Archibald Cox: 'I'm certainly not out to get the President of the United States', Press conference, Pre Saturday Night Massacre - 1973

20 October 1973, Washington DC, USA

Archibald Cox was the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate break-and subsequent cover up. He obtained a court order for the Nixon White House tapes, with which Nixon refused to comply with. Instead, Nixon offered the 'Stennis Compromise', a summary of the tapes made by an independent (and apparently hard of hearing!) Senator Stennis. The Saturday Night Massacre followed, as the Attorney General and Deputy AG refused to fire Cox. The third AG in line did fire Cox  The Saturday Night Massacre and this brilliantly worded press conference arguably changed public opinion on Watergate, and set the trajectory towards impeachment.

I'm not looking for a confrontation. I've worried a good deal through my life about problems of imposing too much strain upon our constitutional institutions, and I'm certainly not out to get the President of the United States.

As you all know, there has been and is evidence—not proof, perhaps, in some instances, but clearly primafacie evidence—of serious wrongdoing on the part of high Government officials, wrongdoing involving an effort to cover up other wrongdoing.

It appeared that the papers, documents and recordings of conversations in the White House, including the tapes, would be relevant to getting the truth about these incidents.

I'm referring not only to the Watergate incident itself, but to other things involving electronic surveillance, breakins at a doctor's office and the like.

Last night we were told that the court order would not be obeyed, that the papers, memoranda and documents of that kind would not be provided at all. And that, instead of the tapes, a summary of what they showed would be provided.

I think it is my duty as the special prosecutor, as an officer of the court and as the representative of the grand jury, to bring to the court's attention what seems to me to be noncompliance with the court's order.

You will say, “Well, so far as the tapes are concerned, forget legalisms. Isn't this a pretty good practical arrangement?” I find four, to my way of thinking, insuperable difficulties with it.

Compromise Not Enough

First, when criminal wrongdoing is the subject of investigation, and when one of those subjects is obstruction of justice in the form of a cover‐up, then it seems to me it is simply not enough to make a compromise in which the real evidence is available only to two or three men operating in secrecy, all but one of them the aides to the President and men who have been associated with those who are, the subject of the investigation.

It's not a question of Senator Stennis's integrity. I have no doubt at all of Senator Stennis's personal integrity. But it seems to me that it's the kind of question where it is terribly important to adhere to the established institutions and not to accommedate it by some private arrangement involving as I say,, submitting the dence ultimately to any one man.

My second difficulty is that I will not know, and no one else will know, what stand, ards have been applied in deciding what to exclude from the summary.

For example, when I give you the various written proposals and comments that were exchanged, you will find that it is contemplated that there will be omitted references to matters related to the national defense or foreign policy whose disclosure would do real harm.

I'm very troubled by the lack of precision on those standards. We all know from matters that have been published that the Ellsberg‐Fielding break‐in was described as matters affecting the national defense, and that the tapping of William Safire's and John Sears' telephones was apparently treated as a national security matter.

Those certainly raise very serious questions as to whether criminal wrongdoing was not involved, Also, I must emphasize that I do not prejudge it; I just say they raise serious questions.

Doubt as to Evidence

My third reason for thinking that, as a practical matter, I, as charged with prosecuting violations, could not regard the arrangement as satisfactory is that it's most unlikely—I don't go beyond that — most unlikely that a summary of the tapes would be admissible in evidence.

It would be satisfactory for the purposes of a grand jury, I think, but I'm thinking of the actual conduct of a trial. And if that was all that was available—and I was given to understand that the tapes would never be available under any circumstances—then I would be left without the evidence with which to prosecute people whom I had used the summaries, perhaps, to indict.

Similarly, you have all read of cases in which those who have been charged with wrongdoing have said that they need the tapes in order to make their defenses. Again, it seems to most unlikely that a summary would be accepted by the defendants or that a court would regard it as sufficient. And that could very well mean that those prosecutions would have to be dropped.

