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.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
242845617
label
1971 WH Correspondence To/From Others Part 2: July – Dec 1971 [3 of 4]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
242845617
contentType
document
title
1971 WH Correspondence To/From Others Part 2: July – Dec 1971 [3 of 4]
citationUrl
collections
White House Staff Member and Office Files (Nixon Administration)
Alexander P. Butterfield's Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
242845617
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
4cc24cb8044b76b2
ocrText
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 29, 1971
INFORMATION
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JOHN DEAN V
SUBJECT:
ABA Review of Poff's
Judicial Qualifications
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
Attached is a copy of the letter sent by Kleindienst to the American
Bar Committee reviewing Poff's credentials for the Supreme Court.
A
This letter was designed to broaden the scope of the committee's
inquiry, and if the committee gives Poff a favorable endorsement,
I would assume it will be based on the approach suggested in this
letter, i.e., congressional experience as a major factor in the
development of an outstanding lawyer/Congressman.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
RGK:WHR: 1b
September 28, 1971
The Honorable Lawrence. E. Walsh
Chairman
Conmittee on the Federal Judiciary
of the American Bar Association
Davis, Polk & Wardwell
One Chase Manhattan Plaza
New York, New York 10005
Dear Judge Walsh:
I suspect that one of the questions to which your
Committee will shortly address itself is whether the legal
activity of a member of the Judiciary Committee of the
House of Representatives is sufficiently comparable to more
typical forms of professional activity that it may be fairly
said to significantly contribute to a nominee's qualifications
for the Supreme Court.
I would not be so bold as to even attempt the drawing
of a precise line which separates genuinely professional
legal experience, on the one hand, from the countless
varieties of other work which, even when engaged in by
lawyers, would nonetheless be deemed by common consent not
to be "lawyer's work". I would suggest, though, that the
line not be too narrowly drawn. And I would strongly urge
that all competent work falling within that line be considered
in evaluating the professional qualifications of a nominee
to the high Court.
A little less than fifteen years ago, Mr. Justice
Frankfurter entered the lists against the notion that
prior judicial experience should be regarded as an
indispensable qualification for nomination to the Supreme
Court. In his article entitled "The Supreme Court in the
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
- 2
Mirror of Justices,' 105 U. Pa. L. Rev. 781 (1957), he drew
the conclusion that "the correlation between prior judicial
experience and fitness for the functions of the Supreme
Court is zero". What he sought to prove, of course, was not
that prior judicial experience was not a valuable qualifica-
tion for the Supreme Court, but that it was not an
indispensable one. His examples of Chief Justices Marshall
and Toney, and Justices Story, Miller, Bradley, Hughes,
Brandeis, and Stone, among others, as strong Justices
who had had no prior judicial experience at the time of
their appointment would tend to convince many that he had
proved his point.
Yet it may be said that even if prior judicial experience
is not necessary for the Supreme Court, can 1t not be at
least reasonably insisted that extensive prior litigating
experience be deemed essential? One would gather that
Justice Frankfurter's answer would have been no, judging
from this remark in his article:
"The search should be made among those
who give the best promise of gratifying intrinsic
needs of the Court, no matter where they may be
found, no matter in what professional ways they
have manifested the needed qualities."
I think that if one were to follow this advice, he
would conclude that no particular type of genuinely professional
experience is indispensable for the performance of the
duties of the high Court, and that any genuinely professional
legal experience be considered in determining a nominee's
qualifications. The issue should be less the type of
professional task performed than the competence with which
it was performed.
The extraordinary variety of legal skills called for by
the practice of law in all of its myriad specializations are
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
- 3 -
known to the Committee members by virtue of their own
experience. I claim no originality in pointing out that the
abilities respectively required to argue a personal injury
case to a jury, to argue the appeal of an intricate point
of statutory construction, to review a securities prospectus,
and to successfully practice domestic relations law are by
no means akin to one another. Yet can it be said that any
one of these skills is not a truly professional one, or that
any one of them would not be of significant use to a
Supreme Court Justice?
In addition to the broad range of abilities called
upon for success of the private bar, the government lawyer
is called upon to do some which are virtually peçuliar to
the government. About thirty years ago, a commission which
devoted itself to the study of the role of lawyers in
government, whose chairman was Associate Justice Stanley
Reed of the Supreme Court, and which numbered among its
members Justices Frankfurter and Murphy, made the following
observations about the diversity of work required of
government lawyers:
"The legal staffs have a great variety of
functions to perform, many of which require
wholly different talents or capacities. Upon
the shoulders of one attorney or another fall
the diverse functions of legal research,
negotiations with members of the public and
other departments OI agencies, opinion writing,
investigative work, the preparation of briefs
for litigation, the conduct of hearings, advice
to administrative officers, the argument of cases
in appellate courts, and the drafting of regula-
tions and legislation. No man can have an aptitude
for all these functions; a good lawyer must be
proficient in many.
"Of perhaps greater importance is the fact
that none of these duties is one which permits
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
an 4 -
adequate performance by mechanical proficiency
alone. To a greater or loss degree, each task
can be well done only if the attorney brings to
its solution not only the techniques of his
trade but also the imponderable qualities of
imagination, judgment, and discrimination."
I think that the thought contained in the last sentence of
the Reed report -- the notion that lawyer's work is that which
requires both technical skill and broader qualities of
judgment and imagination -- is as good a summary of the
traditional abilities of our profession as I have seen in
capsule form. I think that no work which fairly came within
the ambit of that language should be excluded from the type
of experience which would be considered to qualify a man
prefessionally for the high Court.
The plain truth of the matter is that in an era of
increasing legal specialization, no nominee can possibly be
an expert in all the various areas of law which are treated
in the opinions of the Supreme Court. The skills normally
and uniquely associated with the experienced trial
practitioner -- familiarity with the law of evidence,
capability in assessing the credibility of witnesses,
experience in the formulation of jury instructions -- do not
make up a large part of the work of: the high Court. In our
review of decisions by that Court in the October term of
1968 and 1969, fever than ten per cent of the issues decided
by the Court appear to have involved this type of issue in
which litigating experience would be of peculiar benefit.
This is not to say, however, that there is some other
particularized types of experience that would be of greater
benefit than litigating experience. It is virtually
impossible to think of a type of practice, whether highly
general or extremely specialized, that would give a nominee
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
- 5 -
genuine competence in the majority of areas treated by the
Supreme Court in its opinions. This leads me to conclude
that what those participating in the selection and reviewing
of nominees should focus upon is not the substantive
expertise that a particular nominee has acquired in his legal
work. It is instead whether, as a result of that work, he
would bring to the bench that combination of technical skill
and broad qualities of judgment and imagination which are
developed in the truly able man by any number of different
kinds of professional legal experience.
If one were to fix on knowledge of any particular
area of the law which would be of as much use to a Supreme
Court nominee as any other, I think the field of statutory
construction comes as close as any. It is but a common-
place to say that the work of the Supreme Court in the past
generation has shifted more and more away from the sort
of case which is customarily litigated in the typical trial
court of general jurisdiction, and more and more towards
what might be loosely called "public law" questions.
Involved in the great majority of these public law questions
are issues of statutory construction. I venture to say that
legal knowledge acquired as a member of the Judiciary
Committee of the House of Representatives would be of great
assistance to the Court in deciding this sort of case.
Perhaps by coincidence, or perhaps for that very reason,
the Court for a number of years past, up until the recent
resignation of Mr. Justice Black, has always had on it at
least one Justice with a fairly extensive background in
Congress. Nor is this a tradition of recent origin: Chief
Justices Marshall, Chase, White, and Vinson, and Justices
Black, Burton, Minton, and Sutherland, among others, all had
such experience. This is not to say that their legislative
experience was the only qualification that they had for
the Court at the time of the appointment. But it is
undeniable, at least in the case of several, that if such
experience were not deemed a qualifying factor, their
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
6
other qualifications were not what would generally have
been thought to be outstanding.
