New-York tribune., 1920-01-24
Admiral Knight
Asks New Nayy
Award Law s
Chairman Off Decorations
Board Tells Senators
All Medal Legislation
5 h oul d Be Revised
He Also Censures Daniels
Three Atlmirals Uphold
Sims in Opposing Honor
for Men Losing Ships
Ns'r York Trtbune
QSIin Ut0n B,treo,i


Washington B,treou
WASHINGTON, Jan 23. Arraving
himself against Secretary Daniels in
the matter of naval decorations, Rear
Admiral Austin N. Knight, chairman
OF the Naval Decorations Board. today
told the Senate sub committee inves,i-
eating the awards that Congressional
legislation was needed to ditferentla1,,
between decorations for "merjtorious
and distnguished' service and for
"valor."
Admiral Knight said one reason for
the existing controversy lay in the fact
that the only medal available for acts
OF valor was the Congressional Medal
OF Honor. Taking. issue with Secretary
Daniels. Admiral Knight held that the
Distinguished Service Medal should be
awarded to commanding officers OF
ships sunk or seriously DAMAGED bv the
enemy Whenever their conduct was
meritorious
admiral Knight urged That the entire
medal legislation be revised so that y
decoration might be awarded only 70,
valor in cases where the act OF heroism
was not remarkable enough to warrant
awarding the Medal OF Honor. .
The Present Usage
The Navy Cross is now given 70,
heroIsm when the act is not considered
Sufllcient to warrant The Honor NcJ.,i
and Tor distinguished service when no,
WarrantiNg Il Distinguished Service
Medal 'N'
Admiral Knight expressed keen cha
%rln over the impression which has rot
abroad in the service as well as on the
outside that the Navy Cross is rot q
decoration of high order. lie intimate d
tnat TINS was due not alone to the dua!
Slgnii lcance of the award as indicated
by the act of Congress creating it. but
to the indiscriminatc manner in which
the Secretary disregardcd the policy
of the Board Of Awards in recommend
ing men for this decoration.
Under the law, he showed. the Gro IS
may be awarded either for heroic con
duct, not in contact with the cnemy
or to a degree less than that cntitlinp
,he recipient TO the Congressional
Media OF Honor: or il may be awarded
Tor dl tlnguishcd service. but not in a
SITUATION of such rcspons biity az
would Justify the Distinguished Serv-
zee Medal AS temporary oXpcd .ent
he urged that Congress pass an act
providing that those who have received
the Navy Cross for hcroism may wear
attached to it clasp carrying tie
Inscription "For vaIor."
because The Secretary. in so many
instances coming under both charac-
ters OF cons nspicuous SERVICE saw fit tc
give officers tho Distinguished Service
Medal intcad Of thsc Navy Cross. Ad
mral Knight intimated that the entire
significance of the Cross had been
destroyed.
Bagley Not Recommended
Admiral Knight vent on record n:
opposing the view of Secretary Daniel.
IN comparing officers who lost ;hei
vessels through submarine attack Will
Lawrence and Perry. His testimon,
showed that none of the superior OF
iiccrs Of Commander Baglcy recon-
mendcd him for the Distinguished
Service Medal. which he received a
the Sccretary's hands, although tn,
other officers who served in command
Of destroycrs for award Of the Nav.
Cross.
tioMs was practically concluded this ae
tcrnoon, following the testimony of Rcal
Admirals Knight, Charles j Badger anS
Dc Witt CofIman. members Of the boars
appointed by the Secretary to pass on al
recommendations. The -committc,
adjourned late to-day, subjec. to the cal
OF the chairman.
The criticism by Admiral Sims o
The Sccrctary's policy in awarding th'
Distinguished Service Medal to Of
icers who had lost their ships was al
most entirely sustained in Admra
knights statement, which was intend
ed as representing the views OF thu
entire Naval Board.
in this connection the statcmcn
brought out the fact that, as in tn
case of Baglcy. there were no recon
mendatiOns from superior officers il
She case OF Commander William T
Conn jr.. of Baltimore, who was award
ed the Distinguished Service Medal b,
Secretary Daniels Conn commando,
the Alcedo, which was sunk by a Ger
man submarine.
1t is about this class of awards tha
much Of the controversy RACES. II
the opinion Of Admiral Sims and tn
officers who have supported him in hi
position on this question, the Secretar
/ iOldlcu ! IuIudiltlllul plIHClplc /
singing out for special reward mon VIII
had lost their ships at the hands o
She enemy On this point Admire
knight said:
The board is unable TO accept tn
view that mere contact with the cnem
constitutes in itself claim to rccoEai
ton even when followed by meritoriou
service. unless such service is in som
measure connected with operation:
offensive. or defensive, directed againS
the enemy.
Not Similar Cases
"Thc case of a ship destroyed by a
enemy against VIII .ch he had no opNol
tunty to fire shot is, in the opinio
Of the board, widely different from tn
cases of Lawrence and Perry. cited b
the Secretary of the Navy in his lette
of January 8 to Senator Page. Law
renee owes his claim not to his conduc
after the loss Of his ship (when h
was helpless and -dyiNg), but to tn
heroic spirit manifested throughout tn
engagement, a spirit which did nc
faltcr even when he had fallen fatal
wounded 1t was before, not after th
loss OF his ship that he uttered til
words which nave made his name in
mortal, and which are quoted by tn
Secretary as establishing a preceder
for his action in certain cases.
"Pcrry is remembered in history, nc
for his gallantry in leaving the wrec
OF the Lawrence under fire, but for tn
indomitnble spirit in which he +,
sumcd the fight on the Niagara an
the skill and daring with which he lc
his almost defeated fleet to victory