The other main part of the President's statement last night said that. I would be instructed not to use the judicial process in order to obtain tapes, documents, memoranda relating to other Presidential, conversations. This instructs me not to pursue what, would be the normal course of, a prosecutor's duty in conducting this kind of investigation.

And think the instructions are inconsistent with pledges that were made to the United States Senate and through the Senate to the American people before I was appointed and before Attorney General Richardson's nomination was confirmed.

If you go through the hearings you will find repeated pledges by both of us that I should have complete independence to decide how, to conduct these irivestigations and prosecutions and particularly to plead independence in determining what evidende to see.

There were also specific references to executive privilege and pledges by me and by the Attorney General that I not only would, in his view, be free to contest, but on my promise, to the, Senate that I would contest claims of executive privilege where I thought the evidence was material.

Guidelines Are Cited

This was finally summarized in the so‐called guidelines and the departmental order put out by the Attorney General. It reads:

“The Attorney General will not countermand or interfere with the speeial prosecutor's decisions or actions.

“The special prosecutor will determine whether and to what extent he will inform or consult with the Attorney General about the conduct of his duties and responsibilities.

“The special prosecutor will not be removed from his duties [except] for extraordinary improprieties on his part.”

The incidents of last night: need to be viewed against two things: One is, the whole problem of obtaining information for this investigation; and the other is the immediate discussions that took place between me and various representatives of the President.

It's my characterization, but all I can say is that my efforts to get information, beginning in May, have been the subject of repeated frustration.

This is a very special investigation in some ways. The problem is unique because nearly all the evidence bearing not only on the Watergate incident and the alleged cover‐up, but on the activities of the “plumbers” and other things of that kind, is in the White House papers and files. And unless you have access to those, you're not able to get the normal kind of information that a prosecutor must seek.

You will recall that the papers of many White House aides—Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Krogh, Young, Dean and others—were taken into custody and they're in a special room.

Taken Out of Files

And many of their papers were taken out of the usual files and put in something special called Presidential files.

Back in June, early June if my memory is right, I asked that an inventory be made of those papers.

I've never gotten it. I was told orally over the telephone a short time ago—I don't mean in connection with the current incidents but a few weeks ago—that the inventory would not be furnished.

There have been other papers that we've sought to get and while I must say I've been told I would receive them, the delays have been extraordinary.

For example, I asked for all kinds of logs of many principal names in these incidents and I was promised them back in June. I still haven't got the logs of meetings of the President with such people as Chapin, Colson, Gray, Hunt, Kleindienst, Krogh, Larue, Liddy, Strachan or Young. I hope our records are accurate.

There are many pending letter requests. And I can't help reading the instruction not to seek subpoenas against that background, even though the instruction as it's written refers only to things referring to Presidential conversations. And I think I'm entitled to suggest that the thing should be judged against that background.

You will remember that the Court of Appeals, after oral, argument and before it rendered its decision, suggested that there be an effort to reach a mutually satisfactory accommodation in which the President or his representative and I would agree what part of the tapes should be made available to the grand jury and what parts should not be.

I did submit a fairly carefully drafted six ‐ or seven‐page proposed, procedure for resolving these questions.

The end of last week the Attorney General and I were in touch with each other. We had several candid, frank and very friendly conversations.

The conversations ended in a document headed “A Proposal.” It set forth a plan, somewhat like what was announced yesterday and last night, except that it was in more contingent form and I think it was meant to leave room for discussion.

I wrote him on Oct. 10 in a paper called “Comments on a Proposal.”

‘Charlie’ on the Phone

Thursday night, if my memory is correct, I received word that I was to call Marshall Wright at the White House in General Haig's office. Marshall Wright turned out to be Charlie when he came on the phone, and he quickly acknowledged that he was Charlie. And he referred to my comments, said that there were four stipulations that he must make that would be essential to any agreement.

And, as I understood him, he said, “You won't agree to these.” Indeed, the impression I got — and I want to make it clear that it was my impression; maybe there are tapes that would verify my impression or maybe my impression is wrong — but it was my impression that I was being confronted with things that were drawn in such a way that I could not accept them.

