Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1919-12-24
Sims and Daniels Letters
On Decorations in Maui

purely local responsibility. whom I
recommended for the Navy cross,
have been given the distinguished
service medal
ID. There are other instances Of
similar nature in the other
branches of the command. This is
strikingly illustrated by the award
or the distinguished service medal
TO considerable number of officers
IN POSITIONS of very little respon-
sloility. while four of the nine rear
admirals under my command, whom
recommended for distinguished
service medals. in recognition of
having borne their heavy RESPONSE
bliltieS with conspicuous success,
were accorded the lower award of
the Navy cross.
II. These instances are SO typical
OF the conditions in this respect
throughout all branches of the COM
mand that further examples are I'M
necessary But l feel impelled to
invite attention to special class of
awards which are the subject of
sucn service condemnation and ridi-
CUE mat the effects upon the present
ana future morale of the service
must necessarily be deplorable to
the last degree, namely, the dis
tngulsh"d service medals awarded
10 many. If not all. of the officers
WHO were defeated in action or
whose SHIPS were sunk or seriously
""'"aseu by enemy submarines.
Regarding U-BOat Victims.
10 IN the case of destroyers or
oiner vessels that were success
Iully attacked by German subma-
lles. no special distinctions were
are typical examples NOT only Of
unsuccessful actions but of fail
uies TO injure the enemy. The
rc'ors IN these actions were the
TerH1an submarines. BY reason of
me peculiar nature of the subma-
rine warfare no blame necessarily
dttaches to the commanding Off
rs OF these vessels for their fail
ures' out on no account should
they receive social reward for
this lack of success.
10. Even the ASSUMPTION that
subsequent to their failures they
haholed the situation well is, of
course. no reason why they should
be rewarded. To do so is to re-
verse the policy of our Navy and
or all other navies. and thus estab-
fish precedent that might we'll
seriously undermine the fighting
efhcienscy of the whole organize
ton.
II. The commanding officer of a
Nessel that is sunk by submarine
shouid not receive the same re-
ward as the commanding officer of
a vessel which sinks a submarine.
Yet it is precisely this which has
been done in number of in
stances
Asked Right Of Review.
is. In my letter of August is.
1919. l urgently requested that
all lists involving any of the
officers or enlisted men who were
attached to the United States ma
val forces in European waters be
referred to me for comment be-
fore they were finally approved
and published
might. supply any supplementary
information that might be need
ed in order to establish the rela-
tive merit of the services of the
officers concerned.
20. AS the noncompliance with
this request may have contributed
to the injustices above indicated.
and as / assume that the depart
ment must be eager to correct all
mistakes or misapprehensions that
may have arisen, request that l
may be given the opportunity to
explain my reasons for the relative
order of merit upon which my
recommendations were based.
81, While it would manifestly be
undesirable to diminish any of the
awards already published, it is
still within the power of the Navy
Department adequately to recog-
nize the services of distinguished
officers who have received awards
inferior to those which have been
accorded less deserving officers of
my late command.
%. The department has been
pleased to award me distin-
guished service medal as an ex-
preston of it's appreciation of the
success of the forces under my
command. but since. as explained
above and as stated in my letter
of November Z. 1919. the success of
the forces abroad was chiefly due
to the loyal and efficient services
of the officers recommended for
distinction-"and to them belongs
the credit am necessarily
placed in a position which rem
ders it impossible for me to ac-
cept this award under the condi-
VIM. S. SIMS.
SECRETARY DANIELS LETTERS.
December %, 1919.
Dear Senator Page:
On December 10 l prepared let
ter in answer to your letter of De-
cember 16 in regard to the awards
of Navy medals, and in my letter /
said that ] was transmitting with
the letter the report OF the board
of award l have delayed mailing
this letter to you, as l decided that
il would be for the best interests of