Omaha daily bee., 1920-03-08
mo HARM TO Navy
FROM AWARD ROW
DANIELS ASSERTS.
Morale Unimpaired by Senate
Controversy, According to
Statement Issued by
x Secretary.

Washington, March 7. -- The
wrangle over awards to navy Of
ficers of war decorations drew near
or a conclusion tonight when Chair
man Page, of the senate naval COM
mittee, made public the trio OF re-
ports. the investigators OF the SUD.
committee produced.
The three republican members
Ijoined in the majority report, which
sharply criticised Secretary Daniels
in some respects, while the two dem-
ocrats submitted individual reports
defending the secretary's course and
directing their attack, in turn, at
Rear Admiral William S. Sims, the
most prominent figure in the con-
troversy.
In one respect the three reports
are unique. They are agreed on two
points: That no permanent harm
has come to naval morale as a re-
suit of the awards of the contro-
versy and that enlisted men received
too small a share of recognition fol-
their services.
Criticise Secretary Daniels.
The majority report, signed by
Senators Hale, Mccormick and
Poindexter, arraigns Mr.. Daniels for
not having fully advised officers as
to his plans in making awards and
asserts that his policy of decorating
officers who. lost ships would be de-
trimental to the navy.
Senator Pittman, in the first
minority report, charactepized the in
vestigation as a tempet in tea,
pot too ridiculous to be mentioned"
in connection with morale of fight
ing navy. In the second minority
report, Senator Traminell, asserted
that Mr.. Daniels followed estab-
lished naval custom in changing
recommendation of His subordi-
mates as those officers themselves
had done 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
regard to the relative importance
of duty on shore and afloat.
insufficient Consideration.
That the secretary did not as
certain from the officers who
recommended honors. the relative
order OF merit and did not himself
give sufficient consideration to that
question. ~
That Secretary Daniels did not
require a sufficiently high standard
of meritorious conduct in conferring
honors on officers who lost ships
and was more jealous to further
the interests Of commanders who
lost ships than of other commanders
who destroyed, or seriously damaged
enemy ships.
That the statute governing naval
awards should be amended to avoid
further controversy.
The majority report laid stress
on its statement that no attempt
had been made to ascertain the order
of merit among those recommended
for decorations.
Senator Pittman contended that
the investigation was unnecessary
because the naval award matter was
being reinvestigated by the Knight
board by direction of Secretary
Daniels when the investigating conf
mittee was appointed.
Admiral Sims believed, the SEN
ator said that the distinguished ser
vice medal should only be awarded
to few Of the highest officers in
the navy and that it would Re
cheapened by awarding, it to junior
officers and enlisted men.
Says Award Justified.
Criticising Admiral Sims for hav--
ing made special point of alleged
Injustice to six members of his staff,
Senator Pittman declared that the
award of a distinguished service
medal to Commander D. w. Bagley,
Secretary Daniels brother-in-law,
about whom much of the contro-
vcrsy centered, was justified. |
Senator Trammell, democrat,
Florida, IN separate report saia
that Secretary Daniels in changing
recommendation made by COM
manding officers and the Knight
board was following established
raval custom and the same policy
was pursued by Admiral Sims with
regard to recommendations made to
him.
Admiral Sims criticism of Secre-
tary Daniels, Senator Trammell said,
implied also criticism of Admirals
Mayo, Gleaves, Grant, Niblack, the
members of the board of awards and
other naval officers.
The report said those officers
whose duty it was to initiate recon-
were recreant in their
duty insofar as enlisted men were
col. :erned. 1t added that no differ
ence of opinion existed between the
majority of naval officers and Sec
retary Daniels regarding the deco
ration of officers who lost ships, but
performed heroic or meritorious