I then went on and suggested, “Why don't you dictate what the four points are and I can look at them tomorrow morning and then give you a reply.” And we will give you his letter, which I received, my response, and then one final letter which suggested that I had misunderstood the scope of some of the things he said. That came at 23 minutes past 5 yesterday. My letter was delivered to him about 10 o'clock. There was ample time to explain if I had misunderstood anything of critical importance.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q. Mr. Cox you would seem to be in what we call a nonviable position now. Are you going to wait for the President to dismiss you? A. I'm going to go about my duties on the terms on which I assumed them.

Q. What do you consider to be the state of the case now and if you will go into court, what court and what will you say?

A. It is my intention, with reference to the order of the Court of Appeals and the district court, to call to the attention of one or the other, and I'm not sure yet which is correct, the fact that the papers, documents and other things subpoenaed are being refused and that the order to deliver the tapes is subject to some particular reservations, is certainly not being satisfied. Also, I would also add that a summary is being offered and would express the opinion that that was not adequate.

One form of procedure would be to seek an order to show cause why the respondent should not be adjudicated guilty of contempt. I think it may also be possible and perhaps might be preferable to seek a further order clarifying any possible doubt resulting from the President's statement last night.

Q. Senator Cox, is not your intention in direct conflict with the President's orders to you, and if it is and you're fired by the end of this news conference, what happens then?

A. Well, I— there are a number of other technical questions, I was appointed by the Attorney General Under the statutes the Attorney General and those to whom he delegates authority are in charge of all litigation, including the obtaining of evidence.

I think there is a question whether anyone other than the Attorney General can give me any instructions that I have any legal obligation to obey.

Dealt With Buzhardt

Second, under the Constitution, and the statutes, there are instances in which not the President but departmental heads make appointments.

And I would think that was a proper inference that where departmental heads are authorized by statute to make appointments that the same departmental heads are the only ones who can make dismissals.

Q. I believe you said you were told orally that you would not be receiving the logs that you asked for or at least the inventory of the papers that you requested. Just to clear that up, who told you orally that you would not?

A. I've been dealing Fred Buzhardt, and I may say, too, that he has behaved in dealing with me in an entirely honorable way, except he's too damn slow.

Q. Mr. Cox, I think, you believe that Attorney General Richardson will not fire you.

A. He may. You know, I'm not saying that no one can fire me. Of course, eventually, there are ways of firing me. I don't know what Attorney Richardson will do.

Now, eventually, a President can always work his will. You remember when Andrew Jackson wanted to take the deposits from the Bank of the United States and his Secretary of the Treasury wouldn't do it. He fired him and then he appointed a new Secretary of the Treasury and he wouldn't do it, and he fired him. And finally he got a third who would. That's one way of proceeding.

Q. Mr. Cox, could you just specify for us what the memoranda, papers and documents are that you're not going to get—characterize them in some way to indicate what they are.

Memorandum by Nixon

A. Well, the ones that I am most aware of are notes that would have been made by John Ehrlichman on every conversation in which he participated. Now this would be important in case any part of the tapes was inaudible or garbled in some way. Or if it was ambiguous. It's quite possible that those notes not only set forth his understanding of what was agreed upon, what was to be done, but would give some background of the knowledge which he had against which they were to be read.

Another example Is—I don't know, and that's why you issue subpoenas—but I have reason to believe that, in addition to the conversation with John Dean on April 15, there is a memorandum of that conversation dictated by the President himself. That would give his understanding in the event that any part of it should be inaudible or ambiguous or something of that kind.

Q. Mr. Cox, when do you expect to go to court, whatever court it is you go to?

A. Well, promptly. I mean, as fast as we can be sure that we're right.

Q. Would this coming week be a fair guess? A. It's certainly a fair guess. Certainly I would hope to.

Q. How could you expect to succeed in this job? How could you expect to succeed? A. Well, I thought it was worth a try. I thought it was important. If it mild be done, I thought it would help the country. And if I lost, what the hell!

