Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1920-02-04
ANSWERS |GR|T|C|SMs OF SIMS
 1 ON NAVAL POLICIES
|ecratary Shows Feelings at
 Statement U. s. Did No Fighting
DMIRAL IS CHARGED
 WITH FAVORITISM
lan.rts From Prepared Statement to Emphasize Differences With Charges of Naval Officer Discusses Shore Duty

washinqtona Feb. 3.-Secretaro
 oniels made formal answer today to
 riticism by Rear Admiral Williara
 Sims and others of the policy
 ollowed in awarding war decora-
 ions. Appearing before the senate
 nb-committee investigating t h @
 wards. MT, Daniels re-affirmed the
 jaws which led him to alter some
 q the recommendation for decora-
 ions. supporting his contentious with
 long carefully prepared statement
 oing into the medal situations in
 etail.
 Other charges made by Admiral
 ims. as to the preparedness of the bayy at the start of the war and the Bepree of cooperation with allied hdmiralties were not taken up direct,
 ", Mr. Daniels confining his testi' mony wholly to the medal contro- kersy. When the secretary conclud- kd. Chairman Hale of the sub-con, |mitte adjourned the hearing until Friday to permit committee members ko study MT. Daniels statement. The naval secretary at several foints in the two and half hours Beading of his prepared statement Showed considerable feeling, parti- {cularlv when he countered the state |ment of Admiral Sims that the Amer kcan navy "did no fighting during |the war"
 In this connection Mir. Daniels vigorously pounding the table, told |the committee, that it was we'll that Admiral Sims had not made such an Insertion to the men operatine American vessels in the war zone flor if he had, Che would have had a revolt in his own command"
 At another point the secretary departed from his written state |ment to declare that Admiral Sims las result of personal differences Iwith Admiral Henry B. Wilson, for kner commander of American naval
 Drces off the French coast. had |omitted Wilson's name from the list |of officers recommended for distin- |guished service medals.
 The secretary's testimony for the most part, however, was confined tc the prepared statement in which he took up point by point statements before the subcommittee by Ad- miral Sims at considerable length on fhe two major disagreements voiced " the admiral. namely, the award ling of decorations to officers, who lost their ships through submarine attacks or by mines, and the rela tive importance of shore and sea duty.
 On the controverted point of i'm. portance of sea service as compared to service ashore, MT. Daniels said he had not, and could never "approve disparity between awards given men who served on shore as compar. ed with the men who went to sea- Admiral Sims. he asserted. probably advocated high awards for many officers who served On staff duty ashore and few awards for officers who went to sea because "most oi Admiral Sims duty in the navy has been on shore"
 Turning to the second fundamen. tai difference between his views anc those of Admiral Sims, Secretar, { Daniels said that many other ad mirals of the navy and the Knigh1 board of medal awards had estab lised a precedent that such officer: of ships torpedoed or ruined should be decorated whenever their conduc was meritorious and reflected credi' on the service.