2 COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4' 



With this in mind, the members here intend to avoid any discussion 

 of the proper discharge of responsibilities of these officers as military 

 commanders in order to insure against interference with or prejudice 

 to their judicial rights. 



It is our purpose today and in subsequent open hearings to confine 

 ourselves to events from 1952 and 1954, when the preliminary studies 

 were made, to January 12 of this year — just 3 days before the tragedy. 



In the course of these hearings, the witnesses will include officials 

 of the Air Force; representatives of the architectural firms which 

 participated in the Texas tower program ; officials of the Navy's Bu- 

 reau of Yards and Docks who were involved in the design and con- 

 struction of Texas tower No. 4; design, construction, architectural 

 and motion-study engineers ; a diver inspector, and representatives of 

 the contractor who constructed tower No. 4 and another contractor 

 who built tower No. 2. 



Today, we will begin with the testimony of Dr. Joseph V. Charyk, 

 Under Secretary of the Air Force. He will be followed by Mr. E. 

 Ross Anderson, of the architect-engineering firm of Anderson- 

 Nichols Co., Boston, Mass., and Capt. John J. Albers, of the Navy 

 Civil Engineer Corps, who was, at the outset, the officer in charge of 

 construction. 



OPENING REMARKS OF THE CHAIRMAN 



Now, the Chair would like to add a few additional words for the 

 benefit of the committee members and other interested persons. 



After reading over the substance of the testimony as gathered by 

 Mr. French, of our staff, who has done an outstanding job in the 

 opinion of the Chair, and after considering the substance of the testi- 

 mony that will be presented here, the Chair is of the very firm opinion 

 that instead of interfering with, prejudicing or biasing in any way the 

 judicial rights of the three Air Force officers in the immediate chain 

 of command against whom the Air Force has preferred charges, these 

 hearings will prove a sound, solid background of facts, and a starting 

 point for any court-martial proceeding that might be instituted, and, 

 therefore, should be quite helpful to the justice of their cause. With- 

 out a full development of these facts by some forum of this type, I 

 do not see how a court-martial, if one should be instituted, could arrive 

 at a foundation or a solid, sound starting point. 



Now, this committee is not passing on the charges against these 

 three gentlemen. We are solely sitting as members of the legislative 

 branch of the Government, charged particularly with policy in con- 

 nection with our military program, charged expressly by our parent 

 committee with the responsibility of investigating the policies, as 

 well as the appropriations for the general soundness and strength of 

 our vast military program. This inquiry involves the Air Force, 

 which has a very fine record as everyone knows, in doing an outstand- 

 ing job generally in these perilous times. It cuts across the path of 

 the Navy's Bureau of Yards and Docks, and we know of their fine 

 reputation and generally the good job they do. It also involves private 

 contractors. 



We are not here to punish or to condemn. We are not here to praise. 

 We are here to examine the facts, in sworn testimony, and to let the 

 chips fall where they may — for the purposes of implementing the 



