Evening star., 1945-12-14

VI WSCf AttOfkCV aCtC5ut w A~
liam D. Mitchell, resigning as
chief counsel for the Pearl Har-
Dor Investigating Committee,
read this statement at the open
ing OF the hearing today:
The point we have reached in the
hearing makes it evident that a
complete replacement of the COM
mittee's legal staff is necessary.
The committee began its hearings
November Is and has been sitting
regularly for a month, including all
Saturdays but one. During that Pc
riod only eight witnesses have been
completely examined and we esti-
mate that as the field of inquiry by
committee members has widened
out and new witnesses have been
added to the list, there remain at
least 60 witnesses to be examined.
Many of these witnesses are quite
as crucial as those who have testi-
fed. At the rate of progress during
the past month, 1T seems certain
that several more months of hear
LlSS Will De required.
Counted on Time Limit.
When I undertook to serve the
committee as chief counsel, I be-
lieved that my services would not
be needed beyond early January.
This resulted from several factors:
I had and still have a definite
conviction that the real purpose of
this committee was to present facts
which would permit final answer
to this basic question: Who was re-
Sponsible for the failure of our forces
at Hawaii to be on the alert and
for the admitted failure to use to
the best advantage such defense
facilities as were available at Pearl
Harbor?
The joint resolution of the Con-
gress under which the committee is
acting requires a final report of the
committee to be made not later than
January 3, 1916. I assumed that
time limit meant what it said.
I had every reason to feel that the
essential facts bearing on this basic
question could be presented thor
oughly within the time set.
Six Inquiries Conducted.
There had already been six in
quiries into this question. AS a re-
suit we had as starting point the
testimony of most of the principal
participants and substantial
amount of documentary material
previously assembled
At the beginning of my employ
ment, as then informed the COM
mittee, I undertook with my staff to
spend approximately six weeks in
the preparation of evidence and !
stated to the committee that COM
mencing on or about November Is
we would be in a position to present
In an organized and orderly fashion
the evidence which we had assem-
bled.
I have never had the idea, nor do
have 1t today. that counsel should
be the sole judge as to what evidence
should be presented to the commit
tee or what avenues of inquiry the
committee should follow. I thought
that there are certain essential facts
as to which there could be no doubt
as to pertinence or relevance, which
counsel should present at the out
set in order to lay out the basic
groundwork,
I thought and so stated to the
committee that at the conclusion OF
this presentation, which we had
every reason to feel could be COM
pleted well within the time limit set,
the committee would then be in a
position to appraise the case as a
whole and determine what addi-
tional evidence was required or
whether any other witnesses should
be called.
Difference Of Opinion.
Since the start of the hearing it
has become increasingly apparent
that some members of the commit
tee have different view than that
entertained by counsel, either as to
the scope Of the inquiry or as to
what is pertinent evidence. This
has been reflected in extensive ex-
animation by some members of the
committee far beyond what the Legal
staff anticipated.
This unexpected development dur
ing the last month has made it clear
to me and all Of my staff that ii
is not possible to complete the hear