The custom of bestowing medals or decorations on meritorious individuals, or granting special honors, has prevailed in nations of Europe and elsewhere for many years. Only in recent times, however, has the practice become established in America. To mark in this way outstanding services or achievements or special acts of gallantry has a very broad purpose. It engenders a spirit of emulation. It so encourages like acts of devotion by others. It does not fail to add to the morale and the efficiency of national defense. The custom at no time has escaped the attention of our commanders. There is a tradition in this particular recently disclosed in the public prints. George Washington, at Newburgh- on-the-Hudson, established in 1782 the Order of the Purple Heart. Any of his force recommended for exceptional conduct in battle had that emblem awarded him and a cloth purple heart was sewed on the left breast of his tunic. The text of his order instituting this decoration is interesting. It reads:
Headquarters, Newburgh, Aug. 7th 1782
Honorary badges of distinction are to be conferred on the Veteran Non-commissioned officers and soldiers of the Army, who have served more than three years with bravery, fidelity, and good conduct; for this purpose a narrow piece of white cloth, of an angular form, is to be fixed to the left arm, on the uniform coat. Non-commissioned officers and soldiers who have served with equal reputation more than six years, are to be distinguished by two pieces of cloth, set on parallel to each other, in a similar form. Should any who are not entitled to the honors, have the insolence to assume the badges of them, they shall be severely punished; on the other hand it is expected those gallant men who are thus distinguished will on all occasions be treated with particular confidence and consideration.
The General, ever desirous to cherish a virtuous ambition in his soldiers, as well as to foster and encourage every species of military merit, directs that whenever any singularly meritorious action is performed, the author of it shall be permitted to wear on his facings, over his left breast, the figure of a heart in purple cloth, or silk, edged with narrow lace or binding. Not only instances of unusual gallantry, but also of extraordinary fidelity and essential service in any way shall meet with a due reward. Before this favor can be conferred on any man the particular fact, or facts on which it is to be grounded must be set forth to the Commander in Chief, accompanied with certificates from the commanding officers of the regiment and Brigade to which the candidate for reward belonged, or other incontestable proof, and, upon granting it, the name and regiment of the person, with the action so certified, are to be enrolled in the book of merit, which will be kept at the orderly office. Men who have merited this last distinction, to be suffered to pass all guards and Sentinels which officers are permitted to do. The road to glory in a patriot Army, and a free country, is thus opened to all. This order is also to have retrospect to the earliest stages of the war, and to be considered as a permanent one.
Apparently this badge was bestowed but rarely; a condition many feel should obtain under our existing systems. The value of any decoration is in inverse proportion to the ease with which obtained. So far as existing records show, only three American soldiers ever received the Order of the Purple Heart. They were Sergeant Daniel Bissel of the 2d Connecticut Regiment, Continental Army; Sergeant Daniel Brown of the 5th Connecticut Regiment, Continental Army, and Sergeant Elijah Churchill of the 2d Continental Dragoons, also a Connecticut organization.
The practice prevailing in other nations accorded in the main to an established system. Such a system was not looked upon with favor by our people at the beginnings of our nation. While, in the earlier days of the development of our Republic, the Congress did not fail, on occasions of notable victories by our land and sea forces, to pass resolutions of thanks directed to their commanders and sometimes bestowed swords of honor or authorized commemorative medals to be struck, it was never intended that these medals were to be worn. There was perhaps reason for this condition. Our founders did not look with favor upon systems savoring of the practices of monarchial governments. Our Constitution forbids the American officer, without the consent of the Congress, to accept from any king, prince, or foreign state an office, emolument, title, or decoration of any kind. Our government in its development in later years studiously avoided the creation of any plan or system for bestowal of orders or decorations. What prevailed elsewhere in governments differing from our own system of representative democracy had no appeal to the people of America.
Students of our early history, in the era immediately following the establishment of American independence, are amazed to read of the storm of disapproval that swept our country with the announcement from New- burgh-on-the-Hudson, the camp of our victorious army of the war of the Revolution, that its officers proposed to create the Order of the Cincinnati. The members of that order were to wear its insignia. And the right to membership was to descend to the eldest son of the officer-member. Despite the statement that the institution was nonpolitical, that its object was solely to keep alive the friendly relations established in their associations in the field and to cherish the memories of the honorable part they had taken in heroic struggles that had just ended, and that through the order it proposed to undertake the duty of aiding the needy widows and the orphan children of its members, few of our people of those days failed roundly to denounce the Order of the Cincinnati.
Our grandmother’s cosy garrets have yielded scores of musty, yellow, dogeared pamphlets crowded with italics and exclamation points inveighing in passionate language against that wicked and dangerous Cincinnati. It was an aristocracy of men in gold lace and epaulettes that would not fail in due season to plot against American liberty. The men of Massachusetts said: “Have we thrown overboard the effete institutions of Europe only to have them reintroduced in such a surreptitious fashion?” And Rhode Island even proposed to disenfranchise the members of the order. A swarm of brochures flooded the country in rejoinder and rebutter. Not until early in the nineteenth century did the controversy end. It is easy for us to smile at this futile outcry against the Cincinnati. That order stands before our public of today as an honored society of great distinction. But influences engendered did not end when the controversy ceased to occupy popular attention and passed from man’s memory.
