4
Monday, April 30, 1973
University Daily Kansan
Checkers vs. Watergate
Watergate is not Richard Nixon's first scandal.
The night back in 1952 when Nixon went on national television and bared his soul was a night to remember. The Checkers' speech to the nation that the best way to meet charges of corruption was to meet them directly. Nixon's apparent honesty about the accusations that he had personally taken $18,000 from his political supporters appealed to the public because he was case by telling the American people about his family's touching history.
If the Checkers speech was a cover-up for actual corruption, most of the nation never knew it. After an audit of Nixon's accounts, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, lawyers, concluded that Nixon did not obtain personal financial gain from the supporters' money and that he did not violate any law in his use of the money.
Nixon seems to have forgotten the lesson he learned from the Checkers speech. Honesty is no longer the best policy. Nixon's handling of the conflict has been in sharp contrast with his actions in the Checkers incident.
In the Checkers speech Nixon told the nation that none of the $18,000 awarded to him was for his business.
"I say that it was morally wrong if it was secretly given and secretly handled. And I say it was morally wrong if any of the contributors gotvorors for the contributions that they made," he told the TV audience.
Yet during the 1972 campaign, the chairman of the Texas finance committee to re-elect the President secretly and illegally collected $700,000 for Nixon's campaign. A Mexican bank and lawyer were employed to effectively block investigation of the transactions. And any person who contributed more than $100,000 for the President's campaign was certainly in the front of the line for special favors.
Nixon in his Checkers speech also spoke of his personal investments—a $41,000 house in Washington, on which he and Pat owed $20,000, and a $7,000 loan to himself, which they owed $3,000. He seemed to have his finances under control
Apparently a house as large as the White House has been too much for Nixon to handle. When his own White House staff and other associates began dealing with money in hundreds of thousands, finances became more complicated. People got carried away with all of those big bills. It's hard to conceal a deposit of $700,000 no matter who makes it to whose bank account.
The greatest contrast between the Checkers Nixon and the Watergate Nixon has been in the approach to exposing the facts. Nixon told the Checkers audience, "I would not hear that it was true that both Mr. Sparkman (John J. Sparkman, 1952 Democratic Vice Presidential candidate) and Mr.
Stevenson (Adlai Stevenson,
Democratic Presidential candidate)
should come before the American
people as I have and make a complete
financial statement as to their
expense. The fact that they will be
an admission that they have something to hide. And I think you will agree with me."
Are we to agree with him 20 years later that since he, Richard Nixon, has refused to come before the nation with an explanation of his role in Watergate, that he has something to hide?
He continued his Checkers speech, "Because folks, remember, a man that's to be President of the United States, a man that's to be Vice President of the United States, must have the confidence of all the people."
He was right. Anyone who has followed the details of Watergate has probably lost confidence in Nixon and the American Presidency. In a recent Gallup poll, watergate affirms that the president heard about Watergate and then thought Nixon had prior knowledge of the bugging operation.
Back in the days of the Teapot Dome scandal, President Warren Harding asked his secretary of commerce, Herbert Hoover, how to handle the first leaks to the public about the scandal. Hoover replied, "Publish it, and at least get credit for integrity on your side." Harding instead kept the news to himself, and the result was an enduring stain on the reputation of his Presidency and his party.
In Watergate Nixon may be toying with the makings of a similar stain. A few weeks ago when Hugh Scott, Senate minority leader, urged him to make a statement on Watergate, Nixon told him cooyly, "Hug, I have nothing to hide. I have nothing to hide. I repeat that I have nothing to hide, and you are authorized to make that statement in my name." Someone close to Nixon, if not Nixon himself, must have something to hide. Why else would Nixon have refused for so long to let his staff testify about Watergate before Congressional committees?
Since then the names of Nixon's former attorney general, his chief legal counsel, the second-ranking official in his re-election campaign and several former White House aides have been linked to the scandal. They might be indicted by the grand jury. The Nixon administration seems to be crumbling before the eyes of the public.