If the Committee were to insist that a certain minimum
period of actual private practice of the law were essential,
they would have to recognize that both Justice Dougles and
the late Justice Frankfurter would probably be excluded by
such a standard. From biographical material publicly
available, Justice Douglas appears to have had only & very
few years of private practice before becoming a professor
of law at Columbia University, and ultimately the chairman
of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Justice
Frankfurter served four years in the office of the United
States Attorney for the Southern District of New York; he then
served for approximately the same length of time as an
attorney in the War Department in Washington, and thereafter
went on to perform special missions for President Wilson
and ultimately to become a law professor at Harvard University.
Justice Frankfurter, in the article quoted above,
observed that "greatness in the law is not a standardized
quality, nor are the elements that combine to attain it".
The history of judicial performance on the Court would
satisfy most observers as to the truth of this observation.
Appointing qualified Justices has been shown to involve
a process more akin to an art than to a science. I would
most strongly urge the Committee to broadly define
acceptable legal experience along the lines suggested by
the Reed Commission report, and to carefully scrutinize
the competence and skill which a prospective appointee has
brought to the performance of professional tasks falling
within that definition. I think that the work done by
a member of Congress in an important position on the
Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives does
fall within that definition, and I shall now undertake to
review briefly the sort of professional activities in which
Representative Poff engaged during his service in Congress.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
7
As you know, the House Judiciary Committee has cognizance
over a wide variety of subjects which are of vital interest
to the country and which are repeatedly before the Supreme
Court. The Committee's jurisdiction includes immigration,
naturalization, private claims against the government,
patents, copyrights, trademarks, revision of laws, bankruptcy,
antitrust, courts, corrections, criminal laws, civil rights,
and constitutional amendments.
Congressman Poff, as a Congressman/lawyer on this
Committee for eighteen years, has not only assembled a
wealth of knowledge and experience in these important fields,
but has had an opportunity in the process to utilize and
demonstrate the arts of a lawyer in their finest sense.
It is, perhaps, not readily appreciated, but the
functions of a Congressman/lawyer, particularly on the
Judiciary Committee, parallel very closely many of the
principal functions of judges and practicing lawyers. The
hearing process, in which the groundwork for legislation is
performed, is in many respects analogous to a courtroom
confrontation. The active Congressman assumes the role of
an advocate in examining and crossenamining witnesses,
bringing out the strengths and weaknesses of their statements --
in searching for the true facts on vital issues, Then the
Congressmun/lawyer sits as a judge in evaluating the evidence
that has been presented, in separating fact from fiction,
and in arriving at the proper decision. His lawyer role does
not stop here. On the floor of the House, he is called upon
to present oral arguments on the law and on the facts in
support or defense of his position. While he does not
develop a familiarity with courtroom procedure, he does
acquire a knowledge of parliamentary procedures which
uniquely qualifies him to assess and weigh legislative history.
While serving on House-Senate Conference Committees to
review differences between House-passed bills and Senate-
passed bills, the member acts in many respects like an
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
- 8
appellate judge. He must review the differences in the
1ight of all of the available law and facts and arrive at
the correct decision. For a conscientious and dedicated member,
this is not on easy task.
Obviously the experience of every Congressman does not
qualify him for appointment to the Supreme Court. Congress
is a diverse body made up of persons of many talents and
interests. Service in Congress con, however, be eminently
qualifying when the particular person has the abilities,
the background and the interests to accept the opportunities
and responsibilities that are available. Congressman Poff
has done that to an outstanding degree.
Two recent examples of Congressmen Poff's participation
in the legislative process support these propositions. In
1969, the Department of Justice submitted the District of
Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedures Act to the
Congress. Although this bill vas addressed to the problems
of court reform and criminal justice, it was referred to
the District of Columbia Committees in both the House and
Senate. Congressman Poff is not & member of the House
District of Columbia Committee. However, because of his
acknowledged premishence as a Congressional leader in the
field of criminal justice, he was consulted by representatives
of the Department of Justice and asked to review the
legislative proposal before it was submitted to Congress.
This review and analysis required a detailed familiarity
with the law relating to the organization and jurisdiction
of the courts of the District of Columbia and a recodifica-
tion of much of the criminal law and procedure including
arrest, search and seizure, wiretapping and electronic
surveillance, sentencing, bail, impeachment by prior convictions,
the insanity defense, and appellate procedure. He also had
to review the many cases which that legislative proposal
was intended to overrule.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
- 9
While other Congressmen spoke for the Administration
within the Committee, Congressman Poff counselled the
members of this Committee on the legal issues involved.
Of course, to perform this function required an intimate
familiarity with the cases justifying the provisions of this
law and the arguments for and against the proposal.
When the measure reached the llouse floor, he advised the
floor leaders on legal questions raised during the debate.
He answered complex and intricate legal questions of members
of the District of Columbia Committee in order to determine
for them an acceptable response to opponents of the bill.
He made instantaneous analyses and explanations of the
impact of amendments to the bill which were offered. Through-
out he demonstrated legal acumen and ability of the highest
order.
Congressman Poff's work on the Organized Crime Control
Act of 1970 was the single most important factor in securing
its passage in the House of Representatives. That work was
the work of a skilled lawyer -- not a legislator with a law
degree, but a skilled lawyer. His study of the issues
involved in several instances was obviously more thorough
than that of the legislation's original drafters in the
Senate and the Department of Justice. He performed his
homework with a dedication and commitment of a first-rate
attorney preparing a major case, becoming intimately familiar
with all aspects of the matter before him and researching
every collateral issue that might conceivably arise.
This careful research and preparation undoubtedly had
its effect in closed Committee meetings, but 1t was at the
open hearings that it was most apparent. Time after time
he summed up the convoluted argument of a witness on a
complex and confusing legal point with a lucid and succinct
analysis that made clear to the other Committee members the
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
- 10 3
basis of the witness' views axes and occasionally for the first
time made clear to the witness a fallacy in his reasoning.
The legislation itself, when it energed from Congress,
contained provisions affecting investigative grand juries,
witness immunity, special offendor sentencing proceedings,
and the application of antitrust senctions against legitimate
businesses infiltrated by the criminal element.
Many other important contributions by Congressman Poff
have demonstrated his legal abilities and have broadened his
extensive reservoir of knowledge and legal experience. He
has participated significantly in the consideration of such
diverse topics as the status of off-shore submerged lands,
the Administrative Procedure Act, and constitutional amend-
ments concerning Presidential disability, repeal of the poll
tax, District of Columbia franchise and the eighteen-year-old
vote.
The long and the short of it is that a lawyer can
obtain professional experience as a Member of Congress which
should be regarded as qualifying him professionally for
the Supreme Court. I urge you to evaluate Congressman Poff's
legislative experience just as you would other professional
experience, with a view to determining whether it has enabled
him to acquire that combination of technical legal skills
and broader qualities of judgment and imagination which all
of us wish to see in anappointee to the high bench.
Yours very truly,
Richard G. Kleindienst
Deputy Attorney General
CC: Nornian Ramsey, Esq.
Charles Horsky, Esq.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 30, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
Of all the considerations and criteria relating to Supreme Court
appointments that I have heard discussed recently, I would rank
none higher this year than the avoidance of another divisive con-
firmation controversy. Time is not of the essence. Most people
(the Court included) would want you to take whatever time is
necessary to carry out a careful selection process designed to
identify two judges who could be confirmed with a minimum of
controversy and division, and who would be clearly of the caliber
needed by the Court.
