Evening star., 1952-12-01


1t made clear to all prospective
contributors that it did not i'm
pose any obligation upon Senator
Nixon, that it would be confined
to sums of $500 or less for each
person. and then outlined the
identical purposes for which the
fund was eventually used.
Z. Senator Nixon has not
been in Havana during the last
ten years. though it was widely
published that he had accom-
panied Dana Smith last April
when the latter was in Cuba.
Nor was Senator Nixon in
Miami with Dana Smith either
last year or any other year,
though this, too, was widely
published with the inference
that the Senator had been given
a paid vacation.
8. Untrue reports were pub
lished about the alleged wealth
of Senator Nixon's parents and
his brother. The total net worth
Of his parents after so years Of
toll Is estimated today as not
in excess Of $4,000.
The upshot Of it all is that
Senator Nixon's records are
clean and the statements he
made over the television are
100 per cent accurate. The
money he had saved out of his
salary and from speech-making
and previous law practice was
enough to make the down pay
ment of $4,000 on his house.
The whole financial setup checks
exactly with the revelations
made in his television-radio
speech
Certainly the character assas-
sination job done on Senator
Nixon during the recent cam
paign, including the use Of
forged aff1davits, shopping tao
tics among his neighbors, and
annoyances to his parents, Is
one of the most reprehensible
attacks ever made on a public
man and doubtless some of the
anirnus arose because he tracked
down Alger. Hiss as a liar and
a Communist stooge.
But, it will be asked, was the
special fund" proper or ethical?
Senator Nixon answers this way:
Unless one is rich, he cannot stay
in public Office without contribu-
tions both before and after his
campaigns. Whether such con-
tributions are.wrong when made
after election but proper when
made before election is some
thing that has never been re-
solved by either the Democratic
or Republican Parties. Adlai
Stevenson admitted publicly last
September that, apart from his
fund when running for gov
ernor, used for State officials,
he had two special funds, name
ly in the years 1850 and 1851
years when he was not a can
didate himself. He never has
disclosed the names Of the con-
tributors or the amounts con-
tributed to these two funds
which he calls political funds"
or how they were expended for
the years 1850 and 1851. Nor
is there any legal reason why
he should have done so.
None Of these special funds
Gov. Stevenson's or Senator
Nixon's-can be considered i'm
proper or unethical as long as a
system of individual contribu-
tions Is the accepted practice in
American politics. For II a can
didate who wins Office is COM
promised by the funds raised
after his election, he Is equally
beholden to his campaign con-
tributors who made their con-
tributions before his election.
To accuse without specific
proof anyone in public office of
being improperly influenced to
render special favors as a con-
sequence of contributions Of
money or anything of value
whether made during or after
q campaign is to libel both the
contributor and the recipient,
and the courts have been known
to award damages when false
charges are made.
Reproduction Rights Reserved.)