Q. Mr. Cox, there was a lot of talk this week by Republicans on the Hill that, if the President defies a Supreme Court order to give up the tapes, that then he would likely be impeached, or an impeachment action would begin. Do you regard him as of this moment in defiance of an appeals court order—a definitive appeals court order?

Determination for Court

A. In my view, the President has stated that he would not comply with the appeals court order. That is my view. I think it so likely that he is not in compliance that it is my duty to present the question to the court. It would then be for the court to make the determination. I'm not the last word, thank God!

Q. Mr. Cox, should you he removed from office, would Judge Sirica or the appeals court have the authority to move on their own in an attempt to force the President to release the tapes?

A. I think that the answer is a “Very probably, yes.” It is even possible that I could be appointed counsel to the grand jury or he court for that purpose!

But don't carry that too far. The thought went through my mind, And then I also concluded that—no, I think that would be of very doubtful propriety because it would then turn what ought to be a question of principle into something that somebody would look on as a personal fight—and I don't think this is a question of personalities.

Q. Mr. Cox, have you been in touch with anyone, directly or indirectly, who might be a representative for the White House, within the past, say, 12 hours, concerning your future tenure in your present job?

A. I talked to the Attorney General on the phone five seconds before I came into the room. It had nothing to do with my future tenure; it was, again, a purely friendly conversation.

At the end of the press conference, reporter Helen Thomas stood up and called out, '"You're a great American Mr. Cox."

Listen to the Watergate podcast Slow Burn, by Slate Plus  - it's incredible.

Richard Nixon: 'There can be no whitewash at the White House', First Watergate speech - 1973

30 April 1973, White House, Washington DC, USA

Good evening:

I want to talk to you tonight from my heart on a subject of deep concern to every American.

In recent months, members of my Administration and officials of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, including some of my closest friends and most trusted aides, have been charged with involvement in what has come to be known as the Watergate affair. These include charges of illegal activity during and preceding the 1972 Presidential election and charges that responsible officials participated in efforts to cover up that illegal activity.

The inevitable result of these charges has been to raise serious questions about the integrity of the White House itself. Tonight I wish to address those questions.

Last June 17, while I was in Florida trying to get a few days rest after my visit to Moscow, I first learned from news reports of the Watergate break-in. I was appalled at this senseless, illegal action. And I was shocked to learn that employees of the Re-Election Committee were apparently among those guilty. I immediately ordered an investigation by appropriate Government authorities. On September 15, as you will recall, indictments were brought against seven defendants in the case.

As the investigations went forward, I repeatedly asked those conducting the investigation whether there was any reason to believe that members of my Administration were in any way involved. I received repeated assurances that there were not. Because of these continuing reassurances, because I believed the reports I was getting, because I had faith in the persons from whom I was getting them, I discounted the stories in the press that appeared to implicate members of my Administration or other officials of the campaign committee.

Until March of this year, I remained convinced that the denials were true and that the charges of involvement by members of the White House Staff were false. The comments I made during this period, and the comments made by my Press Secretary in my behalf, were based on the information provided to us at the time we made those comments. However, new information then came to me which persuaded me that there was a real possibility that some of these charges were true, and suggesting further that there had been an effort to conceal the facts both from the public, from you, and from me.

As a result, on March 21, I personally assumed the responsibility for coordinating intensive new inquiries into the matter, and I personally ordered those conducting the investigations to get all the facts and to report them directly to me, right here in this office.

I again ordered that all persons in the Government or at the Re-Election Committee should cooperate fully with the FBI, the prosecutors, and the grand jury. I also ordered that anyone who refused to cooperate in telling the truth would be asked to resign from Government service. And, with ground rules adopted that would preserve the basic constitutional separation of powers between the Congress and the Presidency, I directed that members of the White House Staff should appear and testify voluntarily under oath before the Senate committee which was investigating Watergate.