Nixon's Checkers speech now has a hollow ring. In his conclusion he said, "We hear a lot about prosperity these days but I say, why can't we have prosperity built on peace rather than prosperity built on war? Why can't we have prosperity and an honest government in Washington, D.C., at the same time?"
—Barbara Spurlock
Well . . . why can't we?
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
An All-American college newspaper
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
Published at the University of Kansas during the academic year except holidays and examination periods. Mail subscription rates: $8 a semester; $10 a month. Volunteer opportunities may be offered in goods, services and employment advertised to all students without regard to color, creed or national origin. Opinions expressed are not necessarily indicative of the university.
NEWS STAFF
News Adviser . . . Susanne Shaw
LETTERS POLICY
These tiny, wriggly, disagreeable-looking creatures have survived as a species for 10,000
years in Devils Hole, Nev. In this single water hole and nowhere else in the world, they feed and drink from it. In the Department of the Interior,
Joyce Neermar
Jack Anderson
The rancher, Francis L. Capaert, a Vicksburg, Miss., millionaire, has been a major sponsor of the campaign. He donated heavily to Nixon in both 1968 and 1972. The records for 1972, for example, show he scattered at Nixon's various campagne kitties.
WASHINGTON - Forced to choose between 200 ugly, inedible pubfish or a millionaire GOP contributor, the Nixon administration has put the welfare of the pubfish first.
BUSINESS STAFF Business Advisor . . . Mel Adams
Letters to the editor should be tywrewriting, doubles not exceed 500 words. All subjects are subject to editing in space limitations and the editor's judgment. Students name, year in school and name, year in school and name must provide their name and position; others must provide their name
After Cappeert tapped into the water table and began pumping out the underground water, the level in Devil's Hole began to rise. The Department of Justice department of Justice to help save the unique desert fish.
Carol Dirks
Pumps Stop for Nevada Pupfish
A few days ago, the Justice lawyers prevailed and a federal judge issued an injunction against the pumping. Result: The Age legal applause no longer faces extinction in a dry hole, although the court agreed to permit the next time they approach Caperton for campaign funds.
Errand Boy: The powerful chemical companies have a new errand boy on Capitol Hill. He is an aggressive, articulate freshman, Rep. Samuel H. Young, RI. who has put up a backstretch for the mayorhip and will designed to protect the health and environment from toxic substances.
Any substantial drop in the water level could end their ice Age lineage in a couple of days. Yet the water ornitomy began to slip lower two years ago as a result of dripping wells nearby for irrigation.
In his eagerness to do the chemical industry's bidding, he has made four separate attachments to a large number of substances. Each time, he has been rebuffed by his colleagues on the House Commerce and Finance departments.
Young didn't mention to his colleagues that his election campaign was heavily financed by chemical executives. Daniel J. Terra, president of Lawyer Hill, funneled $10,000 to Young's campaign through four separate campaign committees.
Foster McGaw, past president of American Hospital Supply, a firm with extensive chemical interests, gave $4,200 to Young through two separate committees.
Indeed, our investigation indicates Terra was the sole contributor to the "Youth for Young" committee. He was joined only by McGaw on two other dummy committees.
Hover's Hoard: An American art collector has bought at auction 50 items from J. Edgar Hover's britt-a-bra collection and then on them in tour to the Russian Union. On her lifetime adversary.
Young explained to us that he "was trying to keep a broad new law within proper lines." He had no contact regarding the legislation with his chemical contributors, he added.
In a letter to Soviet Culture Minister Yekaterina Furtseva, collector Robert Simmons of Washington conceded that the Russian anti-communist. At the same time, however, he was a warm and generous human being and, I am sure, would have been the latest developments in the field of cultural exchange."
The collection, which we have seen in part, ranges from a handsome chess set to a handmade basket of popcicle sticks. There is also a whiskey decanter shaped like a hand grenade and another that plays "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow." As Simmons
confided to Furtseva, it is "not one of the Old Masters (but) a cross-section of one man's taste."
