Exploring the Watergate

THE OPENING of the Ervin Subcommittee's public hearings has shifted the center of action in the Watergate investigation out of the Executive branch, and that is a good thing. From the slow and meticulous pace that has so far characterized the hearings, it would appear that the committee will be thorough in its investigation. The pace of the hearings may not satisfy lovers of soap opera, but anyone with a taste for the bizarre or sensational will be satisfied with the disclosures made before the committee.

Meanwhile, the Administration has continued its attempts to keep a rein, however light, over the course of the criminal investigation into the Watergate matter. Archibald Cox '34 apparently is satisfied with his control over the investigation. But Elliot Richardson '41, the Attorney General-designate and Cox's nominal superior, is behaving like the president's man. If there is one thing totally unnecessary to the evolving crisis, it is further interference by the president's men.

Much of the testimony before the Ervin committee has been hearsay, and hearsay is inadmissible in judicial proceedings. But neither a senate hearing nor impeachment is a judicial procedure: they both are legislative matters. Hearsay constitutes acceptable testimony in political hearings and, though allowance has to be made for its possible inaccuracies, it provides useful direction for inquiry. It raises questions that men in the White House must answer.

The selection of Archibald Cox as the prosecutor of the Watergate Case is understandable. His task will be to investigate and prosecute violations of the law. He is well equipped for this job by his previous experience. But it must be understood that the crimes in the Watergate affair are not limited to the technical violations of the Federal law; they include the intolerable abuse of public trust in the office of the presidency.