The material for a contest in Dick Poff's case is fairly concrete,
i. , his subscription to the two "Southern Manifestos, " his op-
position to all civil rights legislation; on a lesser scale, his
sponsorship of legislation requiring Supreme Court appointees to
be native born and his support of the Wiggins limitations on the
Equal Rights Amendment; and, finally, his very limited legal
experience. These are rallying points for Democrats, civil rights,
church, ethnic organizations and women's rights groups, all of
whom are making known their intention to fight the nomination. It
is important to assess very carefully the staying power of Senators
and Congressmen who know Poff personally and indicate support for
him now (e.g., Celler and McCulloch) if the going gets political and
rough.
With his explicit record of opposition to civil rights legislation it
would be difficult and risky to make the argument that Poff's phi-
losophical views accord with your own. This is the point of a
letter to you from Roy Wilkins (Tab A) declaring the opposition of
the Civil Rights Leadership Conference (i.e., NAACP, unions,
social and church groups, etc.) to such an appointment. Democratic
candidates and others who wish the Administration ill can be
expected to move into the contest, seeing in it an opportunity to
foment a bitter controversy, to sour the political atmosphere, to
open old wounds, and thereby to break the momentum of sustained
Presidential achievement of recent months.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
2
A far more basic danger, however, results from the wholly unpre-
dictable consequences of even a moderately-protracted confirmation
fight. The fundamental issue for 1972 is the economy. Successful
Administration action on this issue requires the best possible climate
of cooperation sustained through this year and next in the Congress
and not only among Republicans but with as many Democrats as pos-
sible and with a wide range of private groups. An emotional fight,
centering on racial issues, angering Democrats, dividing Republicans
and distracting key Administration officials from their main substantive
efforts would jeopardize this effort.
The question, therefore, is not whether Poff should be confirmed, or
whether he would be a good judge, or whether the South needs an
informed and able voice on the Court. The question is whether the
gain from this particular appointment at this particular time justifies
the major risks and the certain dangers it carries with it. I personally
doubt that it does, but in any event the research should be painstaking,
the analysis thorough and the full implications of the nomination --
secondary as well as immediate -- confronted as frankly as possible
before you make a final decision.
If you should decide to move in a different direction, you might
consider encouraging a comparatively open discussion of a number
of candidates. There's not much advantage in presenting these
appointments as surprises. An opportunity for different communities
to be heard about possible candidates would not only be welcomed but
might also develop useful information about candidates already under
consideration (perhaps saving embarrassment at the confirmation
stage), and turn up some new ones overlooked by our search. It
would be taken as evidence of seriousness in finding the best qualified
nominees at a critical point in the Court's history.
Len
Leonard Garment
Attachment
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
ARNOLD ARONSON, Secretary
JOSEPH L. P.AUH, JR., Counse!
BADERSHIP
BAYARD RUSTIN, Executive Committee Chairman
CONPERENCE
CLARENCE M. MITCHELL, Legislative Chairman
ON
JAMES HAMILTON, Compliance & Enforcement Chairman
CIVIL RIGHTS
MARVIN CAPLAN, Director Washington Office
J. FRANCIS POHIHAUS, Special Consultant
YVONNE PRICE, Executive Assistant
27 Mass. Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 phone 667-1780
New York address: 55 West 42nd St., New York 10036. phone 564-3450
September 27, 1971
The President
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
Representatives of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, at
a meeting of the Legislative Committee Friday, unanimously agreed to urge
you to fill the vacancies of the Supreme Court with persons who will not
evoke divisive conformation struggles. Specificially, they unanimously
agreed to urge you not to appoint someone whose opposition to civil rights
progress in the Supreme Court and in the Congress over the past two decades
insure's just such a nation-splitting confrontation.
We recognize the right of the President of the United States to
appoint persons to the Supreme Court philosophically in tune with his own
beliefs on fundamental issues of national policy. But you did not, Mr.
President, oppose the 1954 school desegregation decision and you did not
oppose the various statutes which Congress has enacted for the protection
of minorities in the last decade and a half. If you were to appoint some-
one who had opposed the school desegregation decision and who had opposed
these statutes, you would not be appointing a person of your own views
but rather one who was removed, by opposition to the enforcement of the
Fourteenth Amendment, from that broad segment of Americans who support
the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. President, as you have so often made clear, it is your
desire to bring people together. Nothing could better serve this purpose
than the appointment of Justices to the Supreme Court who have a dedi-
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
-2-
cation to civil rights for all Americans. We are certain there are
qualified persons in all regions of America whose appointments would
unite this country and uphold the dignity of the court. It would negate
the purpose of unifying America if you were to appoint one who has a
public record of consistent opposition to the concept of civil rights
for all.
Sincerely yours,
For Wilkins
Roy Wilkins
CHAIRMAN
RW/jrw
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 5, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JON M. HUNTSMAN
SUBJECT:
Amending Executive Order 11621
Through inadvertence the Department of Labor neglected to
include a local union with the other two international unions
listed in Executive Order 11621, which you signed last
night.
In order to rectify this omission, the Executive Order
attached has been prepared. The Departments of Justice
and Labor and the Office of Management and Budget recommend
that you sign it as soon as possible.
This involid
in
$/095,1471
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
EXECUTIVE ORDER
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 11621
CREATING A BOARD OF INQUIRY
By virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 206 of
the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947 (61 Stat. 155;
29 U.S. C. 176), Executive Order 11621 of October 4, 1971, is
amended by adding "the International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, and District Lodge 94 and
Local Lodge 1484 thereof" immediately following "International
Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO,".
X
Richl that
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 5, 1971.
Historical File
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
RICHARD NIXON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY
DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET
ITEM REMOVED FROM THIS FOLDER
A RESTRICTED DOCUMENT OR CASE FILE HAS BEEN REMOVED
FROM THIS FILE FOLDER. FOR A DESCRIPTION OF THE ITEM
REMOVED AND THE REASON FOR ITS REMOVAL, CONSULT
DOCUMENT ENTRY NUMBER
2
ON THE DOCUMENT
WITHDRAWAL RECORD IN THE FRONT OF THIS FILE FOLDER.
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
(Price)
October 12, 1971
DRAFT STATEMENT ON-ACHESON DEATH
Of those who stand for a time in places of power, many are
quickly forgotten. It is a measure of Dean Acheson's stature as
man and statesman that almost 20 years after his service as
Secretary of State, he continued to be recognized as one of the
towering figures of his time. He was a man not only of great
achievement, but also of rare intellect, of rigorous conscience,
and of profound devotion to his country. As President, I have been
deeply appreciative of the advice that I have asked, and that he has
so freely and graciously given. I shall greatly miss both his wise
counsel and his penetrating wit.
The Nation, the Western alliance and the world all share in
the loss of one of their staunchest champions.
####
Historical File
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
TELEVISED SUPREME COURT
ANNOUNCEMENT
Thursday, October 21, 1971
Oval Office
7:30 PM
THE PRESIDENT:
PURPOSE:
To deliver a televised announcement to the nation
concerning the Supreme Court.
BACKGROUND:
The announcement will originate from the Oval Office and
will be broadcast live on all major radio and television
networks, commencing at 7:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time.
The standard office telecast arrangement will be employed,
with NBC providing the pool pick-up.
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS:
7:10 PM Make-up application. Ray Voege will be set up in
Alex Butterfield's office, and I will be present to
brief you on details of the telecast.
7:20 PM Personal time.
7:29 PM Move to Oval Office to await start of telecast.
7:30 PM Telecast begins.
7:35 PM Telecast concludes.
(approximately)
There will be a photo opportunity in the office
shortly after completion of the speech.
