The New York herald., 1920-01-24
WOULD NOT REWARD MEN WHO
LOST SHIPS WITH MEDAL, SAYS
KNIGHT, OPPOSING DANIELS
Rear Admiral Challenges Secrearys Comparison of Officers
He Had Decorated for Failure with Historic Naval Heroes
Perry and Lawrence-StreSseS Value of Navy Cross.

81 don't like to answer the question in
that FORM" Rear Admiral Coffman ~
piled, but they We're changed and think
the officers deserved what the board or
dered. When those recommendations
were changed, it was something that
felt and felt deeply"
Answering the criticism of Rear Ad-
miral Sims that the board and Secretary
Daniels had changed the order of relative
merit as determined by commanding Off
GERS, Rear Admiral Knight said that Rear
Admiral Sims furnished the board with
mo information regarding the relative
merit of mis- recommendations.
you differ from the Secretary's view
that a man should be rewarded for losing
his ship" Senator Hale suggested.
IT do Rear Admiral knight replied
THE fact that a man has lost his ship
is to be considered against him." Senator
Hale suggested.
Never in his favor" the Rear Admiral
answered.
Secretary Daniels, in his instructions
to the Knight Board. placed much en-
phasis on contact with the enemy, espe-
cially where a ship had been destroyed or
seriously damaged by the enemy, and
where the conduct OF the commanding of
ficers in the resulting emergency has been
mertcrious,' Rear Admiral Knight stated.
Mere Contact Not Enough.
THE Board is unable to accept the view
that mere contact with the enemy consti-
tutes in itself claim TO recognition even
when followed by meritorious service, un-
less such service is in some measure con-
nected with operations, offensive or de
fensive. directed against the enemy" said
Rear Admiral Knight
"It is true that the Board recommended
wards for commanders of ships which
were lost or seriously damaged by enemy
Submarines or mines, but in each case
there was n special reason. Commander
Vernon, Of the Cassin; Captain Dismukes,
Of the Mount Vernon; Captain Chase, OF
the Minnesota. and Captain Graham, of
the Finland. saved their ships by excellent
seamanship and discipline after the ships
were disabled.
Commander Bagley was not recon-
mended by his naval superior for anything
connected with the sinking of the Jacob
Jones. He was recommended for a Navy
Cross for good seamanship displayed In
taking off the crew and passengers OF the
torpedoed British steamship Drama, and
was included by the Board in the general
list of destroyer commanders recon-
mended for that cross.
.Commander Foote'S case is the only one
lin which the Board recommended the
award of a Distinguished Service Medal
for circumstances connected alone with
the actual loss of a ship. and this recon-
mondation was based chiefly upon the
OF Admiral Gleaves ana
Admiral Mayo
The Board has no information Rear Ad
miral knight stated. upon which TO base
any recommendation for Captain sat
terlee, of the Tampa, and Commander
Ghent. of the Antilles. whose ships were
lost but Secretary Daniels gave Distln-
gushed Service Medals to both. he said'
Captain II. H. Christy. of the san Diego
which was sunk by mine off SANDY
Hook, was recommended not alone for his
conduct during the sinking OF his snip. nut
for exccli;ist service later on the Wyo-
ImiaE. Rear Admiral Knight stated.
,yos ordered not to consider awards for
marines who served with the A. e. r.:
because the Army would take care OF
them.