New Britain herald., 1920-01-16
Explains Attitude in COnteSting
 Method of Decorations NO ATTACK ON DANIELS
Expains Naval Forces Are Hampered in Not Receiving Constructive Crit icism From Officers, Held Down By Regulations.

Washington, Jan. 16.-Declaring that the greatest handicap of the American navy was the lack of con- Structive criticism and the fact that naval officers were refused permission to publish any matter without first submitting it to the navy department, Rear Admiral Sims today told the senate committee investigation naval decorations that his criticism of the circumstances of some awards was a plain duty.
 It did not involve insubordination, as some newspapers had seemed to assume he said, nor was there any intention to make personal attack on the secretary. Before Admiral Sims took the stand a controversy devel- oped between Chairman Hale and Senator Pittman, democrat, Nevada, because Admiral Sims had been called as the first witness. Senator Pittman said that since Secretary Daniels was responsible for the award and was "the man who is virtually on trial here, he should be heard first
 Admiral Sims First.
 Chairman Hale said it had been deemed best to call first Admiral Sims who made the principal charges and that MT. Daniels would be given an opportunity to be heard later. Sen ator Pittman insisted on his position and moved that MT. Daniels be called, but his motion was defeated and the committee proceeded with the hearing of Admiral Sims.
 On taking the stand, Admiral Sims said he had received d reply to his letter to MT. Daniels criticizing the eth nf iro that the reply was personal and sim ply said no final action on the awards had been made. Admiral Sims then read a prepared statement in which he said some newspapers had been mistaken in ascribing personal motives to some of those who had criticized the awards and in assuming that ad- vantake was taken of the incident to make 8 personal attack on the secre- tary.
 Affects Morale.
 Nothing could be further from the truth" he said, adding that in prob ably the nearly unanimous opinion of officers Of the navy' certain mistakes were made in the awards which i'm volved not only the question of jus tice but the morale of the fighting force.
 Assuming the existence of these convictions on the part of naval off, cers,'' Admiral Sims continued, ''it is apparent that it is the duty of the officers the advisability of whose dec orations is in question, officially to present their criticisms and sugges- tions in accordance with the author iZation prescribed for such cases by the regulations issued by the navy de- partment.
 
 therefore not only a duty that the off, cers indicated owe their service but it is perfectly legal and perfectly proper and does not involve as some press comments have stated or implied, any flavor of insubordination.
 Lacks Constructive Criticism.
 "Our navy lacks constructive criti- cism from the public-and necesSar- fly so because our naval officers are forbidden to publish anything without the permission of, and usually cen sored by the department. This is to say the least a singular regulation to be enforced in democratic form of government; and the inevitable re- suit is that the American public knows less about raval matters than the public of any other considerable maritime power because the officers of the latter are permitted. under cer- tain regulations when not on duty to publish any articles in criticism or suggestion which in their judgment will be Of benefit to the service or their country. A similar permission granted to American naval officers would not only be of great benefit to the public and the navy but the navy cannot attain it's maximum efficiency without it.''