Mark Goode
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 27, 1971
The Honorable Frederick V. Malek
Special Assistant to the President
The White House
Dear Fred:
I am deeply honored by the appointment you have offered me as
Deputy Director of ACTION. I am similarly grateful for our
discussions regarding the dual portions of the Staff Secretarial
system currently in effect. Your honesty and forthrightness in
discussing the overlapping responsibilities between my office and
Mr. Haldeman's staff and the obvious duplication in certain areas
between us is appreciated and, I believe, very healthy.
Recognizing fully my total dedication and loyalty to the President,
I have endeavored in these past two weeks to weigh carefully all
aspects of a position change. I have held various conference calls
with Directors of both my companies -- Continental Dynamics, Inc.
and Huntsman Container Corp. -- along with our principle officers
to provide all vital input relative to a decision of this kind. I have
arrived at the following conclusions:
1. Continental Dynamics, Inc., a national phonograph/tape
cassette and television commercials company which I founded
in 1966 is currently ready for a public offering. I own 70 %
of the outstanding stock. The company is limited in its
growth and expansion until it attains the necessary monies
from this public offering. Major offices are located in Los
Angeles, New York and Chicago.
2. Huntsman Container Corp., of which I am also the largest
stockholder, began operations in May, 1971 (three months
after I arrived at the White House) through the efforts of many
of my former associates and my brother, Dr. A. Blaine
Huntsman (who filled in for me as Chairman of the Board).
This company will be capitalized at almost $7 million by the
end of the current year. Investors have provided equity funds
to Huntsman Container Corp. based on my future involvement
as Chief Executive Officer. Large facilities are located in
California and Ohio (now under construction).
For various reasons related to the rapid growth and diversification
of both of these companies during the past 18 months, I have concluded
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
page two
that I have now reached a point where the effects of my absence are
too strenuous to be practical both for my associates as well as for
myself. The management of this volume of physical and material
resources, particularly during this critical growth period coupled
with my heavy personal financial involvement now requires my
overall direction.
I truly wish it were possible for me to continue as a full time member
of the Nixon Administration. My wife and seven children join me in
acknowledging that our 18 months on this team are the most exciting
and enjoyable time of our lives. We are all extremely dedicated to
the President. Our feelings and respect toward you, Bob Haldeman,
and Alex Butterfield are the highest possible.
My role as Chairman of the Board / Chief Executive Officer of two
companies will bring me in contact with many notable and wealthy
people in the food industry as well as the entertainment field. I
would be greatly honored to be part of the fund-raising committee
during the campaign. I will be able to speak first hand of my exper-
iences as a "Nixon Teamplayer" and I firmly feel that my association
with people like Dudley Swim, the Marriotts, and many others whom
I have become close to over the years would be of great benefit in
fund-raising activities. I am fully prepared to spend a healthy per-
centage of my time between January and November, 1972 working in
this capacity. Naturally, all my efforts to re-elect the President
would be totally voluntary, without compensation. My family and I
look forward to our contribution in this regard.
I will ensure that whatever time and effort is required for a smooth
transition prior to my departure is provided. My primary concern
is that this transfer be tranquil, timely and efficient. Providing
that this has been done, I would look forward to a February 1, 1972
departure date.
I fully intend to submit a personal letter to the President, Bob,
Alex and you prior to the time of my departure, but do feel that you
should receive this more detailed explanation of my thoughts now in
considering me for another position. The President and the White
House staff will always have my eternal gratitude.
JON M. HUNTSMAN
Jon Most sincerely,
Special Assistant to the President
CC: H. R. Haldeman
Alexander P. Butterfield
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL
Washington, DC 20260
October 29, 1971
Dear Mr. President:
This is to inform you that I have today submitted my resignation
as Postmaster General, effective this date, to the Board of
Governors of the United States Postal Service.
While the inauguration of the Postal Service marked an end to
my formal participation in your Administration, I could not
leave the position which you originally entrusted to me without
expressing my deep appreciation for the privilege of serving
you and your Administration for almost three years. I shall
forever be indebted to you for permitting me to hold the office
of Postmaster General and giving me the opportunity to make
a public contribution. Your confidence has been a source of
genuine gratification, and your guidance in the effort to create
the new United States Postal Service was vital to the achievement
of that historic goal.
I wish to assure you of my deep commitment to the purposes
of your Administration and my willingness to do all that you
may further require to assist in the accomplishment of those
purposes.
Respectfully,
Red
Winton M. Blount
The President
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
October 29, 1971
Dear Family and Friends:
I still can't believe I dined at the White House with the President
of the United States and Mrs. Nixon. It's all such a fabulous
dream today and shall be for the rest of my life. It is the most
wonderful experience I have had since September 5, 1954, when I became
Mrs. Paul Trousdale. Nothing will ever top that day.
This beautiful experience all started the moment Paul and I got in our
jet plane, which is a great thrill in itself, and off we flew to
beautiful Washington, D.C. We arrived at 5:00 P.M., checked into a
lovely suite, dressed, and Paul took me downstairs to the Madison
Hotel's lovely cocktail lounge, and then on into the beautiful dining
room. We had a lovely evening together.
Thursday, October 28th, arrived, and I was so excited all day, I can
hardly remember what Paul and I did, but I shall try. At 10:00 A.M.,
a Carey car and driver (very nice Frenchman and very astute) picked
us up, and off we went to the fantastic Smithsonian Institue. It
consists of three large, separate buildings such as the Natural History
Building, Arts and Industry, History and Technology, and the Air and
Space Museum. To cover all of these at a fast pace would take
many, many hours, so Paul and I chose the Air and Space Museum -- and
to see the first moon rock was a thrill, besides all our great Space
accomplishments. We also chose the History and Technology Building,
which was fascinating -- so much to see and learn. Washington is
such a beautiful city full of old and new knowledge, beautiful
monuments of our founders -- and when Paul and I stood in front of
the Lincoln Memorial, we really realized how fortunate and honored we
are to be Americans. All of the monuments are outstanding and beautiful,
but Lincoln is the most outstanding of them all. We ventured on to
the National Gallery for three hours, and that only whetted one's appetite,
as it is filled with room after room of treasures. John Sloan had
his showing featured yesterday, and I must say I like his art, and he
is a very versatile artist.
We arrived back at the Madison Hotel at 5:00 P.M., exhausted but filled
with all kinds of knowledge and great happiness. The final hour was
nearing, and I am getting more and more excited. The car picked us up
at 7:40 P.M., and off to the White House to the Southwest Gate, where
they stopped us, took our pass, and on into the grounds we drove. We
arrived in front of the beautiful entrance. Oops, forgot to mention
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
-2-
a smashing sight -- the entire drive was lined on both sides with
colorfully clad young men in Naval or Marine uniforms of red with
white, or vice versa -- all standing at attention like statues. My
mouth fell open, and I don't think I've recovered yet! We got out,
and our card was taken at the door, and there we were inside the
beautiful and grand entry hall of the White House. Many very
attractive young aides, ladies and gentlemen, in uniforms of black with
gold braid and red trim, and the lady aides in same but with long
skirts to the floor and split up the side above the knee. They directed
you constantly here and there.
We were shown into the main salon, and just before we entered this
room, we were announced, "Arriving are Mr. and Mrs. Paul Trousdale",
and in we went, I, on the arm of a very attractive aide, and Paul
right behind me, managing by himself. He looked so tall, thin (lost
ten pounds), and handsome, as always. I spotted our friends, Mary
Lou and Sonny Whitney, so we chatted with them during the cocktail
hour.
At last the big moment arrived. We all stood in a semi-circle in
the room; the doors opened, and in came four young men, one black,
one Jew, one Oriental and one Caucasian, carrying different flags.
I know two of the four were U.S.A. and Yugoslavia -- and I'm not sure
of the other two. This was so impressive. Then behind followed
President Nixon and Mrs. Broz, and Mrs. Nixon and President Broz Tito.