I was determined that we should get to the bottom of the matter, and that the truth should be fully brought out, no matter who was involved. At the same time, I was determined not to take precipitate action and to avoid, if at all possible, any action that would appear to reflect on innocent people. I wanted to be fair. But I knew that in the final analysis, the integrity of this office, public faith in the integrity of this office, would have to take priority over all personal considerations.

Today, in one of the most difficult decisions of my Presidency, I accepted the resignations of two of my closest associates in the White House, Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, two of the finest public servants it has been my privilege to know. I want to stress that in accepting these resignations, I mean to leave no implication whatever of personal wrongdoing on their part, and I leave no implication tonight of implication on the part of others who have been charged in this matter. But in matters as sensitive as guarding the integrity of our democratic process, it is essential not only that rigorous legal and ethical standards be observed but also that the public, you, have total confidence that they are both being observed and enforced by those in authority and particularly by the President of the United States. They agreed with me that this move was necessary in order to restore that confidence.

Because Attorney General Kleindienst, though a distinguished public servant, my personal friend for 20 years, with no personal involvement whatever in this matter, has been a close personal and professional associate of some of those who are involved in this case, he and I both felt that it was also necessary to name a new Attorney General.

The Counsel to the President, John Dean, has also resigned.

As the new Attorney General, I have today named Elliot Richardson, a man of unimpeachable integrity and rigorously high principle. I have directed him to do everything necessary to ensure that the Department of Justice has the confidence and the trust of every law-abiding person in this country.

I have given him absolute authority to make all decisions bearing upon the prosecution of the Watergate case and related matters. I have instructed him that if he should consider it appropriate, he has the authority to name a special supervising prosecutor for matters arising out of the case.

Whatever may appear to have been the case before, whatever improper activities may yet be discovered in connection with this whole sordid affair, I want the American people, I want you to know beyond the shadow of a doubt that during my term as President, justice will be pursued fairly, fully, and impartially, no matter who is involved. This office is a sacred trust and I am determined to be worthy of that trust.

Looking back at the history of this case, two questions arise: How could it have happened? Who is to blame?

Political commentators have correctly observed that during my 27 years in politics I have always previously insisted on running my own campaigns for office.

But 1972 presented a very different situation. In both domestic and foreign policy, 1972 was a year of crucially important decisions, of intense negotiations, of vital new directions, particularly in working toward the goal which has been my overriding concern throughout my political career, the goal of bringing peace to America, peace to the world.

That is why I decided, as the 1972 campaign approached, that the Presidency should come first and politics second. To the maximum extent possible, therefore, I sought to delegate campaign operations, to remove the day-to-day campaign decisions from the President's office and from the White House. I also, as you recall, severely limited the number of my own campaign appearances.

Who, then, is to blame for what happened in this case? For specific criminal actions by specific individuals, those who committed those actions must, of course, bear the liability and pay the penalty.

For the fact that alleged improper actions took place within the White House or within my campaign organization, the easiest course would be for me to blame those to whom I delegated the responsibility to run the campaign. But that would be a cowardly thing to do.

I will not place the blame on subordinates, on people whose zeal exceeded their judgment and who may have done wrong in a cause they deeply believed to be right.

In any organization, the man at the top must bear the responsibility. That responsibility, therefore, belongs here, in this office. I accept it. And I pledge to you tonight, from this office, that I will do everything in my power to ensure that the guilty are brought to justice and that such abuses are purged from our political processes in the years to come, long after I have left this office.

Some people, quite properly appalled at the abuses that occurred, will say that Watergate demonstrates the bankruptcy of the American political system. I believe precisely the opposite is true. Watergate represented a series of illegal acts and bad judgments by a number of individuals. It was the system that has brought the facts to light and that will bring those guilty to justice, a system that in this case has included a determined grand jury, honest prosecutors, a courageous judge, John Sirica, and a vigorous free press.

It is essential now that we place our faith in that system and especially in the judicial system. It is essential that we let the judicial process go forward, respecting those safeguards that are established to protect the innocent as well as to convict the guilty. It is essential that in reacting to the excesses of others, we not fall into excesses ourselves.

