Evening star., 1920-01-16
SIMS CRITICISM
Of NAVAL AWARDS
WAS DUTY, He SAYS
1eStjfieS Before Senate Com
mittee Investigating
Decorations.
NOT INSTRUMENTATION,
AS CLAIMED BY SOME
Characterizes Controversy as Un-
fortunate and Unnecessary.
Tried to Avert It.

Declaring that the greatest handi-
cap of the American Navy was the
lack of constructive 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 lnVestlgat-
ing naval decorations that his critl-
cism of the circumstances of some or
the awards was plain duty.
1t did not involve INSTRUMENTATION,
as some newspapers had seemed 10
assume, he said. nor was there an IN
iention to make a personal attack on
the Secretary.
Characterizing the entire contro-
versy as unfortunate and unneces-
sary," Admiral Sims said he believed
the award of medals only caused
trouble and that the service at large
would be glad if the government could
withdraw all awards and call 1t
square"
Il saw this trouble coming and tried
hard to avert it," he said. What we
lacked in this whole business was
policy defined by the Secretary OF the
Navy 1 requested that that be done.
In spite of all my suggestions and
those of other officers this was not
done"
Controversy Occurs.
Before Admiral Sims took the stand
controversy developed between
Chairman Hale and Senator Pittman,
democrat Nevada, because Admiral
Sims had been called as the first wit
ness. Senator Pittman said that since
Secretary Daniels was responsible for
the awards and was the man VINO is
virtually on trial here, ne Snouiu De
beard first.
Chairman Hale said it had been
deemed best to first call Admiral
Sims. who made the principal charges,
and that Mr.. Daniels would be given
an opportunity to be heard later.
Senator Pittman insisted on his po-
sition and moved that Mr.. 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 a reply to his
letter to Mr. Daniels criticising the
methods of making the naval awards;
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 10 some
of those who had critised the awards
and in assuming that advantage was
taken of the incident to make a per-
eonaI attack on the Secretary
Nothing Further From Truth.
Nothing could be further from
the truth" he said, adding that in
'nrobably the nearly unanimous opin-
ion of officers of the Navy" certain
mistakes We're made in the awards,
which involved not only the question
of Justice. but the morale of the
fighting force.
convictions on the part of naval Off
GERS" Admiral Sims continued, "it is
apparent that it is the duty at least
of those who exercise, or have eXer-
cised, command of the officers the ad
Visibility of whose decorations is in
question, officially to present their
criticisms and suggestions in accord
ance with the authorization prescrib-
ed for such cases by the regulations
issued by the Navy Department.
The making of such criticisms is.
therefore. not only duty that the
officers indicated owe their service,
but it is perfectly legal and perfectly
proper, and does not involve, as some
press comments have stated or I'm
piled any flavor of inSu ubordination.
Our Navy lacks constructive criti-
cisrn from the public-and necessarily
so because our naval officers are for
bIdden to publish anything without the
permission of. and usually censorship
by. the department. This is, to say
the least. a singular regulation to be
enforced in democratic form of gov
eminent, and the inevitable result is
that the American public knows less
about naval matters than the public
of any other considerable maritime
power because the officers of the lat
ter are permitted, under certain regu-
lationS, when not on duty, to publish
any articles in criticiSm.or suggestion
which in their judgment will be of
benefit to their service or their coun-
try. 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
~.
Tribute to BagIey.
Referring to the case of Commander
David Worth Bagley. brother-in- law
of Secretary Daniels. whose recon-
mendation for Navy cross was
changed by the Secretary to distin-
guished service medal. Admiral Sims
said Commander Bagley was one of
the most capable young officers in the
service. The admiral read a letter he
wrote Commander Bagley congratu-
lating him on his conduct when his
ship. the destroyer Jacob Jones, was
sunk by a submarine, and then pre-
sented a letter from Mr.. Daniels ask =
ing the admiral what recommenda-
tion ne had made for medals for Com
mander Bagley and other officers of
the Jacob Jones.
Admiral Sims said he replied that in
cases where commanders of destroyers
won actions against submarines special
distinctions We're recommended but
that he did not recommend any special
distinctions in cases where the action
resulted in defeat"
Declaring that he had read statements
in the press that he had recommended
every officer on his staff for a D. s. M,
the witness said he had recommended
only nineteen officers for that decora-
ton out of 202 who were on his staff
He characterized the service of these
officers of paramount Importance -
and reviewed their records to show why
he recommended them for decoration
Whatever of recognition praise or
credit ] may have gotten out of this
war belongs to the officers of my staff, -
he declared. Il only claim the credit
for building the machine and picking
the right men"