Everyone clapped, and the reception line started counter-clockwise, and
off we started. We followed Mary Lou and Sonny Whitney (no protocol;
just were standing talking to them). The man goes in front of the
wife always. There are two aides before the President; you give your
name to the first aide, he, in turn, passes it on to the second aide
next to the President, and that aide announces "Mr. and Mrs. Paul
Trousdale from Los Angeles, California". At that, I am in a trance,
and feel ten feet off the ground. Paul said, "Good evening, Mr.
President" -- and, in turn, the President offered his hand and said,
"Well, hello, Paul. It's so nice to see you; so glad you came tonight".
The President introduced Paul to President Broz Tito, and Paul said,
"How do you do" and started to walk on to speak to Pat Nixon and Mrs.
Broz; but instead Dick said, "Wait a minute, Paul. I want you to tell
President Tito and me about the time you had your boat in Yugoslavia".
So much to Paul's surprise, he talked of his second best girl, "his
boat" -- and both presidents laughted at Paul's interesting story (about
ten minutes later, the reception line was still standing, waiting).
Our pictures were taken with the four of them, and I only hope we get
one for our memories.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential, Library and Museum
-3-
Paul went on through and, needless to say, after Paul's warm and
friendly reception from the President, I thought I would just go through
with a formal "How do you do" to all of them; but to my great surprise
and amazement, Dick offered his hand and said, "Why, hello, Jean. You
are as beautiful as ever, and we are so glad you came". I thought
if I told him of the gratitude that was in my heart of what a fine man,
American, and President he was for our great country, I would burst out
crying. I was very emotional, so I said, "Thank you, Mr. President,
for your lovely compliment and for your gracious invitation for tonight.
We are thrilled and honored to be here". I met President Tito and
said, "President Tito, welcome to our great nation. We are pleased
to have you and Mrs. Broz". Only time will make that a true or untrue
statement!
Next, Pat took my hand in both of hers very warmly, and in her warm,
friendly and most sincere ladylike fashion, she said, "Jean, it's
been too long a time since I have seen you, and I am so happy you are
here". Again, tears were close to my eyes, as I am devoted to these
two great Americans, and two very nice, lovely friends -- so I said,
"Pat, thank you for inviting Paul and me tonight" -- and how wonderful
it was to see them again. I told her how beautiful she looked in her
two shades of soft aqua beaded dress and crystals -- so perfect for her
and the occasion.
Now an aide has my arm and ushers me, with Paul behind me, into the
fantastic dining room -- I still can't believe it all. The tables
were horseshoe shaped -- one large horseshoe and two long tables coming
out of the center. The dining room is all off-white, gold-colored
heavy silk damask draperies, gold-colored carpet, gold chandelier and
crystal (mostly gold), gold wall fixtures holding real candles burning,
Lincoln's picture over the fireplace, two or three others in the room,
white damask tablecloths, all solid gold candelabras on the tables,
solid gold covered dishes up and down the tables, with tiny ivy running
in and out among these, beautiful sold gold vases to hold the beautiful
spring flower arrangements, gold nut dishes at every place, and gold
candy dishes filled with beautiful chocolates, many of these up and down
the tables. The dining chairs were very comfortable, of beautiful wood
and upholstered in gold damask like the draperies. In the back of the
dining room, approximately thirty black waiters in black tie suits and
white gloves served. All so beautifully done in great and perfect order,
and very quiet and proper. Enclosed is the menu, so I shall not elaborate
on this except to say it was beautifully prepared and delicious -- all a
rare treat. The china was President Johnson's pattern (each President
has his own china pattern; however, President Nixon's has not been
completed yet), and it was very beautiful. The crystal was President
flatwear. Eisenhower's pattern and it was very beautiful, as was the all gold
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
My dinner partners were Mr. Forbes, owner of Forbes Business Magazine,
and Mr. Joe Coors, owner of Coors Beer Company. They were both
charming and delightful especially Joe and his attractive wife,
Holly, with whom we have a date in March in Aspen, Colorado, where
they have a home.
Paul's dinner partners were Mr. Frank Meyer, and Miss Kate Smith on
his right; he had a wonderful time with her -- what a fun-loving lady,
great talent and great American. She will be in Honolulu December 2nd
to 16th on a holiday, and has been asked to be guest singer at the
December 7th Pearl Harbor ceremonies. She said she will sing her most
famous song on December 7th -- "God Bless America". We shall entertain
her on her visit to Los Angeles the week before Thanksgiving. She is
delightful, and Paul found her enchanting.
After the thirty hot souffles were served (all standing, no ''flops'', a
feat in itself), the Army Air Force thirty young men with violins played
during dessert and serving of champagne and passing of gold plates of
candies.
What beautiful music! After that, President Nixon gave
a beautiful toast to President Tito and his wife -- and then President
Tito returned the toast in his native language. After he was seated,
his lady interpreter read it all again in English. Then, the four
walked out of the dining room, and we all followed into the Green Room
for coffee.
I had a thrilling experience again. I walked over to Pat; she was
talking to three ladies, and I stood there and never spoke; and Pat
said to the three ladies, "Excuse me'' -- and she walked over to me and
we visited for fifteen minutes alone, with no interruption except that
Paul came over half-way through our visit, for which I was pleased.
We spoke of my dining on October 18th with Mrs. Eisenhower in Dallas
at a beautiful, very small, private dinner party for her in a fabulous
home; of Tricia and Julie, and their husbands and lives. Julie was
returning today to the White House, as David was off on duty for two
weeks, Pat said. We spoke of Dick's trip to China, re-election, and
touched on many other interesting things, and my last saying, "Pat,
we shall welcome you home to California in five years, and not before".
She was grateful and took my hand in hers and said, "We must all work
hard for our beautiful country each day in these troubled times. Dick
and I love you and Paul, and God bless you", and walked away. I was
left standing there in the Green Room with tears glistening in my eyes,
as a little girl from Texas sitting at a desk in school, thumbing through
history books, and seeing day after day, the White House, and never ever
thinking I would be standing where I was now -- just left by the First
Lady of America (and the world, as far as I'm concerned), with a heart
full of love for me and my beloved Paul. It could only happen in
America -- and I am deeply grateful I was the one it happened to.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
-5-
The Presidents and their wives left for the evening at 11:30 to retire.
We were ushered into the Blue Room for more champagne and dancing to
the Marine band. We met Dr. Kissinger, charming and brilliant, with
an eye for the pretty ladies -- that's good, too; Senator Javits and
his wife; Martha Mitchell, who seemed rather subdued last evening --
rather refreshing, and she is attractive; and others. But after
Pat Nixon, nothing seemed of any importance to me.
Oops, I forgot -- after coffèe, we were ushered into the main drawing
room, with beautiful gold Presidential Seals over the main doors, so
impressive, to hear a very young opera star, age twenty-five, sing
five songs for all of us and the Presidents and their wives. Such
elegance, and the opera singer, Gail Robinson, was great. After that,
the Nixons and Titos retired, and the dancing started. The party went
on until 1:00 A.M. -- and then off we went into the heavy, eerie fog
-- and, needless to say, I could hardly sleep.
A great experience -- and I am grateful to have it as a lasting memory.
Lovingly,
Jean and Paul
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
- OF
The President and Mrs. Nixon
request the pleasure ofthe,companyof
Mr.and Mrs. Trousdale
atdinner
on Thursday evening, October 28, 1971
ateight,cidock
On the accasion, ftherisitof
His President Broze Tito
ofther Locialist Federal Republic
uPyugoslavia/and Mrs. Broz
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
THE
Dinner
Berncasteler
Doctor
Suprême of Lobster en Bellevue
1967
Paillettes Dorées
Châteaubriand Neretval
Louis Martini
Sauce Béarnaise
Cabernet Sauvignon
1967
Artichokes Provençale
Carrots au Beurre
Bibb Lettuce and Hearts of Palm
Bric Cheese
Louis Roederer
Cristal
Soufflé au Grand Marnier
1962
Sauce Sabayon
THE WHITE HOUSE
Thursday, October 28, 1971
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
FOR RELEASE AFTER 8:00 P.M.
