The Evening Star (December 15, 1945)
Editorial: Pearl Harbor blowup
The most important question raised by the unexpected resignation of all four attorneys acting as counsel for the Pearl Harbor Investigating Committee has to do with the future status of this investigation. Shall the committee give up the ghost, or shall it secure new counsel and proceed with the inquiry?
Chairman Barkley, who has indicated that he, too, may resign from the committee, says that he has grave doubt that new counsel, who would be acceptable to the committee and who would be willing to undertake work already so far in progress, can be found. As for himself, he cannot “now foresee” what the solution would be. On the other hand, William D. Mitchell, former attorney general and chief of the present counsel, says that if the committee will act with reasonable promptness in choosing new counsel, he and his associates will cooperate with them into January, and that there should be no “serious break” in the hearings.
The latter would seem to be the more reasonable view, and there certainly is every reason why the majority members of the committee should exert themselves to obtain new counsel and proceed with the hearings. For four years Adm. Kimmel and Gen. Short, who have borne the onus for the fiasco at Pearl Harbor, have been awaiting an opportunity to present their side of the story. Perhaps, on the basis of the facts, it is right that these men should be blamed for what happened on December 7, 1941. But they are entitled to their day in court, and it would be bitterly ironical indeed if this privilege should be denied them now merely because counsel for an investigating committee want to relinquish their posts, or because some members of the committee feel that they should be devoting their time to other duties.
Meanwhile, there will be differences of opinion as to the soundness of the reasons which impelled Mr. Mitchell and his associates to resign. These reasons have been stated by the former Republican attorney general, a highly respected individual, and there is nothing to indicate that any other considerations entered into his decision. Essentially, his complaint is that the hearing is going to take a great deal longer than he had anticipated, and that some of the Republican members seem too much disposed to take the conduct of the hearing into their own hands.
There is no doubt that some of the minority members, at times, have engaged in what has seemed to be unnecessarily protracted examination of witnesses. But on the whole the hearing has been conducted about like most congressional investigations, few of which are models of precise and orderly procedure. Furthermore, it is somewhat surprising to learn that Mr. Mitchell should have believed it possible to begin a hearing of this sort on November 15 and finish it by January 3. That would have meant six weeks in all – a period of time which simply is not sufficient for an investigation of this character. However, Mr. Mitchell has made his decision and there is no reason to suppose he will change it. The loss of his services in this important matter will be generally regretted, but the important thing now is to make the necessary adjustments and get on with the hearing. That can and should be done.