It is also essential that we not be so distracted by events such as this that we neglect the vital work before us, before this Nation, before America, at a time of critical importance to America and the world.

Since March, when I first learned that the Watergate affair might in fact be far more serious than I had been led to believe, it has claimed far too much of my time and my attention.

Whatever may now transpire in the case, whatever the actions of the grand jury, whatever the outcome of any eventual trials, I must now turn my full attention, and I shall do so, once again to the larger duties of this office. I owe it to this great office that I hold, and I owe it to you, to my country.

I know that as Attorney General, Elliot Richardson will be both fair and he will be fearless in pursuing this case wherever it leads. I am confident that with him in charge, justice will be done.

There is vital work to be done toward our goal of a lasting structure of peace in the world, work that cannot wait, work that I must do.

Tomorrow, for example, Chancellor Brandt of West Germany will visit the White House for talks that are a vital element of The Year of Europe, as 1973 has been called. We are already preparing for the next Soviet-American summit meeting later this year.

This is also a year in which we are seeking to negotiate a mutual and balanced reduction of armed forces in Europe, which will reduce our defense budget and allow us to have funds for other purposes at home so desperately needed. It is the year when the United States and Soviet negotiators will seek to work out the second and even more important round of our talks on limiting nuclear arms and of reducing the danger of a nuclear war that would destroy civilization as we know it. It is a year in which we confront the difficult tasks of maintaining peace in Southeast Asia and in the potentially explosive Middle East.

There is also vital work to be done right here in America: to ensure prosperity, and that means a good job for everyone who wants to work; to control inflation, that I know worries every housewife, everyone who tries to balance a family budget in America; to set in motion new and better ways of ensuring progress toward a better life for all Americans.

When I think of this office of what it means, I think of all the things that I want to accomplish for this Nation, of all the things I want to accomplish for you.

On Christmas Eve, during my terrible personal ordeal of the renewed bombing of North Vietnam, which after twelve years of war finally helped to bring America peace with honor, I sat down just before midnight. I wrote out some of my goals for my second term as President. Let me read them to you.

To make it possible for our children, and for our children's children, to live in a world of peace.

To make this country be more than ever a land of opportunity, of equal opportunity, full opportunity for every American.

To provide jobs for all who can work, and generous help for those who cannot work.

To establish a climate of decency and civility, in which each person respects the feelings and the dignity and the God-given rights of his neighbor.

To make this a land in which each person can dare to dream, can live his dreams, not in fear but in hope, proud of his community, proud of his country, proud of what America has meant to himself and to the world.

These are great goals. I believe we can, we must work for them. We can achieve them. But we cannot achieve these goals unless we dedicate ourselves to another goal. We must maintain the integrity of the White House, and that integrity must be real, not transparent.

There can be no whitewash at the White House.

We must reform our political process, ridding it not only of the violations of the law but also of the ugly mob violence and other inexcusable campaign tactics that have been too often practiced and too readily accepted in the past, including those that may have been a response by one side to the excesses or expected excesses of the other side. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I have been in public life for more than a quarter of a century. Like any other calling, politics has good people and bad people. And let me tell you, the great majority in politics in the Congress, in the Federal Government, in the State government, are good people. I know that it can be very easy, under the intensive pressures of a campaign, for even well-intentioned people to fall into shady tactics, to rationalize this on the grounds that what is at stake is of such importance to the Nation that the end justifies the means. And both of our great parties have been guilty of such tactics in the past.

In recent years, however, the campaign excesses that have occurred on all sides have provided a sobering demonstration of how far this false doctrine can take us. The lesson is clear. America, in its political campaigns, must not again fall into the trap of letting the end, however great that end is, justify the means.

I urge the leaders of both political parties, I urge citizens, all of you, everywhere, to join in working toward a new set of standards, new rules and procedures to ensure that future elections will be as nearly free of such abuses as they possibly can be made. This is my goal. I ask you to join in making it America's goal.

