The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1919-12-29
Records of State and
Navy Department. to
Be Gone Into
must FIRST
FIX POLICY
Naval Board of Award
Confronted With Dis
! agreeable and Cornpi-
Gated Work Of Revision

"A WE&ht-lSt1H, Dec zs.--A3isctoSuR GU
~ Resr Admiral Benton c. Decker
q his letter to Secretary Of The Navy
paricls declining the navy cross On
- ground that he and hts associates
r. the cfsee ct the American naval
a4tachc az Madrt1 prevented Spain
lFUna entering tbs war against tEe
nll3ne and the United States in ;ae
0rins Of 1919 will probably be taken
10 nrst by the 3cir- congT essionai
oDmmittee proposed To Investigate
the naval awards controversy.
fhs~ was the assurance given to-
nigh, by Representative ". W. l~ut~
mir. Of Massachusetts, 70 member OF
the house naval affairs committee
He declared that Admiral Decker
would he summoned before the sr-
vnstisating body and il possible
Joseph e. Willard. American arnoas-
sador 70 Spain would be called.
+. is regarded as certain that the
reports s~nt 20 The navy department
by Admiral Dccker while be ~as
naval at.ache %, Madrid. wiil be call
"a fer nv the ccrnrnittee and that IL
may also looA into the reports the
state departments received ~ The
satrc time from, Ambassador Willard
In his letter TO Secretary Daniels
Admiral Decker PARTIALLY charges
hat flts efforts and the work Of hts
antis4nn4s 10 prevent Spain from
ssaakknx her 10, with the certrAi
powers ana also IN curving sne uns
restricted German submarine warfare
eAer In progress OF the Spanish
eoaSt ~ere opposed by the american
AMnhasndor.
Sacrc.ary Daniels was In North
CArofsna today and RIO officials at the
Utafe Department would comment on
the charges made by Aduairai Deck
~. :.
The Only way to disprove or justify
charges OF Admiral Decker II was
agreed. will be To examine the re-
s0rda OF both the state and navy de-
paftments during the period be was
stationed AZ Madrid.
washington. Dec. ss--T.1s arst duty
81 the navx, board OF award. when II
roeenvenes on January 8, to undertake
NJ revision OF the award Of all decorA-
t5o0o to officers and inca in the naval
uRytcA, viii be u decision u policy 1T
rs learned today.
Two dis.inct policies will be before
- board for choice. The hrst rs tho
pplfcy and theory Of Secretary of the
nav Daniels that distinguished ser
Vice uneMdafe should &C only TO man
who have performed sor7e conspicuous
service OF an active military character
white on active service In the navy.
On the other hand the board VIII
have before it the policy snunciated By
Admiral william 8. Slime. commander
" the American forces In the North sea-
whc refused to accept The distinguished
vmytce medal awarded him by Sccrs-
A9y Daniels on the ground that his
roAommendAttoas for medals for his
een6 were ignored By ehc secretary and
- So-eaileA Knight board Of award
Admiral Sims policy IL thar the
Nnrdu should be rendered the men who
SCANNED the strategy of active warfare.
esther than TO those who carried out
The plans
OOMTRoMIsE DIsAsTROus.
IN ne board Of award Is at present In
dilemma II II should adopt the
Dms' policy. II would have to reverse
nsSh IN ~ least the thirteen cases out
N nineteen wherein Il decided against
A1mirAl strns and gave officers Of hts
0e10 decorations lower than those
Recommended by him. II il Adheres to
~ eriEtnAl policy. or the Daniels poll
-, no advance with have been made
~ tho matter will have to be left to
~ single Judgment OF President Will
0cn. Several ot the members of the
boaFd said today they were unable ia
- how q middle ground could be
adopted because compromise would
nepd the number OF medals Up into the
hundreds Of thousan ds and bring about
N indiscrfminate showersng OF awards.
me agitation which has stirred tho
navy 10 deeply ts now beginning to
penetrate into army circles Secretary
~ war Baker dtd not interfere with
passhing. but hundreds OF medals were
distributed to officers who did not be-
lcnx to the PePshing forces. In this
/, Ntter class Of awards the recommends
tons were made by army boards In ees-
sion 1t Washington. Secretary Baker
hAd the reviewing authority over these.
and he. ~ did Secretary Daniels.
clsanxed the awards Of the boards In
several instances. It Is expected now
tfAt ~ the navy controversy will be
taken UP by congress appeals Will be
mAde on behalf OF the army officers
Who regarded themselves az sighted to
pAtain I revision OF the awards.
Despite the fact that the naval board
tnaetA on january 5. the same day that
N1aEress resumes. Its meeting VIII not
tilt tho Investigation promised by
nissnbers Of both the house and the
1anatS. II 10 extremely probable that
tAA proposed inquiry viii include, be-
kfore many days. the entire subject of
Se.llitary decorations. both army and
snsy.
III Representative w W. Lutkir of
/. 1eaawAchuse said today that he pro-
s116scd to call as witnesses before the
u 1opcsed Joint COMMITTEES ell the men
4 ~ have written lettsrs to Secretary
inclNAing Admiral Sims