Norwich bulletin., 1919-12-24

in such cases to 36 navy crosses ana two distinguished service medals.
 Secretary Daniels, contrasting the relative importance of duty ashore and aloal said:
 "In my judgment individual duties ashore are always and necessarily of secondary importance to duties af1oat.'
 Admiral Sims, in his letter to the secretary, said:
 "All individual duties afloat are nec- essarily of secondary importance in comparison with the vital importance of directing all operations, both ashore and afloat, in such manner as to in sure the success of the whole"
 Tt is realized" said the naval sec retary in concluding his report, that where there have been so many occa- sions of performance of meritorious service by the 500,0O0 officers and men In the navy in the great war there may easily be. difference of opinion in re- gard to the comprehensive merits of any particular cases, but under the law and acting by authority of the president, it is the secretary of the navy's duty to make the final deci- sion in such cases. It is believed that the motives and policies as above out lined have been entirely in keeping with the letter and spirit of the .aw which established these medals and decorations for the navy. Later re- ports and additional information will be given due consideration in future action with regard to additional dec orations, for there is no limit of time prescribed when these honors may be awarded. In view of delayed reports and lack of data other awards will be made, but in every case the principles above set forth will guide. executive action"
 The secretary compiled his report December '19, before the Sims letter reached him.
 Rear Admiral Sims letter in which he declined the distinguished service
 medal offered him by the department, pending a revision Of the secretary S list of awards, referred particularly to MT. Daniels action in changing rec ommendations which had ben made for decorations to be conferred on officers who were under the admirafs immedi- ate command during the war Declaring that he felt it his duty to call Secretary Daniels attention to certain features of the list of awards to naval officers, Rear Admiral Sims letter said,
 This becomes my duty because this | list contains ae nurnberrof instances or injustice to distinguished officers, the , effort of which on the morale of the service cannot fail to be very de- trinental. The injustice lies not in the number of awards made but in the fact that the awards as issued to officers i'll a number of instances are not in ac- 1 cord with the relative merit of ser vices performed by them as indicated hbyi my recommendations Officers who were" recommended for the highest
 awards appear on the list as having l been accorded the lower awards. and vice versa"
 l Declaring that only the command ing officers actually present may judge the relative merits entitled to par ticular recognition, that no board of award system could be fair and that officers in high administrative posts on shore occupied relatively more respon- | sible positions than those serving at sea, Rear Admiral Sims asserted that
 of nineteen officers under his personal
 command whom he recommended for
 the distinguished service medal. only tsix were accorded that honor, the re- Emainder being awarded navy crosses He cited the cases of nine rear ad- i mirals under his command abroad, al
 recommended for the distinguished
 service medal, of whom but four re-
 ceived that honr.
 Secretary Daniels action in re- l warding with decorations officers whc
 commanded vessels sunk by enemy
 submarines was. particularly criticized
 by Admiral Sims.
 l. "A special class of awards" his let. Iter said ''are the subject of such ser. vice condemna tion and ridicuIe tha the effects upon the future and presen Enorale of the service. must necessari Fly De deplorable to the last degree namely the distinguished servic, medals awarded to many, if not all, 0 Ithe officers who were defeated in ac tion or whose ships were sunk or SC friously damaged by enemy subma
 rines." '-
 These are typical examples not onl, iof unsuccessful actions but of failur
 to injure the enemy. The victims il
 these actions were the German subma Irines.
 "The commanding officers of a yes
 sel that is sunk by a submarine shoul
 not receive the same reward as. tn
 commanding officers of vessel Whic
 sinks a submarine. Yet it is precise .. ly this which has been done in a mum
 bero of instances"
 Admiral Sims further charoed tho his specific request that lists c
 awards to men formerly under hi , command be referred to him befor iinal action was not compiled with, re
 sulting in many injustices.
 Asserting that while it would b f manifestly undesirable to decrease an , of the awards. already made public |"
 is still within the power of, the depart
 ments to adequately recognize the ser f vices of distinguished officers wh : have received rewards inferior to thos which have been accorded to less dc serving officers of my late command Admiral Sims in concluding his memo < randum said that he was necessaril |. placed in a position which rendere : lit impossible for him to accept tt e distinguished service medal conferre I on him by the navy department k A recap apitulation of the action of u : Knight. beard and Secretary Danic !. Ion the recommendations made by Res : Admiral Sims shows that of the hin. f teen offers whom the latter recon S rnended for distinbuished service met s tals, the Knight board cut thirteen e the recommendations to nav crossn
 Secretary Daniels. after receiving u Q Knight board report, changed |. ] Edwards of the distinguished servit . medals recommended by the board . fthree cases to navy crosses and : three other cases he reversed u = board and awarded distinguished SCI f Twice medals as originally recommend I Ted by Rear Admiral Sims.
 By law three classes of decoration