Great Falls daily tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1895-1921, 1920-03-08
Three Reports Are Made
by Five Members of
Subcommittee Engag-
ed in the Probe.
All Agree Naval Morales
Unhurt and That En-
listed Men Overlooked,
but on Nothing Else.

Washington, March THE
Wrangle over awards to navy Of
ficers of war decorations drew
nearer conclusion when Chair
man Page, of the senate naval
/ committee, made public the trio
OF reports the Investigators of
the subcommittee produced.
The three Republicans joined,
in the majority report, which
sharply criticized Secretary
Daniels in some respects, while
the two Democrats submitted
individual reports defending the
secretary's course and directing
their attack, in turn, at Rear
Admiral William S. Sims, the
most prominent figure in the
controversy stirred up over
naval medals and crosses.
In one respect the three re-
ports are unique They agree
on two points-that no perma-
nent harm has come to naval
morale as result of the awards
or the controversy and that en-
listed men received too small a
share of recognition for their
services.
Ihe majority report, signed by Sen
ators Hale, Mccormick, and Poindexter.
arraigns Mr.. Daniels for not having fully
ADVISED officers as to his plans in making
awards and asserts that his policy Of
decorating officers who lost their ships
would be detrimental to the navy.
Tempest In Teapot
Senator Pittman, in the first minority
report, characterized the investigation as
tempest in teapot ito ridiculous to
be mentioned in connection with the
morale OF fighting navy. In the second
minority report, Senator Trammell de-
ctared that navy morale had not been
harmed, as Admiral Sims had contended
and asserted that Mr.. Daniels followed
established naval customs in changing
recommendations of his subordinates. as
those officers themselves had done with
proposals of their juniors
The majority report reached the fol-
lowing conclusions:
That Secretary Daniels did not makei
known to the service his policy as To
awards. especially with regard to the re-
iauve Importance Of duty on shore andl
afloat. Fewer changes would have been
necessary later had he done 50, the re-
port said
That the secretary did not ascertain
from the officers who recommended
honors. the relative order Of merit andi
did not himself give sufficient consider
alton to that question. injury to moralel
and depreciation of the value of awardsI
Should Amend Statute.
That Secretary Daniels did not re-,
quire a sufficiently high standard OF
conduct in comforting honors
on officers who lost ships and was "moref
jealous to further the interests of COM
nanders who lost their ships than or
other commanders who, instead of losing
their ships, destroyed or seriously dam
aged the ships of the enemy
That the statute governing naval
awards should be amended to avoid
future controversy
In regard to certain matters not.
directly connected with the question of
Awards. developed during the hearings,
to charges as TO lack of full
20 operation with the allied admiralties
made by Admiral Sims, the report said
hat they were not at this time within
he province of the committee.
The whole purpose of the subcommit.
ee. it continued has been not to de-
'ide the physical differences between
officers of the navy or between officers
# the navy and officials of the nayy
department. but to assist in arriving at q
ettlement OF the question of awards in
Continued on Page Eighty