DINNER AT THE WHITE HOUSE
Thursday, October 28, 1971
at eight o'clock
The President & Mrs. Nixon
His Excellency Josip Broz Tito & Mrs. Broz
President of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
His Excellency Kiro Gligorov
Member of the Presidium of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
His Excellency Vidoje Zarkovic
President of the Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Montenegro,
Member of the Presidium of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
His Excellency Mirko Tepavac &. Mrs. Tepavac
Federal Secretary for Foreign Affairs
Her Excellency Mirjana Krstinic
Member of the Federal Executive Council
His Excellency The Ambassador of the Socialist Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia & Mrs. Granfil
Mr. Marko Vrhunec
Acting Director, Office of the President
Mr. Slavko Zecevic
Acting Federal Deputy Secretary for Internal Affairs
Lt. General Bruno Vuletic
Chief of the Office of the Supreme Commander of the Yugoslav
Armed Forces
His Excellency Vlado Sestan
Chief of Protocol to the President
Mr. Milos Melovski
Counselor to the President for Foreign Affairs
Mr. Miroslav Kreacic
Director of the Political Department, Federal Secretariat for
Foreign Affairs
The Secretary of State & Mrs. Rogers
The Attorney General & Mrs. Mitchell
The Secretary of Commerce & Mrs. Stans
Hon. & Mrs. George P. Shultz
Dir., Office of Management & Budget
Hon. & Mrs. Robert H. Finch
Counsellor to the President
Hon. & Mrs. Donald Rumsfeld
Counsellor to the President
Hon, & Mrs. George Bush
Permanent Representative of the USA to the United Nations
Senator & Mrs. John J. Sparkman (Alabama)
Senator & Mrs. Clifford P. Case (New Jersey)
Senator & Mrs. Jacob K. Javits (New York)
Rep. & Mrs. John A. Blatnik (Minnesota)
Rep. & Mrs. Peter H. B. Frelinghuysen (New Jersey)
Rep. & Mrs. Roy A. Taylor (North Carolina)
Rep. & Mrs. Ben Blackburn (Georgia)
Rep. & Mrs. Marvin L. Esch (Michigan)
Hon. Frank Shakespeare
Dir., U. S. Information Agency
Hon. Malcolm Toon
U.S. Ambassador to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Hon. & Mrs. Emil Mosbacher, Jr.
Chief of Protocol
Hon. Henry A. Kissinger
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
Hon, & Mrs. Peter G. Peterson
Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs
Brigadier General James D. Hughes
Military Assistant to the President
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
- 2 - 10/28/71
Hon. & Mrs. Martin J. Hillenbrand
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs
General & Mrs. Raymond G. Davis
Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps
Lt. General & Mrs. Robert J. Dixon
Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, U. S. Air Force
Vice Admiral & Mrs. Dick H. Guinn
Chief of Naval Personnel
Major General Warren K. Bennett
Secretary of the General Staff, Office of the Army Chief of Staff
Hon. & Mrs. Robert J. Brown
Special Assistant to the President
Hon. & Mrs. Donald E. Johnson
Admr., Veterans Administration
Hon. & Mrs. Henry Kearns
Pres. & Chmn., Export-Import Bank of the U. S.
Mr. & Mrs. William R. Bentley
Mrs--Hon. Helen Bentley, Chmn., Federal Maritime Commission
Mr. & Mrs. Helmut Sonnenfeldt
National Security Council
Mrs. Laurance H. Armour, Sr.
Lake Forest, Illinois
Hon. & Mrs. Roy L. Ash
Pres., Los Angeles World Affairs Council, Los Angeles, California
Mr. & Mrs. Louis L. Banks
Time Magazine, Mamaroneck, New York
Mr. & Mrs. Charles A. Black
Woodside, California
Hon. & Mrs. Ray C. Bliss
Akron, Ohio
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Coors
Golden, Colorado
Dr. & Mrs. Joseph P. Cosand
Pres., The Junior College District of St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
Mr. & Mrs. Malcolm S. Forbes
Pres. & Pub., Forbes Magazine, New York, N. Y.
Mr. & Mrs. James Gerity, Jr.
Gerity Broadcasting Company, Adrian, Michigan
Mrs. Harry Haldeman
Los Angeles, California
Mr. & Mrs. Gavin S. Herbert, Jr.
Corona Del Mar, California
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Kirven
Dallas, Texas
Dr. & Mrs. John C. Lungren
Long Beach, California
Mr. & Mrs. William A. Meehan
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Hon. & Mrs. Frank Meyer
McLean, Virginia
Mr. Thomas A. Pappas
Boston, Massachusetts
Mr. Charles S. Rhyne
Washington, D. C.
Miss Gail Robinson
Soprano, Metropolitan Opera Company, New York, N. Y.
Miss Kate Smith
Singer, New York, N. Y.
Mr. & Mrs. John E. Swearingen
Chmn., Standard Oil of Indiana, Chicago, Illinois
Mr. & Mrs. Paul W. Trousdale
Los Angeles, California
Mr. & Mrs. Robert C. Tyson
New York, New York
Mr. & Mrs. Cornelius Vanderbilt Whitney
Lexington, Kentucky
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
ADMINISTRATIVELY
CONFIDENTIAL
November 16, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR :
CONNIE SWUART
4/
FROM :
H.R. HALDEMAN
SUBJECT :
Mrs. Nixon's African Trip
I had a conversation with the President and Mrs. Nixon at Camp
David over the weekend regarding the forthcoming African trip
and would like to summarize the points covered and subsequent
follow-up.
The official delegation, in addition to Mrs. Nixon, should include
Bunny Lasker and his two children, the Billy Grabams, and the
Johnsons (publisher of Ebony Magazine). The Laskers and Grahama
would accompany Mrs. Nixon to Liberia but would not go on with her
to Gbana or Ivory Coast. The Johnsons should be invited to accompany
her on the entire trip.
There is a question as to whether someone from the State Department
should accompany Mrs. Nixon. Secretary Rogers has suggested to
her that there is one lady in particular that he thinks would be most
suitable for such an assignment. The Secretary suggests that Assistant
Secretary Newsom and/or the lady he has in mind, should come over
for a brief meeting with Mrs. Nixon to discuss the trip in general and
give Mrs. Nixon an opportunity to decide whether or not she wants to
take this lady or someone else with her as a State Department represent-
ative,
It was agreed that Bill Codus should be assigned to the trip from the
Protocol Office and should function as the general trip manager. I
have mentioned this to Secretary Rogers. It should be followed up now
with Ambassador Mosbacher and Codus should be brought into the planning
immediately and stay with it from here on out.
It was suggested that Colonel Coffey be assigned as the Military Aide,
but he has a conflicting assignment at the time of Mrs. Nixon's trip and
General Hughes would like to assign Major Brennan instead. I have
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
2
cleared this with the President. It should be cleared with
Mrs. Nixon also.
You would, of course, travel as Mrs. Nixon's staff manager and
handle the press, etc.
It was agreed that there probably would have to be an advance on
this trip and that it should be done by Codus and the Military Aide
and the Secret Service agent in charge of the party. Mrs. Nixon
and the President both felt that either Bill Duncan or Chuck Zuboril
should be given the Secret Service assignment. If there is any pro-
blem on this, check it out with Alex Butterfield.
Bill Codus should take over all charge of the schedule plan and set
it up so that Mrs. Nixon's activities don't include any repeat items.
