Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1920-03-08
SIMS STIRRED UP
TEMPEST IN TEAPOT
Senate Probers of Adnirals
Medal Award Charges Hold
Navy's Morale Uninjured.
MAJORlTY'S FLING AT DANIELS
Fall Committee Agrees That
Officers on Award Board Did
Not Do Justice to Enlisted Men.
MAJoRITYs FLING AT DANIELS
IBy Associated Press. !

lbS <NNSocidtcu freSS.i
WASHINGTON: March TT n a
wranglc over awards TO navy officers
Of war decorations. drew nearer a con-
clusion tonight, when Chairman Page
of the Senate Naval Committee. made
public the trio of reports the inyesti--
gators OF the subcommittee produced
The three Republican members join
Gu snarn1v m tn;, me ,,iraj ima}ority report. which
somc respects, while the two Demo-
sradss, Gratis submitted. Individual reports.
directing their attack. in turn. ri ant ut
Rcar-Admiral William S. Sims. the
most prominent figure in the contro-
crosses.
Three reports Are Unique.
In one respect the three reports are
unique. They agree on two points:
that no permanent harm has come TO
naval morale as n result of the awards
or the controversy and that enlisted
mon received too small - share Of rec
osnition for their services The ma
McCormick and Poindexter, arraiEn
Mr.. Daniels for not having fully ad-
vised his officers as to his plans in
policy of decorating officers who lost
ships would be detrimental to the
navy. Senator. Pittman, in the first
minority report characterized tho in
vestigatton as tempest in a tea not
TOO ridiculous to be mentioned in con-
hecllon Win the morale OF a fighting
In the second minority report. Scna,
tor Trammell declared latly that navy
morale had not been harmed, as !Ad-
m:rai Sims had contendcd, and assert
e dthat Mr. Daniels followed estab-
.ishsd naval custom in changing rec-
o,mmendations ,1al Of his suhordinatcs as
thosc officers themselves had done
with proposals ofetheir juniors. \
r 55,ii7e;.. x. ttstute c Should yBe Am ended.
The majority agreed that the statute
governing naval awards should be
an1huea 1n Ia,~,.5 10 avoid, future controversy.
,directly connected with the question
OF awards" developed during tho hear
Of m coonsfaton eMhsfi Min6 the as aied fS laek ad
miralties made by Admiral Sims, the
report said. they were not ut this
time within the province OF the com
The majority report laid stress on
ils statement that no attempt had hecn
among those recommended If for decora. cora.
tons. This was most unfortunatc.'.
IL II audeh. and the slgners believed COM
suagc relative merit.
ad snch a policy prevailed" it con-
oinuea. o,ae. me subcommittee is of the
The airing or the personal Eriev-
nnfes 1ni,S q, o. an, an ,n admiral and giving pub
ments made by the admiral with re-
navy during the war tended to be- be-
snirch glory never before qucs-
Toned: senator Pittman said.
said, that the distinguished service
medals should only be awarded to a
te1v of the highest officers in tho navy.
and that 1t would be cheapencd by
awarding it to junior officers and en-
listed men.
Admiral Sims Criticized.
a
tice to six members OF his stan, Sena-
tor Pittman declared. that the award
OF Distinguished Service medal to
commander y. w. BaEley. Secretary
paniels brother-in- Jaw. about whom
much much. OF the ,controversy centered. was
Justified. The Senator also assailed
Admiarl Sims conduct before the COM
mttee which he said would lead n
civilian 10 believe that tho officer was
deeply impressed with British policies
with British ideas. customs and man
ners than with those OF his own coun-
Admiral Sims criticism OF Secretary
Daniels, Senator Trammell said inn
Piled also criticism of Admirals Mayo,
Gleavcs. Grant, Nib!ack, the members
of the board OF awards and other naval
all of whom exercised their
own judgment In Passing on the recon-
mendations OF suhordinates.
duty 1t was TO initiate recommenda
tions were recreant i'm their duty in So
far as enlisted men We're concerned n
added that no difference OF opinion ey-
is:od between the majority OF naval
ing the decoration OF officers who LOST
ships but performed mcritorious SER
vice.