When I was inaugurated for a second time this past January 20, I gave each member of my Cabinet and each member of my senior White House Staff a special 4-year calendar, with each day marked to show the number of days remaining to the Administration. In the inscription on each calendar, I wrote these words:

The Presidential term which begins today consists of 1,461 days. No more, no less. Each can be a day of strengthening and renewal for America; each can add depth and dimension to the American experience.

If we strive together, if we make the most of the challenge and the opportunity that these days offer us, they can stand out as great days for America, and great moments in the history of the world.

I looked at my own calendar this morning up at Camp David as I was working on this speech. It showed exactly 1,361 days remaining in my term. I want these to be the best days in America's history, because I love America. I deeply believe that America is the hope of the world. And I know that in the quality and wisdom of the leadership America gives lies the only hope for millions of people all over the world that they can live their lives in peace and freedom. We must be worthy of that hope, in every sense of the word.

Tonight, I ask for your prayers to help me in everything that I do throughout the days of my Presidency to be worthy of their hopes and of yours.

God bless America and God bless each and every one of you.

Richard Nixon: 'I have never been a quitter', Resignation speech - 1974

8 August 1974, Oval Office, Washington DC, USA

Good evening.

This is the 37th time I have spoken to you from this office, where so many decisions have been made that shaped the history of this Nation. Each time I have done so to discuss with you some matter that I believe affected the national interest.

In all the decisions I have made in my public life, I have always tried to do what was best for the Nation. Throughout the long and difficult period of Watergate, I have felt it was my duty to persevere, to make every possible effort to complete the term of office to which you elected me.

In the past few days, however, it has become evident to me that I no longer have a strong enough political base in the Congress to justify continuing that effort. As long as there was such a base, I felt strongly that it was necessary to see the constitutional process through to its conclusion, that to do otherwise would be unfaithful to the spirit of that deliberately difficult process and a dangerously destabilizing precedent for the future.

But with the disappearance of that base, I now believe that the constitutional purpose has been served, and there is no longer a need for the process to be prolonged.

I would have preferred to carry through to the finish whatever the personal agony it would have involved, and my family unanimously urged me to do so. But the interest of the Nation must always come before any personal considerations.

From the discussions I have had with Congressional and other leaders, I have concluded that because of the Watergate matter I might not have the support of the Congress that I would consider necessary to back the very difficult decisions and carry out the duties of this office in the way the interests of the Nation would require.

I have never been a quitter. To leave office before my term is completed is abhorrent to every instinct in my body. But as President, I must put the interest of America first. America needs a full-time President and a full-time Congress, particularly at this time with problems we face at home and abroad.

To continue to fight through the months ahead for my personal vindication would almost totally absorb the time and attention of both the President and the Congress in a period when our entire focus should be on the great issues of peace abroad and prosperity without inflation at home.

Therefore, I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow. Vice President Ford will be sworn in as President at that hour in this office.

As I recall the high hopes for America with which we began this second term, I feel a great sadness that I will not be here in this office working on your behalf to achieve those hopes in the next 21/2 years. But in turning over direction of the Government to Vice President Ford, I know, as I told the Nation when I nominated him for that office 10 months ago, that the leadership of America will be in good hands.

In passing this office to the Vice President, I also do so with the profound sense of the weight of responsibility that will fall on his shoulders tomorrow and, therefore, of the understanding, the patience, the cooperation he will need from all Americans.

As he assumes that responsibility, he will deserve the help and the support of all of us. As we look to the future, the first essential is to begin healing the wounds of this Nation, to put the bitterness and divisions of the recent past behind us, and to rediscover those shared ideals that lie at the heart of our strength and unity as a great and as a free people.

By taking this action, I hope that I will have hastened the start of that process of healing which is so desperately needed in America.

I regret deeply any injuries that may have been done in the course of the events that led to this decision. I would say only that if some of my Judgments were wrong, and some were wrong, they were made in what I believed at the time to be the best interest of the Nation.

To those who have stood with me during these past difficult months, to my family, my friends, to many others who joined in supporting my cause because they believed it was right, I will be eternally grateful for your support.