That is, if she visits a school at one place, she should not visit any
other schools at other places. The schedule should be planned with
the thought in mind that Mrs. Nixon should not be over-extended in
her activities, but should cover enough activities to get good, strong,
news coverage.
She should be scheduled for a private meeting with the President in
each country she visits and our Ambassador should accompany her in
that meeting.
Regarding TV coverage, you and Ron Ziegler should work together to
develop a plan for approaching a single network for special, exclusive
in depth coverage. The preferred first choice here would be Don Hewitt
at CBS; second choice would be NBC.
The President would like to set un some sort of reception with the entire
delegation traveling with Mrs. Nixon, including the press, 50 that the
President can meet them prior to departure. This should also include
the Ambassadors from the countries Mrs. Nixon will visit. Also, the
President will plan to see Mrs. Nixon off $5 flying by helicopter with her
to the airport.
Careful thought should be given right now to gifts for each country.
Mrs. Nixon favors Boehm birds, but other suggestions would be con-
sidered.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
3
I assume you will take over on general planning on this. I
would appreciate being kept posted so that I can keep the
President informed 28 to progress.
CC:
Bill Codus
Ron Ziegler
Alex Butterfield
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
C
November 16, 1971
CONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY
MEMORANDUM FOR :
CHUCK COLSON
RON ZIEGLER
-1/
FROM :
H.R. HALDEMAN
I have attached a copy of the Washington Post excerpts of the
President's speech and a copy of the transcript with indications
of sections left out by the Post. As you can see, on page 8, they
left out the key phrase about the progress we are making in cutting
inflation, on page 9, the whole section about the difference between
a free economy and a totalitarian economy and the uncertainty that
exists in the former. They also left out, on page 10, the very
basic point about the Kennedy and Johnson decisions to go into
Vietnam and pluses that are results of the Laos and Cambodia
decision, and on page 11 the vital point re: 1968 prosperity based
on war.
These items are things that should be used as examples of how
the press selectively edits out materials that are to our advantage.
We should not let this stand or go by unnoticed. The Post should be
hit on this, but not by us, to keep them off balance and force them
to set the record straight in the future. Also, Safire, Moore, and
Scali should use these as examples of selective editing and media
bias.
Let's try to get this message to the public somehow -- in Monday
if we can think of no other way.
Attachment
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 26, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
THROUGH:
JOHN EHRLICHMAN
FROM:
JOHN DEAN
SUBJECT:
Presidential Campaign Fund --
The Tax Check-Off Provision
This memorandum contains in summary form the thoughts of a.
number of members of the White House Staff, the Treasury Depart-
ment and the Justice Department regarding the tax check-off
provisions.
Clark MacGregor is forwarding a memorandum with a suggested
"game plan" for dealing with the provisions in Conference next week.
I. SYNOPSIS OF THE TAX CHECK-OFF PROVISION
This provision of the Revenue Act of 1971 would permit a taxpayer to
designate in his return that $1.00 of his tax payment should be paid
into an Election Campaign Fund for either the use of the Presidential
candidate of his choice or the use of all Presidential candidates in a
Presidential election campaign.
Under the eligibility and funding formulae, the Republican and
Democratic Presidential candidates, as majority party candidates,
would each be entitled to receive up to $20. 4 million to finance their
campaigns in 1972. The American Independent Party, as a. minority
party which received at least 5 percent of the vote in the last election,
would be entitled to receive up to $6. 3 million. Any third party re-
ceiving at least 5 percent of the vote in the upcoming election will be
entitled to monies on a retroactive basis and will qualify as a minority
party eligible to receive monies in the 1976 election. No money from
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum.
-2-
this fund can be used to finance Presidential primary races. A
candidate is not required to finance his campaign with check-off
dollars, but once he elects to do so, $20. 4 million becomes his
spending ceiling. A candidate not using check-off dollars is free
to spend beyond the ceiling, however, he would be subject to
other federal laws regarding expenditures.
II. SOME POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE CHECK-OFF
PROVISION ON THE GOVERNMENTAL PROCESS
A. Party Organization: Vesting control of campaign funds
in the Presidential candidate could have a twofold effect; it gives
the candidate virtual independence from his party and its influence,
as well as tremendous control over it. This could easily result
in the demise of many grass roots political organizations in areas
where the candidate has little support, which would be bypassed
in favor of areas where the candidate has more chance of garnering
votes. The net effect will be a weakening of an already fragile
party structure.
B. The Two Party System: The check-off provision would
institutionalize the Republican and Democratic Parties. It may
have the added effect of institutionalizing the American Independent
Party since with a potential $6. 3 million of available funds, there
is no strong reason for Wallace not to run. The effect, thus, is
to encourage an established third party to hang on long after it has
outlived any originally conceived usefulness, and to discourage new
unsubsidized parties from competing since the likelihood of amassing
at least 5 percent of the vote is quite small.
NOTE: We have been advised, however, that the Conservative Party
is planning to field a. candidate in that they feel they can obtain 5 per-
cent of the vote.
C. Campaign Solicitations: This is an area where predictions
are difficult. It would appear that the check-off will have a net effect
of discouraging contributions from the public-at-large. The general
public will be disinclined to make private contributions when "public"
funding is available. This, of course, will result in less involvement
of people in the system, which has serious implications for our
political system.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
-3- -
It can also be said that the check-off fails to accomplish its
ostensible primary objective, which is preventing Presidential
candidates from becoming the "pawns of the fat-cats. " Generally,
sufficient quantities of money have always been available for
Presidential elections. This is not so in the case of primary
candidates who must rely on the wealthy for financial support in
primary races. The check-off does nothing to subsidize or curtail
contributions to primary candidates. Thus, there is the potential
that whoever gets the nomination will already be indebted to
wealthy patrons. This problem may be even further compounded
by the fact that the small contributor will not contribute funds for
primary elections because he feels he has "done his part" in the
check-off. Thus candidates will be required to rely even more
heavily on wealthy patrons for financial support.
D. Volunteerism: It: should be noted that in territories and
countries where elections are totally subsidized by the government
(Puerto Rico and Costa Rica), there is little or no public participa-
tion in political campaigns in the form of volunteerism. The
interest and fervor of a Presidential election has always enabled
a candidate to rally thousands of volunteers to perform the multi-
tude of tasks required to run a successful campaign. This is cer-
tainly one of the healthy attributes of the American political process.
There is a good chance that individual political lethargy would result
from the provision and would be disastrous to the American political
system.
E. Politicalization of Tax Collection: Unlike many countries,
particularly those with one-party systems, the American political
party system has always been divorced from the direct machinations
of government, This attribute may be undermined by the check-off
system, since tax-collection for political purposes sharply connotes
governmental entanglements and potential regulation of the American
party system.
It also will have the collateral effect of politicalization of the tax col-
lection process itself. The 1952 reorganization of IRS was designed to
keep IRS out of politics. Today 98 percent of the taxes are collected by
self assessment. If IRS becomes "tarred" by a. political brush, the
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library. and Museum
-4-
resulting lack of public confidence could have a disastrous effect
on tax collection.
NOTE: This problem was not really raised during the Senate debate.
F. Precedent: Allowing taxpayers to earmark tax dollars
for political purposes will set a dangerous precedent for future
years, since Congress is in effect delegating a degree of appropri-
ation authority to the individual taxpayer. While the issue today
may be campaign subsidies, no one can predict what tomorrow's
will be. With tax dollar check-offs for Presidential campaigns
permitted under law, who could argue that such check-offs should
not be permitted to finance the costs of other programs, particu-
larly those which are of direct public concern, such as environ-
ment, national defense, etc. Also, the precedent could result in
extending funds to House and Senate races.
III. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CHECK-OFF PROVISION
The Department of Justice feels that the constitutionality of the
check-off provision can be challenged on two grounds:
(1) The provision denies Equal Protection of the laws by
being invidiously discriminatory, in that it gives two, old estab-
lished parties a decided advantage over new parties.
