The Pensacola journal., 1920-03-10
NAVY DEPARTMENTS FAILURE TO
ACT PROMPTLY PROLONGED war
Sims TELLS SENATE PROBERS|
Outcome of Struggle Was Also
Unnecessarily Jeopardized,
Says the Rear Admiral.
REITERATES CRITICISMS
Remark Aimed at Navy's Work
in 1917 and Not Magnificent.
Navy Functions in 1918.


Sims today told the senate committee
investigating the navy's conduct of the
war that the failure of the navy de-
partment to act promptly on recon-
mendat1ons and to place the country's
entire naval resources at the disposal
Of the allies within six months after
the United States had entered the war
prolonged the struggle for at least
four months. He added that 1t also
unnecessarily jeopardized the outcome
Declaring that 5000 lives We're lost
and 800, 100000 spent every day Of the
war, the admiral said the conclusions
from his statement We're obvious.
Admiral Sims said his criticisms
were directed at the navy's work in
1917 and had nothing to do with the
magnificent. way the navy functions
in 1918 after it really got into the
war"
The navy, he said, wassnot properly
prepared in April 1917, and the admin
istrative machinery was cumbersome
and inefficient.
The admiral denied that his state
ments constituted IAN attack" on any
one and characterized as ridiculous"
statements that he was attacking
civilian control of the navy depart
ment which he said. wa essential
Il am at the end of my career and
have nothing to gain and all to lose"
said Admiral Sims.
He wished to be set right in the
eyes of the country and to refute wide
spread criticisms that he was throw
ing mud at the navy" Admiral Sims
declared. He raised no question of the
efficiency of the navy's participation
in the war, viewed in its entirely and
without regard to the time element
and was unable to adequately express
his admiration for the navy's per-
formance in the war insofar as the
machinery that controlled it permit
ted.'
Declaring that he had raised ques-
tion about the efficiency of the navy
solely because he had felt it his duty
to point out errors in naval admins
tration, the admiral said he had been
much embarrassed by implications
of characterization and impropriety."
He also vigorously attacked what
he characterized as efforts to con-
vict me of divided allegiance" and of
being pro British" saying he hap
pened 10 be born in Canada because
his mother went there on a visit
IF they didn't want a man who was
pro- British and pro- French to sit in
the councils of the allies, why didn't
they send a pro-German with "a trunk
fun of bombs?'' asked the admiral.
Declaring he was "sorely embar-
rassed' by reason of lack of confidence
and cooperation from the navy depart
ment during the most trying DAYS OF
the war Admiral Sims said ne re-
peatedly asked the department to re-
leVe him II he had lost its confidence.
The admiral was the first witness
81 n - = 1.
he had concluded reading a prepared
statement the committee recessed nm
Ill tomorrow without cross question
ing him His statement set forth in
detail his criticisms in the navy de-
partments method of conducting, its
participation in the war.
summarizing his criticisms the wit
ness emphasized that he dealt only
with the first six or eight months of
the war during which the allies barely
escaped defeat" In that period he
said. "the department violated numer
Gus well recognized and fundamental
principles of war;
During the last half of American
participation i'm the war. he said. the
policies and activities of the ..epart-
ment were 'identic in substance. and
generally in letter TO recommendations
which they had disregarded or failed
10 act upon in the earlier months
Again 'firming that the main issue
was not determination of personal
responsibilities" but the recognition of
"unsound methods" in the execution
Of war policies that the fundamental
causes thereof may be removed" Ad-
Inira1 Sims said.
IF l am wrong and we We're pre-
pared, and if we had plans before and
at the beginning of the war similar
10 those announced on paper some
time after we declared war, and if such
plans We're in accordance with the
policy which was actively and actually
pursued at the end of the first six or
eight months of the war, then is it
not a prafe error that all the forces.
men and ships which We're actively en-
Saged in the war zone at the end OF
this six months delay were not there
at the end onfthe first month?
Granting that the work of our
navy was necessary and was based on
sound policy and military principles.
it is indisputable that if any delay oc-
CURED in putting that policy into ef-
feet the war was thereby prolonged
ana as consequence, lives and re-
sources needlessly sacrificed
II such is not the case, that is il
the work of our navy was not neces-
sary then our naval contribution did
not amount to much
It did amount 10 a great deal as
every. one agrees and hence ii Is the
mo Continues or P.a. ~