And to those who have not felt able to give me your support, let me say I leave with no bitterness toward those who have opposed me, because all of us, in the final analysis, have been concerned with the good of the country, however our judgments might differ.

So, let us all now join together in affirming that common commitment and in helping our new President succeed for the benefit of all Americans.

I shall leave this office with regret at not completing my term, but with gratitude for the privilege of serving as your President for the past 51/2 years. These years have been a momentous time in the history of our Nation and the world. They have been a time of achievement in which we can all be proud, achievements that represent the shared efforts of the Administration, the Congress, and the people.

But the challenges ahead are equally great, and they, too, will require the support and the efforts of the Congress and the people working in cooperation with the new Administration.

We have ended America's longest war, but in the work of securing a lasting peace in the world, the goals ahead are even more far-reaching and more difficult. We must complete a structure of peace so that it will be said of this generation, our generation of Americans, by the people of all nations, not only that we ended one war but that we prevented future wars.

We have unlocked the doors that for a quarter of a century stood between the United States and the People's Republic of China.

We must now ensure that the one quarter of the world's people who live in the People's Republic of China will be and remain not our enemies but our friends.

In the Middle East, 100 million people in the Arab countries, many of whom have considered us their enemy for nearly 20 years, now look on us as their friends. We must continue to build on that friendship so that peace can settle at last over the Middle East and so that the cradle of civilization will not become its grave.

Together with the Soviet Union we have made the crucial breakthroughs that have begun the process of limiting nuclear arms. But we must set as our goal not just limiting but reducing and finally destroying these terrible weapons so that they cannot destroy civilization and so that the threat of nuclear war will no longer hang over the world and the people.

We have opened the new relation with the Soviet Union. We must continue to develop and expand that new relationship so that the two strongest nations of the world will live together in cooperation rather than confrontation.

Around the world, in Asia, in Africa, in Latin America, in the Middle East, there are millions of people who live in terrible poverty, even starvation. We must keep as our goal turning away from production for war and expanding production for peace so that people everywhere on this earth can at last look forward in their children's time, if not in our own time, to having the necessities for a decent life.

Here in America, we are fortunate that most of our people have not only the blessings of liberty but also the means to live full and good and, by the world's standards, even abundant lives. We must press on, however, toward a goal of not only more and better jobs but of full opportunity for every American and of what we are striving so hard right now to achieve, prosperity without inflation.

For more than a quarter of a century in public life I have shared in the turbulent history of this era. I have fought for what I believed in. I have tried to the best of my ability to discharge those duties and meet those responsibilities that were entrusted to me.

Sometimes I have succeeded and sometimes I have failed, but always I have taken heart from what Theodore Roosevelt once said about the man in the arena, "whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again because there is not effort without error and shortcoming, but who does actually strive to do the deed, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumphs of high achievements and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly."

I pledge to you tonight that as long as I have a breath of life in my body, I shall continue in that spirit. I shall continue to work for the great causes to which I have been dedicated throughout my years as a Congressman, a Senator, a Vice President, and President, the cause of peace not just for America but among all nations, prosperity, justice, and opportunity for all of our people.

There is one cause above all to which I have been devoted and to which I shall always be devoted for as long as I live.

When I first took the oath of office as President 51/2 years ago, I made this sacred commitment, to "consecrate my office, my energies, and all the wisdom I can summon to the cause of peace among nations."

I have done my very best in all the days since to be true to that pledge. As a result of these efforts, I am confident that the world is a safer place today, not only for the people of America but for the people of all nations, and that all of our children have a better chance than before of living in peace rather than dying in war.

This, more than anything, is what I hoped to achieve when I sought the Presidency. This, more than anything, is what I hope will be my legacy to you, to our country, as I leave the Presidency.

To have served in this office is to have felt a very personal sense of kinship with each and every American. In leaving it, I do so with this prayer: May God's grace be with you in all the days ahead.

NOTE: The President spoke at 9: 01 p.m. in the Oval Office at the White House. The address was broadcast live on radio and television.