(2) The provision, to the extent it prohibits a person from
freely contributing to a Presidential Campaign, abridges a form of
political speech or activity in violation of the First Amendment.
IV. CONCLUSION
This provision could work a dramatic change on the American
political process. It has not been adequately examined by the
Congress in the public hearings that a. matter of its magnitude
would deserve.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
Determined to be an
THE WHITE HOUSE
Administrative Marking
WASHINGTON
Not National Security Information
By
043
NARA Date 3/16/2016
November 26, 1971
GONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
CLARK MacGREGOR
SUBJECT:
Pastore-Long Check-Off
Amendment to Tax Bill
On the afternoon of November 24th, Jerry Ford hosted a meeting
of senior House Republicans in his office. John Ehrlichman, Bill
Timmons, Dick Cook, and Clark MacGregor attended. The Con-
gressmen included Gerald Ford, John Rhodes, John Anderson,
John Byrnes, Barber Conable, H. Allen Smith, and Bill Springer.
The purpose of the meeting was to exchange views about the advisa-
bility of a veto, to consider an effort November 29th in the House
to instruct Conferees (when the bill is sent to Conference) to strike
the Pastore Amendment, to evaluate alternatives if Pastore is
retained in Conference, and to prepare an all-out effort to ultimately
defeat the Amendment in final House action.
It was quickly determined not to move Monday in the House to instruct
Conferees. Our Republican leaders all year have resisted "instruction"
motions on national security and foreign policy questions, arguing
strenuously that Conferees should not have their hands tied. On prac-
tical grounds it was agreed that we could not prevail on such a motion.
Among the Congressmen only John Byrnes was dubious about urging
you to veto the tax bill if Pastore remains in it. Byrnes said, "I'm
not so sure about the veto. Business, the economy, the President
all vitally need this bill. After all, a fairly good constitutional
challenge (to Pastore) does exist. 11 As the discussion wore on, Byrnes
appeared to shift his position slightly in favor of a veto.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
2.
Germaneness under the House rules was discussed. Byrnes felt
that Ford should formally ask House Parliamentarian Lou Deschler
for a ruling on the germaneness of Pastore. H. Allen Smith said
that without question, Pastore is germane. Deschler will so rule,
and thus no separate vote in the House will be available should the
Pastore Amendment remain in the Conference Report.
The House Conferees will be Democrats Wilbur Mills of Arkansas,
Al Ullman of Oregon, James Burke of Massachusetts, and Martha
Griffiths of Michigan; Republican Conferees will be John Byrnes,
Jackson Betts of Ohio, and Herman Schneebeli of Pennsylvania. It
was agreed by all that the White House and the Republican leadership
should immediately make every effort to energize the interested
business and private sectors to pressure House Conferees against
Pastore. It was suggested that Martha Griffiths would have to be
responsive to automobile people. (Following the meeting both Jerry
Ford and Clark MacGregor talked with Art Summerfield, and Art
is hard at work among the auto people nationwide.)
Byrnes suggested that we concentrate on the fact that Pastore would
cure no existing campaign contribution vices but would merely serve
to concentrate on the primaries and the convention selection process.
Byrnes urged that the public be told that Pastore would result in the
special interests and the fat cats pouring money into the purchase of
convention delegates' votes and into the key-state Presidential pri-
maries -- all in exchange for unconscionable commitments extracted
from the candidates.
Bill Springer was blunt in saying, "The Democrats feel they can't
beat Nixon without this $20 million from the Treasury. With it
they can, and they might be right. This issue will decide the 1972
Presidential election. After all, Humphrey almost turned it around
with only $2 million in effective television commercials during the
last ten days of the '68 campaign".
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
3.
John Ehrlichman raised the question of timing, asking the Con-
gressmen whether, should the President decide to veto, the
President should speak out before or after the Conferees agree
and issue their report. Byrnes answered, "Just after the Con-
ferees agree, and before either House or Senate acts on the
Conference Report". Springer said, "Before the Conferees agree".
Byrnes responded, "Only if the President is satisfied that Pastore
is unconstitutional and the President says so with a strong public
statement".
The discussion then turned to Mills' attitude. The Chairman's
lukewarm 1966-'67 support for the Long check-off amendment
was reviewed, and it was agreed that Mills will be for Pastore
next week. Byrnes said that the other revenue-losing amendments
adopted by the Senate will be strongly contested by Mills -- "he's
made too many speeches lately on fiscal responsibility". I sug-
gested that it might be helpful to have provisions of the Conference
Report other than Pastore which the President could point to as
objectionable, and Byrnes and others agreed.
It was the unanimous feeling that your veto, should you so decide,
would be sustained in the House. Opinion divided on whether the
Democrats would then go home without repassing the basic tax bill.
Jerry Ford said that if they did, you should promptly call Congress
back in Special Session.
If, by Monday morning, you have determined upon a veto should the
tax bill presented to you contain the Pastore Amendment, I concur
in Bill Timmons' suggestion that you invite Russell Long, Wallace
Bennett, Wilbur Mills, and John Byrnes to meet with you in the
Oval Office at 11:00 a.m. Monday, November 29. The meeting should
be unpublicized. John Connally only from your Administration or
from the White House should sit in. In this way you would effectively
lay the foundation for future action, and you would not be putting any
additional pressure on the Conference. Then if the Conferees did not
strike Pastore, you could forcefully present your position to the
American public directly after the Conference Report is issued.
The first meeting of the Conference on the tax bill is scheduled for
2:00 p.m. Monday, November 29th.
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
ACTION
Recommendation
November 24, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN
THROUGH:
CLARK MacGREGOR
FROM:
WILLIAM E. TIMMONS
SUBJECT:
Campaign Tax Check-off
It is my belief that while the Democratic politicians would like to have
the $20 million from the Pastore amendment they must recognize that
the President could never ever relinquish his advantage in campaign
finances. They must also realize that any veto based on the check-off
provision will be sustained by Republicans in either house, particularly
in view of the extremely partisan nature of the debate. Therefore, we
must assume that our opponents expect a veto and anticipate that it will
be sustained by the Congress.
If the Democrats are reconciled to not getting their fingers in the
public till then why push the issue? The answer seems obvious: to
destroy the President's new economic initiative by forcing him to
veto the Tax Relief Package. While we could expect a new bill next
spring it probably will be too late to move the economy forward as the
President had hoped.
If I am correct, then the President must take bold action to shift the
burden of this action on the Congress and allow sufficient time for the
general public to become aware that it is Congress that is destroying
their tax relief. There is a possibility, I believe, that with sufficient
time and exposure we may be able to turn enough votes to recommit the bill
with instructions. I, therefore, recommend that the President call Wilbur
Mills, John Byrnes, Russell Long and Wallace Bennett to his office Monday
morning, November 29, for some straight talk. He can say he will veto
the tax package if it has the Pastore amendment and his veto will be
sustained. Therefore, if the conferees are interested in helping the
economy they should drop Pastore and move to clean up the bill. It would
seem that John Connally should be the only other person in the meeting so
the Members won't think the meeting is a publicity stunt. Byrnes and
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum
- 2 -
Bennett can be programmed to help. Ziegler should refuse to report
details of the session forcing reporters to get word from the Hill.
If the Conference Committee does not respond satisfactorily, then the
President can issue a statement when the report is filed urging Congress
to reject the Conference Report. The 1 - 2 punch seems necessary if we
are to convince the American people that the Congress is deliberately
trying to sabotage the President's economic plan and that the check-off
provision is simply their devious vehicle.
If you agree with this approach will you recommend to West Coast so we
can get an answer and start putting the meeting together?
BTimmons: retyped by kb
Reproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum