Norwich bulletin., 1921-07-18
Reports On Daniels 
 Sims Controversy
Conflicting Views by Mem bers of Senate Naval Com mittee on Direction of the Navy.

 rection of the American navy during the early months of the war were detailed in republican and democratic reports made public today of uae senate naval cum mittee's investigation. of controversies between former Secretary Daniels and Rear Admiral William S. Sims The reports constitute the last chapter in the controversy of May, 1920, caused by Rear Admiral Sims letter sharply criti- cising the Daniels war administration. z Mir. Daniels, former President Wilson and Rear Admiral w. S. Benscn, former chief of operations were scored severely in the majority republican report. These officials were as stoutly defended and as highly praised in the minority demo- cratic report. Admiral Sims was com mended by the majority and assailed by the minority.
 A "self-defensive, non aggressive and non-helpful policy was imputed to the democratic administration by the minori- ty report, which also charged many se- rious delays in navy operations. The minority found that uniform success of our operations amply demonstrated the wisdom of the policies adopted and the plans carried out ny the navy depart ment.'
 Senators Hale, Maine Bail, Delaware, and Reyes, New Hampshire signed the republican majority report and Senators Pittman, Nevada and Trammel. Florida, the democratic minority. Each report ! makes a separate volume embracing de- tailed review of testimony from scores of | witnesses during the naval sub-commit- tee inquiry of May, 1920.
 Two recommendations we're made by | the majority-for appointment of pro fessional commission of naval officers to study and apply to the American navy lessons of the World war and for pres 1 idential commission, including civilians, to study and recommend reforms in navy organization No rec concentrations were presented by the minority.
 The investigation resulted from reading l by Admiral Sims, during committee in l quiry more than a year ago into his ] controversy with Mir. Daniels over naval awards Of distinguished service decora- tions. of his letter to MT. Daniels writ | ten January '. 1920 charging the navy department with numerous delays and derelictions in directing naval warfare. Many specific recommendations for future navy activities as lessons of the war" were made by Admiral Sims who was in chief command of naval operations over seas, during the war.
 Support was given by ttle majority re- port to many of Admiral Sims charges.
 
 charges that seemed at all serious were justified or warranted and were not sup ported by the facts presents, nor con cured in the opinions of naval officers who appeared before the subcommittee. Admiral Sims principal charge that administrative delays were estimated to have cost 800 900 lives and s15. 5.oo0,ooo,- 900 unnecessarily was discussed in both reports.
 "The conclusion seems inevitable that had these delays in naval opinion not occurred the American evolutionary fore es might have brought about an allied victory earlier than they actually did.
 said the majority report, but extent of which these. delays failed to shorten the war is altogether conjecturaL"
 The minority report described the
 Sims charge as tmonstrous," and with. out foundation" and added:
 Admiral Sims failed absolutely tC produce any evidence to sustain thii
 serious charge. The evidence be.ind 2 shadow of doubt that the army wa:
 transported abroad as fast as it wa
 ready, that the submarines did not sinl one of our transports and munitions ana , supplies for our army crossed the w2te in ample volumes at al times" Chief strictures were laid by the ma jority against the former administrator
 for alleged failure to prepare for wa and for an alleged lack of aggressiv policy both of which were denied by tn minority. The majority emphasized however that it's criticisms of navy ad ministration were confined to the period prior to 1918, declaring thereafter "th
 naval war was carried in such way a to reflect most creditably on the nav. . department as we'll as on the navy am similarly it is with pleasure taat it cal
 be recorded that the entire point o view expressed by Secretary Daniels oi . naval matter charged from that of tn
 officials whose conduct before and durin
 1917, we have been obliged to criticis > so sharply"
 The majority in its report stated ths ! the conclusion seems unavoidable ths upon entering tlR war andw for man months thereafter the promary motive the administration was not do everythin
 possible to help win the war with tn allies and against Germany" but ratht
 does the predominating purpose of the aC -' minlstration seem to have been bout u future of the United States apart frol g the allies in case the latter might b l. defeated or in case of a peace withol
 victory" might be. The majority d, T clared further that we are forced to col Il clude that our naval unpreparednes ', though great was not the principal re; u son that delayed action by the Unite g States naval forces" as inevitable u Il facts for the conclusion that the pril
 cipal cause of their delay was the SC
 defensive non-a aggression, non-helpful DO n icy imposed on the navy by the admin tration through Secretary Daniels" ?: The majority report on the direct T sure between the naval secretary and A p miral Sims had this to say:
 e We find that to a large degree to Re:
 Admiral Sims belongs the credit f
 bringing about the convoy system. n We find that Rear Admiral Sims W. l. not properly advised as to the poiC st of the department or as to the fore d being sent him and that his reques 's were not acceeded to readily; remain, IT long unanswered and that he was n
 provided with an adequate staff.
 We find that this general lack of SUI F. port on the part of the navy depar 'r ment greatly embarrassed and delay al his negotiations with the allied comman e CTS"
 g. Admiral Sims was justified in opposil l. the laying of the North Sea mine ba
 rage during the first few months of t
 war when the available mines were u n satisfactory.
 E. Later Admiral Sims advocated al IS did everything in his power to comple d the construction of the great barrage.) ) d We find that su'bsts ntially all of t F. recommendations made by Rear Admir- " Sims during the first months of the "
 were later adopted after delays rangi
 from few weeks to year.
 i'd The minority summarized its finding