The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1920. POLITICS AND A NAVY.

Southland Times, Issue 18819, 12 May 1920, Page 4

The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1920. POLITICS AND A NAVY.

Smarting under the direct attack made by Vice-Admiral Sims, Mr Josephus Daniels, the Secretary for the Navy in President Wilson’s cabinet, has been betrayed into statements that will make even some of his countrymen smile, though his evidence before the Senate’s Investigation Committee will reveal to the observant the extent to which political questions can affect a national service like a Navy. Mr Daniels in his haste to return blow for blow with Admiral Sims has been led into extravagances, which are funny, but which may easily play into the hands of the people who are busily engaged in trying to stir up ill-feeling between the two branches of the Anglo-Saxon race. In the first place, it must be remembered that the controversy between the two branches of the American Navy opened with a shrewd shaft by Admiral Sims, who refused the American decoration awarded to him by the Department and raised the question of the awards made to officers who had lost their boats through attacks by submarines. The most important point in this question was the fact that the first warship ■ belonging to the American Navy that was sunk by a Üboat was the destroyer Jacob Jones and her commander, Lieut.-Commander Bagley, was decorated soon afterwards, while an officer who rescued him from drowning at the time was ignored. Lieut.-Commander Bagley is a son-in-law of Mr Daniels. The attack, therefore, became personal, and within a few days the American people were shown sufficient to enable them to see that in the Navy there were two distinct parties, those who supported the department and those who supported Vice-Admiral Sims. The counter-charge that the admiral was pro-British, however, was first made in the Federal House of Representatives by a member who had been one of the notorious deputation that visited Ireland during the currency of the Peace Conference and it is now noticeable that the Irish question is raised by Mr Daniels, but a brief examination of Admiral Sims's book will show that his references to the Irish people were based upon the churlish treatment received by American sailors in Cork at the hands of Sinn Fein elements. His book shows, too, that he did not “minimise everything the United States Navy did,” but that be was extremely proud of the achievements of the fighting portions of the fleet under the Stars and Stripes. On the other hand he recognised, as a shrewd naval observer, the exact value of the assistance given in the naval war by his countrymen and he did not hesitate to tell his own people about it. He was administering an antidote to the vain glorious boasting of some sections of the Press, but his words, like many wholesome things, were not nice. The American is not so patient under criticism as the British people, and the admiral suffered.

This and the Irish question, which is really playing a more important part in American politics than most people think, are the chief causes of the feeling against Admiral Sims in this matter. Quite apart from his book, he has attacked the Irish party in the United States and Mr Daniels will probably have a large measure of support in his castigation of the admiral. Mr Daniels may be pardoned for his little excursion in self-praise, but until we know more about the actual achievements of the United States Navy in the great war it is difficult for us to understand what the future generations can have to marvel at Up to the present, the feature of its work that will cause most astonishment is the internal warfare that has taken place in the navy itself —with politics and personal jealousies delightfully mixed.