News stories from Saturday January 20, 1973
Summaries of the stories the major media outlets considered to be of particular importance on this date:
- President Nixon opened his second term with an appeal to the nation and the world for greater self-reliance "as we stand on the threshold of a new era of peace." His inauguration ceremony today mingled the martial spirit of brass bands and cannon, the prayers of clergymen and the distant shouts of antiwar protesters. The President's inaugural address omitted the words "Vietnam" and "Indochina," but gave assurance that "America's longest and most difficult war" was ending. [New York Times]
- Like Gaul, Washington was divided into three parts on Inauguration Day. One part joyously celebrated, another stridently protested, and the other stoically ignored the President's $4 million second-term inauguration ceremonies. When the President, the Vice President and the rest of the official party arrived one of the three Washingtons was happy. As Chief Justice Warren Burger began administering the oath to the President, another Washington began to identify itself. Two antiwar groups shouted "Murderer" as the affirmation was read. And blacks in Washington and many whites in the suburbs were indifferent to the ceremonies.
As official Washington celebrated the inauguration, thousands of dissenters demonstrated their disaffection with marches, placards and rallies. Except for minor scuffles and a few arrests, the demonstrations were generally orderly. The turnout at the day's major demonstration -- one of three scheduled to coincide with the swearing-in ceremony at the Capitol -- lived up to its organizers' expectations, drawing, according to the National Park police, 60,000 participants. About 2,500 members of Vietnam veterans groups against the war joined the principal demonstration, which was sponsored by two antiwar coalitions.
[New York Times] - Members of the Congress that has challenged President Nixon to share governmental authority fidgeted through the inauguration and then applauded its theme, but pleaded for specifics of his program. "It was a fine speech," Representative Wright Patman, Democrat of Texas, said in a symptomatic reaction. "It included many inspiring things, some of which were first said by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, and John F. Kennedy in 1961." Fewer than half of the 435 members of the House of Representatives and the 100 members of the Senate took their places on the Capitol steps to witness Mr. Nixon's recitation of the Presidential oath of office. [New York Times]
- Gen. Alexander Haig conferred for half an hour with President Nguyen Van Thieu and then left Saigon for South Korea. Shortly after General Haig's departure, according to a South Vietnamese official, President Thieu ordered Foreign Minister Tran Van Lam to go to Paris on Sunday by the first available flight. The official said he did not know the reason for Mr. Lam's trip, but added that Mr. Lam "has been very buoyant these last few days -- he seems to feel he is going to be passing into history." [New York Times]
- Heavy fighting was reported in two regions of South Vietnam today as government troops battled with the enemy to improve positions before a cease-fire. The South Vietnamese command said that 421 enemy soldiers had been killed since the fighting began on Thursday near the demilitarized zone and in the Saigon River corridor far to the south. During the same period, ended at noon today, the South Vietnamese said their losses were 57 killed and 157 wounded in the two areas. [New York Times]
- A group of scientists has warned against scrapping a controversial law that prohibits the use of cancer-causing food additives. If anything, they said, the law should be expanded to include cancer-causing chemicals in air, water and other aspects of the human environment. Their conclusion comes at a time when the food and chemical industries and the Nixon admnistration are pushing for revocation or major revision of the law, known as the "Delaney clause," on the ground that it is "unscientific" and out of line with current scientific knowledge. [New York Times]