Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-11-09
MAY RETAIN THE OLD
Controversy Over Medals Of
Honor Settled.
THE LAW IN THE CASE
OPINION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
MOODY.
Holders Not Required to Surrender
Their Decoration for the
Revised Design.
THE LAW IN THE CASE

Acting Secretary Oliver of the War Depart
rsent has received an opinion from Attorney
General Moody in regard to the long stand
ing controversy with respect to the issue of
congressional medals of honor. In accord
Gnce with the provisions of the army appro-
priation act of April %. 1904 the Secretary
of War had prepared 1900 medals of honor
of new design r. take the places of the
medals originally Issued to heroes of the
military service.
Soon after the distribution of the new
medals began it developed that many of the
holders of the original medals desired. for
sentimental reasons. to retain them. Gen.
John c. Black made special application to
the department for permission to retain the
old medal as well as the new one.
Meaning of Replace
The Attorney General expresses the opin-
ion that the word replace as used in the
act of 1901 implies the loss, destruction or
surrender of the old medal. ITO bestow the
new medal" said he, without the old medal
having been In some manner displaced
would not be to replace the old medal, but
to give the new medal outright, and that
you Uhe Secretary of War; are not author
lied to do. That would be placing, not re
placing 1t is true nothing is expressly said
as 10 the disposition of the old medal. but.
as stated the direction to use so many OF
the medals may be necessary to re-
place the old necessarily implies the loss,
destruction or surrender of the old medals.
You are the person authorized 10 replace
and hence the one to ascertain in each case
whether the old medal has been lost or de-
stroyed. and If not, to require its surrender.
This view is in harmony with the policy of
Congress in bestowng these medals. They
are granted for gallant and distinguished
services. No individual is entitled to two
for the ame service which would be the re-
of allowing him 10 retain the old
receiving the new. The number OF medals
would thus be unwarrantably increased
with the consequent danger of their falling
into unworthy hands and their value as
emblems of distinction in so far impaired.
1T is of course optional with the holder
whether he shall surrender his old medal
for the new. The old medal may for many
reasons be very dear to him and possess
value by reason of its age and the associa-
lion connected with it that the new one
may lack. Under such circumstances he
would probably not be willing to part with
ii, and it was not the intention of Con-
gress to compel him to do so, even If 1t had
the power. But where for any cause the
holder of old medal prefers the new no
such reasons Justify his retention of the
old.
''If he is dissatisfied with the old medal he
should be willing to relinquish IT for one
that will please him better. There is no
reason why he, more than any other indi-
vidual, should have two medals represent
ing the same service. At any rate. that
Is not the purpose of the present statute.
Your order requiring the surrender of the
old medal by applicants for the new Is,
therefore, IN complete accordance with Its
spirit OF course. If in any case, the old
medal has been lost or destroyed and its
surrender therefore impossible, you would
be authorized, upon satisfactory proof Of
the fact to replace it,"
The Acting Secretary's Decision.
Acting Secretary Oliver has announced
that the views set forth by the Attorney
General with respect to medals of honor
are concurred in and Will govern the prac-
tice of the War Department in the future.