Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1920-03-08
NAVAL ROW FIZZLEs.
Three Reports on Sims Daniels Con
trovsrsy-No One Hurt.

Three Reports on Sims. Daniels Con-
trovsrsy-No One Hurt.
By Associated Press.
Washington. March 8. The
wrangle over awards to navy officers
Of war decorations drew nearer a
conclusion last night when Chairman
Page of the senate naval committee
made public the trio OF reports the
Investigators Of the subcommittee
produced.
The three republican members
Joined in the majority report, which
sharply criticized Secretary Daniels
In some respects. while the two DEM
ocrats submitted individual reports
defending the secretary's course and
Rear Admiral William s. Sims, the
most prominent figure in the contro-
versy stirred up over navy medals
and crosses.
In one respect the three reports are
unique. They are agreed on two
points, that no permt nent harm has
come to naval morale as a result Of
tn. wards or the controversy, and
that enlisted men receives too sroSA
a share Of recognition for their SER
vices.
The majority report, signed by
Senators Hale, Mccormick and Poin-
dexter, arraigns Mr.. Daniels for not
having fully advised officers as to
his plans in making awards, and as
serts that his policy of decorating
Officers who lost ships would be det-i
rimental to the navy.
Senator Pittman in the first minor
ity report, characterized the investi-
cation as tempest in teapot " too
ridiculous to be mentioned in connec-
ton with the morale Of fighting
navy"
In the second minory report Sem
ator Trammell declared fatty that
navy morale had not been harmed, as
Admiral Sims had contended, and as
serted that Mr.. Daniels followed es-
tablished naval customs in changing
recommendations, Of his subordinates.
as those officers themselves had dono
with proposals Of their juniors.
The majority report reached the
following conclusions:
That Secretary Daniels did not
make known to the service, his policy
as to awards, especially with regar
to the relative Importance Of duty On
shore and afoat. Fewer changes
would have been necessary later had
he done 50.
That the secretary did not ascer-
tain from the officers who recon-
mended honors the relative order OF
merit, and did not himself give suf-
hcient consideration to that question,
injury to morale. and depreciation of
the value OF awards resulting.
That Secretary Dauiels did not re-
quire meritorious conduct in conferr-
Ing honors on officers who lost their
ships, and was more jealous to fur.
ther the interests of commanders
fwhO lost ships than or other COM
nanders, who instead of losing their
ships, destroyed or seriously damag-
ed the ships of the enemy"
That the statute governing naval
awards should be amended to avoid
future controversy.
4Ac MdJoI1Iy report lalQ stress on
its statement that no attempt had
been made to ascertain the order of
merit among those recommended for
decorations. This was most unfor-
tunate," 1t added, and the signers be-
heved commanding officers were best
able to gauge relative merit.
Senator Pittman oontended that
the Investigation was unnecessary
because the naval award matter was
beiAg re-investisated by the knight
ibolrd by direction Of Secretary
Daniels when the investigation COM
mittee was appointed. w
Crticisiny Admiral Sims for hav-
ing mAds a special point OF alleged
Injustice to six members OF his staff,
6anAtor Pittman declared that the
award of q distinguished service
medal to Commander D. w. Bagley.
Secretary Daniels brother In law.
about whom much Of the controversy
csntered. was Justified.