Evening star., 1921-07-27
Editorial. Digest
Does It Mean AnYthing2


eff you mix three republican sena-
tors with two democratic ones, and
the personalities OF ex-Secretary
Daniels and Admiral Sims. and set to.
simmer over the question Of whether
the republicans or democrats won the
war, you arrive at result that, IN
the words of Mr.. Goldberg, doesn't
mean anything" This comment from
the Baltimore News Independently on
the Senate report of the Sims-Daniels
controversy is typical of the senti.
ment of number of newspaper
writer's of both democratic and re-:
publican affiliation. For the rest. the
press discussion, like the report. is
pretty well divided on political lines
with a hint from some republicans
of the charge that the Wilson admin
istration. pursued the war half
heartedly at first, an assertion Wig
orously denied by the democrats.
When doctors disagree" says the
Minneapolis Tribune (republfcan).
there is not much chance for a sat
isfactory decision anywhere along the
line" and history" adds the Charles
ton News and Courier (democratic).
will attach no weight" to the par
tisan verdicts' of the republican ma
All that has been done Is to spend
1.-The Taxpayers money" the paper
concludes, an opinion that finds an
echo in the Roanoke World-tews
(democratic), and the Mobile Register
(democratic), which calls the report
"a waste of time and the peoples
money as Well. in SO far as 1t purports
to be historical survey of the
Navy's part in the winning OF the
war;"
"A partisan Investigation" result
ing in partisan findings." the Wins
ton Salem Journal (democratic) calls
the affair; "perfunctory report, -
the Chattanooga News (democratic)
describes it, Ito meet campaign exi-
gencies" not "creditable to the Ameri-
can Congress"4
The Springfield Republican (inde-
marking why bother with the and-
ings Of politicians?" and then makes
its own comment: "Secretary Daniels.
of course, made many mistakes ana
his department was not 100 per cent
efficient by wide margin. 1t Is q
snap to criticise him. Yet, when Ad-
miral Sims declared that the delays
of the Secretary were responsible Tor
loss of 100000 lives. he detonated his
own charges by the wild extrava-
gance of his rhetoric"
1t is with this sentiment In MIND
that the Chattanooga Times dnde-
pendent democratic) declares. that the
report will merely convince fair.
minded people that when they want
to get actual facts, or the uncOlored
inquiries and decisions" rather than
findings made by republicans and
democrats. who usually see what they
want to see through party eyes,"
The Lynchburg News (democratic)
criticism of the Wilson administra- :
tons work in 1917. Every fair mind
ed person." 1t says. knows or should
know that the administrators naval
record for 1918. was so closely re-
with 1t into one period"
Many newspapers of republican
leanings. on the other hand, are quite
satisfied with the majority report.
Says the Chicago Tribune independ-
ent republican,: Admiral Sims in our
based on fair study of the outstand-
ing facts. even a layman's judgment.
Expert opinion. we are confident, will
be even more emphatically in his IA
vor on most of the points raised"
The admiral's charges "cut straight
and went deep" in the opinion of the
Philadelphia Public Ledger Undepend-
ent), and ARE generally accepted by
the Navy and by the country" and.
says the Harrisburg telegraph tre-
publican) Sims comes forth from the
cloud Of doubt. not only as a fearless
officer. but as an accurate observer"
Both the Detroit Free Press (inde-
pendenD and the New York Tribune
1repuoiissanl erS ns give high praise to the
approval of the nations.. tie former
believes. and the latter calls it "a
skillfully drawn document of per
manent historical. value =
To the charge that the Navy in
tentionally avoided the part OF
the allies" as the Springfield Union
Irepublican) puts it. adding that
cism." the democratic papers take
emphatic exception. The New York
Times independent democratic) calls
this partisan rancor" and declares
Secretary was disloyal in thought or
deed to the, allies. or half-hearted in
prosecuting: the war" The Virginian
Pilot Gndependent democratic) gives
calls "charging the war administra-
tion Of rival party with construc-
tive treason"
Criticism Of Daniels unprepared-
ness for war. mentioned in the Phila-
lican), is explained in the Philadel-
phia Record Independent democratio)
on the ground that If we had had q
Won Tirpftz in charge OF the Navy
Department we might have antici-
pated the war. but "it is inherent in
American. as it is in British, political
institutions that the civil power shall
be supreme over the civil and mill
tary forces. and this is symbolized by
the civilians at the head of the War
Department and the Navy Depart
ment." and only Congress can "put
the Navy on a war footing"