Tower of Microwave: Joe Nadeen of Sacramento, a former Force radar technician, developed a device being exposed to microwave rays while he flew in electronic airplanes for nearly 10 years.
Since his 1966 retirement, he has won national recognition as the "Ralph Nader of
Microwaves." With the help of his wife, Dotty, he has deluged congressmen, newsmen and government officials with letters, taking them to look into the effects of microwaves on eyes.
The office of Sen. John Tunny credits Towne, in part, with inspiring the Senate's first critical ray effects and X-ray effects. Towne has forwarded to attending them. But he has been stricter with them.
The biggest challenge to the program was a sharp increase in food prices.
Between his circulatory and cataract problems, however, he was unable to fly to the hearings in the instrumental in recipienting.
coronary complication and the threat of amputation of both legs. He wonders if his circulatory problems couldn't also have been caused by radiation. Russian and German experts say, indicate this possibility.
Copyright, 1973.
Copyright, 1973 by United Feature Syndicate, Inc.
Congress passed legislation that gave Nixon standby powers to control wages, prices and rents in mid-August of 1970. But the House made it clear in February that he had no intention of using them.
Afterwards, when the administration moved to the mandatory control system known as Phase 2, prices began rising again.
Congress to Decide Fate Of Wage-Price Controls
The Economic Stabilization Act was born in the inflationary boom of late 1969 and early 1970, but it wasn't until the Democratic-controlled Congress to impose any kind of controls on wages, prices and rents until Aug. 15, 1971, when the White House reversed its economic policy.
Less than six months later.
Bv BILL NEIKIRK
The wage-price freeze dramatically slowed the rate of inflation during 90 days before it. But did it not halt all price increases. Raw products were expend, for example.
During the 14 months of Phase 2 ending in January, consumer prices went up by more than 3.5 per cent.
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — President Nixon now is pushing for extension of the wage-price control law that he battled in Congress three years ago, when he claimed that he would be the power and never would use it.
Congress is expected to complete action on a one-year extension of the law when it comes from its Easter recess today.
Unless Congress acts, the President's power to control wages and prices will expire at midnight today, necessitating abandonment of his largely intact system of economic restraints.
Congress approved the extension pretty much as Nixon requested, including the interest-sharing, which Nixon has not vet used.
In free wages, prices and rents in August, 1971, Nixon conceded that his old policies had not brought inflation under control nor cut the jobless rate. In September 1972, Economic Stabilization Act to April 30, 1973, and the power to control interest rates as well.
Nixon finally used the powers that Congress had given him.
to increase supplies by making far-reaching changes in government agricultural policy.
When Nixon requested the latest extension to April 30, 1974, he asked that Congress grant a waiver to mandate controls of its own. The measure got through the Senate in about the form that Nixon wanted, but the House opposed it. The amendments that would have forced Nixon to roll back prices to their March 16, 1973, levels. The President threatened to veto if the Provision finally was approved.
The original law provided that the President could stabilize wages, prices and rents at not less than their May 25, 1970, law. Law was being seriously debated in Congress at that time.
The House killed the rollback provisions just before Congress recessed for the Easter break, a transition to a conference committees.
James J. Kilpatrick
Paying the Ecological Price of Oil
Several provisions of the bill are opposed by the White House, but administration officials generally indicate they can live with the amendments tacked on by Congress.
WASHINGTON—One of Mr. Webster's definitions for "crisis" goes this way: "a paroxysal attack of pain, distress or disordered function." So defined, our nation is indeed experiencing an energy crisis. The condition is increasing and the crisis the can be overcome. All that is required is that we pay the price to meet it.
A part of this price can be reckoned quite simply in dollars. Congress almost certainly will approve the President's recommendation for the "deregulatory changes" to domestic natural gas. The price to gas consumers eventually will go up. The price of gasoline already is going up, and it will go much higher in coming months. We can look for higher rates on electric power as well. A massive shift in energy sources will have to be financed from public funds.
