Questions With Witnesses Cross of Carter: Q: Were you hired by FDR to conduct the investigation of the loyalty of the

Japanese Americans on the west coast? A: Yes Q: Did you have a personal connection with FDR prior to his hiring you? A: Yes we were personal friends. Q: Did you have previous experience with investigation? A: No Q: So you were conducting an investigation that could affect the national security of the United States with no previous experience in the investigative field? A: Yes. Q: Your honor, may I approach the witness? I am handing you what has been marked as Defense Exhibit _. Without telling the Court what it is, do you recognize the exhibit? A: Yes Q: What is it? A: It is my summary of Munsons December 1941 report. Q: Does the report seem to be complete and accurate? A: Yes. Q: Your honor, I move for the admission of Defense Exhibit _. Will you please read the last two sentences of the first paragraph? A: He is rushing to Washington a program, which is based largely on the O.N.I. (Commander Ringle) proposals for maintaining the loyalty of Japanese-Americans and establishing wholesome race-relations. Its essence is to utilize Japanese filial piety as hostage for good behavior. Q: It is my understanding that through this statement you are suggesting that instead of enforcing mass evacuations, the government should use second generation Japanese Americans to control the first generation, who may be less loyal. One concept of the Japanese culture is valuing family over everything. Is my interpretation correct? A: Yes. Q: So in this official summary, you are suggesting a different mean of controlling the Japanese than mass evacuations? A: Yes Q: And this mean was proposed by Ringle and Munson? A: Yes Q: And is it reasonable to say that allowing the Japanese to stay in their homes with filial piety is a less controlling than mass evacuations? A: So youre saying that there was a less restrictive way to control the Japanese Americans on the west coast? Direct of Biddle Q: State your name, profession, and age. A: Francis Biddle, 58, and I am currently the United States Attorney General. Q: How long had you been the Attorney General before the bombing of Pearl Harbor? A: Only three months. Q: What was your profession before you were the Attorney General?

A: In addition to Attorney General, I have also been a judge, a lawyer, a private secretary for the Supreme Court, and I was in the Army in WW1. Q: Beginning your job as the Attorney General what was your knowledge and awareness of the Constitution? A: As a lawyer and a judge, you know the Constitution very well. You do not have to be the attorney general to know the Constitution well. Q: What was your reaction to the Pearl Harbor attacks in relation to alien enemies? A: After the bombings, I did a press release calling for an orderly roundup of suspicious enemy aliens and for fair treatment of resident Japanese Americans. Q: What did you do to show your opinion? A: I fought against DeWitt's Western Defense Command, who was pushing for harsher measures against enemy aliens. I proposed that the present military situation did not at this time require the removal of American citizens of the Japanese race. Q: Your honor, may I approach the witness? I am handing you what has been marked as Defense Exhibit _; Without telling the Court what it is, do you recognize the exhibit? A: Yes. Q: What is it? A: This is a letter that I wrote to the President in a last effort to convince him that the mass evacuations of the Japanese Americans were not necessary. Q: Does it appear to be complete and accurate? A: Yes. Q: Your honor, I move for admission of Defense Exhibit _. Q: Will you please read the last sentence of the first paragraph for the court? A: Reads: My last advice from the war department is that there is no evidence of imminent attack and from the F.B.I. that there is no evidence of planned sabotage. Q: What was the Presidents response to your letter and what happened afterwards? A: The president informed me that he had already granted approval to Stimson, ending my opposition. Later that day, at a meeting at the Presidents house with War Department leaders, I announced that I had earlier agreed to mass removal. Then Executive Order 9066 followed. Q: What caused you to change your standpoint on the mass evacuations? A: I was new to the Cabinet, and I didnt want to disrespect my elders and their opinions, which I greatly valued and respected. Q: Summarize your current beliefs about the mass evacuations of the Japanese Americans on the west coast. A: I have regretted my part in the Japanese American removal and incarceration. Decisions were not made on the logic of events or on the weight of evidence, but on the racial prejudice that seemed to be influencing everyone. Direct of Munson Q: State your name, age, and profession as you were assigned from John Carter. A: My name is Curtis B. Munson, however many years old. Carter assigned me to travel to the west coast, specifically the 11th, 12th, and 13th Naval Districts in California to investigate Japanese loyalty to the United States. Q: What year was this in? A: I went to the west coast on this assignment in 1941. Q: What qualifies you for this role?

A: I had done previous investigative work for President Roosevelt in Martinique. As a businessman I had experience with people. I had written reports, interviewed people, and had other skills I would need for the investigation on the west coast. Q: What is your level of qualification on the loyalty of Japanese Americans on the west coast during WWII? A: I consider myself an expert on the subject. Q: What was the level of threat of the Japanese on the West Coast during WWII prefacing the mass evacuation? A: Very low. The level of threat for the Japanese Americans was about equal to the threat of the rest of the population. Q: Describe what your investigation on the west coast entailed? A: During my investigation, I met with investigators from the FBI and the Office of Naval Intelligence, and conducted interviews with Japanese Americans and people who knew the Japanese Americans. Q: What did you conclude from your investigation? A: In the simplest terms, the Japanese population on the west coast was not a threat to the national security of the United States. Q: Your honor, may I approach the witness? I am handing you what has been marked as Defense Exhibit _; Do you recognize the exhibit? A: Yes. Q: What is it? A: This is the report I composed after completing my study of the loyalty of Japanese Americans on the west coast. It is commonly referred to as the Munson Report. Q: Does the report appear to be complete and accurate? A: Yes. Q: Your honor, I move for admission of Defense Exhibit _. Q: Will you please read the fifth paragraph on the fourth page of your report in its entirety, which summarizes your conclusions on the Kibei generation? A: Reads Q: What observation did you make about the loyalty of the other generations of the Japanese Americans, such as isei and the niesi on the west coast? A: The isei, or the original immigrants, are not a threat to national security because they have chosen to move to our land, put down roots, and even send their children to war to fight for our country. The nisei, or the second generation, is very loyal to the United States and desperate to be like other citizens of the United States. The only other group I havent discussed is the sansei, or the third generation, of which the members are too young to pose any form of threat. Q: In your December report you mention filial piety. Can you explain that please? A: In Japanese culture, family obligations trump law. Filial Piety means that second generation Japanese Americans would act as a police force over the first generation to ensure absolute loyalty. This was proposed as a means to control Japanese American loyalty on the West Coast. Q: How does that plan compare to mass evacuation? A: It would serve as a less restrictive alternative to Executive Order 9066.