were in clear
contrast to Governor Brown's bland assurances that everything was all right
in 'this best of all possible worlds.'
"Governor Brown has apparently been instructed by his party campaign
staff to repeat over and over again that 'all is fine in California, and
has been since I took over in 1959.'
"It is high time that some of the major problems in California are
attacked by our most capable public official, Richard Nixon. The people
of California are entitled to something more than the pathetic display of
public relations techniques which Governor Brown offers as a substitute
for coming to grips with the real problems: taxation, welfare, spending
better and less government for our biggest state.
"It's time we tried brains for a change, and yesterday's debate
should convince everyone that in Mr. Nixon's candidacy, we have an oppor
tunity to do just that."
ROBERT H. FINCH, Mr. Nixon's Representative in Negotiations For a TV
Debate:
"After watching the joint Nixon-Brown press conference on television
I can well understand why the Governor wanted no part of the proposed debates
between the candidates, Every Californian watching the UPI program must
be impressed by the sharp contrast between Dick Nixon's clear and
realistic presentation of the issues and Governor Brown's pathetic
-MORE-
2-2-2-2-2-2-2
efforts to defend his weak administration.
"Dick Nixon is clearly on the road to Sacramento and Californians
saw today that in Dick Nixon they will have a Governor of whom they will
be proud."
HAROLD LEVERING, Assemblyman:
"Governor Brown failed completely to answer Dick Nixon's
declaration that 'government expenses and taxes have risen three times
as fast as the population in California during the current administration.
"By so doing, the Governor admits the validity of charges that
his is the most costly and inefficient government in the United States.
"When Brown gets cornered he simply does not tell the truth--
he ducks the issue. In my opinion, he is the worst governor this state
has had in this century.
"He is so naive he does not know the facts of his own adminis-
tration.
LOYD WRIGHT, SR., Former President of American Bar Association & 1962
Candidate for U.S. Senator:
"Governor Brown put on the strangest performance for a party
leader that I have ever seen.
"Each time he had a slip of the tongue, he mixed up the
Democratic Party with the Communist Party.
"He spoke like a man with a guilty conscience and probably
owes an apology to the Democrats of this state."
JOSEPH MART IN, JR., San Francisco Republican National Committeeman for
California:
"Pat Brown has given another public demonstration of his most
prominent characteristic--instant indecision.
"His answers to questions asked him by UPI editors were pitifully
verbose and confused. He demonstrated a complete lack of comprehension
of the many serious problems confronting California as the result of
four years of Brown misrule.
DR. GAYLORD PARKINSON, Vice Chairman, State Central Committee:
"Governor Brown's attack on Mr. Nixon will hardly convince
Californians that it is a disgrace to have run for President of the
United States.
-MORE-
3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3
"The more he decries Richard Nixon's stature and international
fame the more voters will decide that the man who almost became President
should become Governor of the First State in the Union."
JUD LEETHAM, Chairman, L.A. County Republican Central Committee:
"Now it is easy to see why Governor Brown does not want to meet
Mr. Nixon face-to-face in a debate; the governor simply cannot defend his
pitiful record in office.
"Mr. Nixon, on the other hand, has the facts and figures--and
the courage--to tell Governor Brown that the governor is trying to mis-
lead the people when he makes boasting claims of successes in every phase
of his administration."
MRS. PATRICIA HITT, Republican National Committeewoman For California:
"Governor Brown displayed for all Californians to see today
the indecision, hedging and 'fuzzy' thinking he has become famous for.
"He backed away from every tough question put to him, and to
the problems of law enforcement, welfare and others, he kept saying,
"It isn't easy.'
"of course such problems are not easy-but we want solutions,
not whining."
A. WAYNE GRIFFIN, Civic Leader & Past President of Hollywood Bowl
Association; Chairman of Southern California
Democrats for Nixon:
"This joint appearance demonstrates the calibre of the two men.
Richard Nixon looked like and spoke like the kind of executive Californians
want in Sacramento.
"In contrast Brown bumbled along, appearing like a man running
once again for district attorney. His remarks demonstrated his lack
of knowledge tn depth of all the problems of California.
"I am more convinced than ever that Brown is not the mar. for the
Governorship."
PAT McGEE, Candidate For State Senate From Los Angeles:
"I was amazed that Governor Brown claimed to have sclved the
water problem of California.
"The erection of a dam and the digging of a ditch do not solve
the water problem of Southern California.
-MORE-
4-4-4-4-4-4-4
"The rights of the counties involved in the water program still
must be adjudicated and until these rights are established, Southern
California will not be assured a continuous supply.
"Governor Brown should not inject politics into the water problem
at this time while serious questions still remain on the future develop-
ment of our water program."
MRS. GLADYS O'DONNELL, Vice Chairman, Republican State Central Committee:
"If the voters could go to the polls tomorrow, after today's
UPI debate, Richard Nixon would win by a million votes. The impression
he made, with his command of the facts on California government, was
tremendous.'
HARRY KEATON, President, California Young Republicans & Labor Attorney:
"The view of Richard Nixon and Pat Brown on the same platform at
the same time has given this election to Nixon. No wonder Brown is
afraid to debate. The objective voter seeing the calibre of these two
men cannot help but choose the greater man for the great job ahead in
Sacramento."
JIM WOODS, President of Woods Construction Company & Prominent Negro
Leader in Los Angeles:
"From a minorities' point of view, we need a change in leader-
ship in Sacramento. The Democrats take the Negro for granted, and
have made a lot of promises they have not kept.
"As for Governor Brown's claims about employment, the jobs
available to Negroes are only a drop in the bucket in relation to our
needs."
THOMAS D. SHEPARD, Councilman, 3rd District, Los Angeles:
"Richard Nixon demonstrated that he can handle tough problems
far better than Governor Brown. The Governor sounded like a school boy
debater insisting that California had the best of everything and refusing
to recognize that any problems exist. It was hardly convincing in view
of the statistics and hard, cold facts cited by Dick Nixon.
"You have got to recognize a problem exists before you can hope
to solve it."
-MORE-
5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5
RAYMOND A, DORN, Pasadena Businessman & President of Tournament of Rosea:
"It is a relief, for once, to hear a decisive program outlined
for California's economic future, such as Richard Nixon did today.
"In times of need, he would trim his capital outlay, just as
any good businessman must do. He would end the charity frauds, and
hold the tax line--rot just talk about it, as the present administration
has done."
-30-
10/2/62