Another part of the price will have to be reckoned in discom-
fortable terms. It is not measureable risk—and it is this
part of the price that needs to be understood it might be called,
might be purposes, the ecological price.
The Trans-Alaska Pipeline must be built. That statement, it seems to me, has passed beyond opinion and become simple fact. Alaska's North Slope contains an estimated 10 billion barrels of proven reserves. Once the oil is wells have barriers a day can be moved; after five years, production will rise to an estimated 2 million
A second example: For at least the next 10 to 20 years, like it or not, we will have to put far greater reliance on coal than we currently do. Coal is by far the most abundant of our energy resources, yet it only covers 20 per cent of our energy demands. The trend against coal has been spurred in recent years as much research into the health specialists who have complained—rightly and properly—and the ravaging of our land and the pollution of our cities. It is not necessary to retreat from coal for the old days, but there must be some retreat; and it may be painful.
barreds a day. We have to have that oil—and the ecological price, painful and distressing as it may be, will have to be paid.
requirements from nuclear plants by 1985, and 60 per cent by the end of the century.
The President has called for tripling the acreage leased on the outer continental shelf for oil and gas drilling. By 1985, according to industry projections, this accelerated leasing program could increase annual production by an almost equal amount to an eventual need to have it; and we will have to accept the added risk of spall and sea pollution.
At present, only 30 nuclear power plants are in operation; they produce barely four per cent of electricity. The measurable truth is that we must have many more such plants, and we must move ahead rapidly with research in both nuclear fission and nuclear reactors. At the ecological price, we can obtain 25 per cent of electrical energy
The administration is most worried about a requirement that would force companies to make public disclosures of financial data when they raise prices by 1.5 per cent or more.
Now, none of these prospects is especially pleasant. Those who have fought so long for a better environment are bound to be dismayed at the thought of even a temporary change in their environment they have won or the alternatives, in my view, are unrealistic or dangerous.
The principal alternatives are a drastic reordering of our whole way of life, or a foolhardy reliance upon other nations. A compromise will compulsions scarcely imaginable in a free society, would require a
rationing of energy in the name of fuel conservation. Such a program might entail restrictions upon automobile use (or automobile horsepower), restrictions upon heating and air conditioning and severe backpacks. A greater dependence on foreign sources of energy would invite disaster.
Readers Respond Libertarianism
The anarchists, however, do not understand that for justice to
I welcome Nicholas von Hoffman to the libertarian movement and I believe his columns of April 1973 were a book read by reader into believing that libertarianism is synonymous with anarchism. It most
The President's program provides too little for research, especially in the areas where it is but otherwise it is both prudent and necessary. It is also painful and distressing, but the pain and distress can be borne.
A recent survey has shown that only 24 per cent of libertarians are anarchists whereas the rest are advocates of the limited government, which acts as fundamental to their beliefs the principle that sets liberarianism apart from all other political and economic systems—force may be used only in cases against those who initiate its use.
nast in society retaliatory force must be based upon objective law logically derived from the natural rights of man. For this purpose citizen delegate their responsibility to enforce their mission goal and purpose it is to protect their rights by formulating these laws and enforcing them impartially. This does not mean that a citizen may have the right to attack the street, but instead that he must be prepared to justify his action in a court of law. I hope this clarifies the distinction between anarchism and liberalism. I am looking for the basis on which the Kansan about the fast-growing libertarian movement.
To the Editor:
William G. White
Topeka Sophomore
The White House has indicated that it plans to take no further action on wage-price controls on completion of complete action on the extension.
How long the economic stabilization law will remain on the books is an open question, even with a one-year extension. It also needed Congress, delivered in January, Nixon said that 1973 could be a year in which the way became clear for ending wage-price controls. But so far, the administration has indicated that controls will be dropped altogether in the next year.
"It would be foolish if we tightened controls now and then wup on up May 16 to find out that the police at all, " one high official said.
(C) 1973 Washington Star Syndicate, Inc.