Evening star., 1924-12-21
WAR HONORS
THROWN IN DOUBT
Issue Raised in England
Whether They Can Be Re-
voked by Crime Conviction.

Correspondence Of The Star and New York
World.
LONDON, December 10.-The con-
Niction of one of England's war he
roes on criminal charge has raised
an. acute controversy as to whether
& lapse IN civil life should entail the
cancellation of honors bestowed for
conspicuous personal gallantry. Ac-
cording TO British official ideas it
Goes. although in all cases the final
decision is supposed to rest with the
King.
Reginald knight, former town clerk
cs Guildford. was convicted of en-
lezzling municipal funds and SEN
+enced 70 three years penal servitude.
There Were no particularly extenuat-
ing circumstances, except that he said
he had foolishly guaranteed money
for a business friend and had got
into the hands OF money lenders. The
great thing was his military record.
Captured Fifteen Germans.
Knight joined the army as a prI-
vate at the outbreak OF the war and
carly in 1915 was promoted lieuten-
ant for gallantry on the field. He
eventually rose TO the.rank of major,
accommodating en- route the DiStin-
guished Service order, with bar lvir-
yually a second =. $. o.. and the
Military Cross The D.. s. .. was
saines for capturing 3 Germans and
their machine guns single-handed.
According to British procedure,
~hen a man has been convicted by
the civil power he automatically loses
all distinctions gained on the field or
granted by royal favor. theoretically
he King is the final source of judg~
Tnent. but actually the war office au-
romatically orders the perpetual mill
tary degradation OF civil offenders.
Orders of ChivaIry.
In the case Of the so-called Orders
oj Chivalry." no objection is ever
raised over the expulsion of con-
Nicted criminal, but the Distinguish d
Service Order comes under a differ
Mt heading, according TO the public
siewpoint. 1t is almost invariably
bestowed for personal acts of gallan-
ny, and the suggestion has been
pressed in many quarters that the
personal act of gallantry for which
the decoration was awarded cannot
he wiped out by a subsequent lapse
in civil life.
Around the case of Knight has
ariasp a controversy which may have
sn important bearing on all future
cases of q similar nature. So far the
war Office has done nothing. but il is
generally expected that. failing per-
sonal intervention by King George,
the customary official intimation will
appear in the London Gazette that
Knight has been deprived of his dec
oratiohs owing to conviction by the
civil power.
Leaders Against Move.
The main controversy has been
raised by the publication of the views
of many politically prominent person
ages, who before 1914 would never
have been considered as competent
Judges on such point. Men like Col.
John Ward, NJ. p. Cthe "navy's NJ
P.D. Maj Watts Morgan, a miners
leader, Maj. C. f. Atlee. one OF RAM
say MacDonald's Junior ministers,
whose views are far from being in
huenced by Official castom.'
The views of such men. are that a
personal act of gallartry is not wiped
aUt by a civil lapse, but the opinion
oS the majority OF "old timers" and
"service circles" is that tho bestowa1
or decoration like the Distinguished I'd
Service Order implies the acceptance
OF high standard of honor and pro-
LIty. and that any lapse should be
punished by expulsion.
II is pointed out. however. that
many men displayed extraordinary
herofsm during the great war who
nad never been trained 10 study a
particular standard of honor, and
that it is unfair to deprive men Of
decorations won by their own per-
ssaal efforts just because they failed
- reach the standard set up by the
normal winners of such distinctions.