Not until three-quarters of a century later could the Congress of the United States be persuaded to take a more rational view of the thought of the soldier and create what once had appeared as a practice savoring of a European system. It is interesting to note that in this long period of time there had been displayed on the part of the Congress measures of liberality or looseness with regard to the same subject matter. Laws were frequently enacted granting the right to persons in the military and naval services to wear certain insignia with their uniforms. These insignia were the official emblems of a number of hereditary patriotic societies established to commemorate our various wars and military campaigns. Apparently there had been no serious objection on the part of the Congress so to mark individuals in uniform as descendants of men rendering service in war. But these bought-and-paid-for plus three dollars a year medals did not appeal to the man-at-arms.
To recognize a deed performed by one of us in his own person by a mark or symbol conspicuously displayed by that individual before his comrades had to the soldier a different appeal. The glorification of the services of one’s ancestors bespeaks only family pride. What the soldier wanted was some measure to create the proper spirit of emulation in the military forces, for thereby the stimulated morale would redound to the country’s good through added efficiency of the organization. That esprit de corps is one of the strongest of impulses to great deeds. Gallantry in battle in the eyes of every race is the acme of accomplishment. This has always been true; it will never be otherwise. Marks of distinction displayed in person by men who have earned them in the field cannot fail so to exalt their associates that no opportunity to do likewise will be neglected.
Our country in the early sixties of the last century was entering the throes of a Civil War; the life of the Republic was at stake; then was the time to encourage individual sacrifice. For otherwise our sacred American institutions might not survive. In 1861, we find the Congress taking its first rational view of the subject matter of decorations to be worn by their holders. It authorized the issue of a Medal of Honor to meritorious officers and soldiers of the Army, restricted in general to those especially distinguished in battle. In the following year, 1862, that honor was extended to the naval personnel, but, strangely to us, restricted to the enlisted men of the Navy, including the marines. The holders were men distinguishing themselves in battle or elsewhere by extraordinary heroism in the line of their profession. Their promotion to the warrant grade was authorized, they might be bestowed with the Medal of Honor and be given a money gratuity.
Why the commissioned officer of the Navy or Marine Corps was excluded from such a recognition is unknown. This condition prevailed until 1915. Then the Congress authorized that that form of decoration, viz., the Medal of Honor, might be awarded in meritorious cases to commissioned officers of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. Within this period, from 1862 to 1915, the Congress reverted on two occasions, viz., in 1898 and 1901, to its former practice. It authorized the issue of commemorative medals to be distributed to participants in the Battle of Manila Bay, May 1, 1898, under Admiral (then commodore) George Dewey, and to like participants in certain naval and other engagements in the West Indies and on the shores of Cuba in the war with Spain.
Not until our military forces had served in the field in intimate relations in campaign with like forces of other nations did any plan evolve constituting a system for marking such service by the issue of commemorative badges to participants. That contact came thirty years ago. Then forces of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps served in the Boxer hostilities in North China. The system then in vogue in the British service of marking such campaigns was made known to us by our comrades of the Royal Welch Fusiliers, a regiment created by William of Orange in 1689, distinguished in the military history of Great Britain. We must give credit, however, to the late lamented Lieutenant General Adna R. Chaffee, U. S. Army, who, as a major general of the U. S. Army, commanded the American units in the China Relief Expedition, not only for the inspiration to create for the American Army something similar to the British practice, but also for its institution in 1904. Then General Chaffee acted as chief of staff of the United States Army, stationed at the War Department in Washington.
The existing system of prescribing campaign badges for the Army was one there created by him. Later, upon the initiative of Major General George F. Elliott, Commandant, U. S. Marine Corps (then brigadier general), these Army methods became applied, not alone to the Marine Corps but to the entire naval service. The archives of the War Department as well as of the Marine Corps contain some interesting documents covering the subject. To mark a soldier identifiably as a veteran of a previous campaign by an appropriate badge was, as indicated, unheard of so far as concerns our own services.
On September 19, 1904, several months after General Chaffee assumed duty as chief of staff, he directed a study of the problem by the general staff. Its solution was entrusted to Brigadier General J. T. Kerr of the general staff (now retired and then lieutenant colonel). His report contains the colorful details. About this time the public writer and war correspondent, Richard Harding Davis, had written the President (the Honorable Theodore Roosevelt) on the general subject of military decorations. Mr. Davis brought to notice the hypothetical case of a newly graduated West Pointer under orders to join his first regiment, with his military career then a closed book of unlettered and unnumbered pages. This young officer was assumed to come from a line of ancestors who participated in every American war; he was a hereditary member of all existing societies or orders to commemorate these wars. By virtue of these services of his forbears and not by reason of any services of his own, this young officer had the right under the law to wear the insignia of these various orders or societies.
Mr. Davis demonstrated that this embryonic hero could, under the authority of the law, appear before the eyes of his first commanding officer, an undecorated and grizzled veteran of many conflicts, bearing on his virgin, sturdy, youthful chest at least twenty-one decorations. Colonel Kerr, however, showed that Mr. Davis had made a slight miscalculation. He had underestimated the situation. Our subaltern was entitled to be adorned by at least five more medals than the Davis count; he could wear twenty-six in all. Of course, all know full well that no such young officer, thus be-medalled, would have dared so to present himself, law or no law. But these statements aptly illustrated, and in a very striking way, the fallacy of the American attitude and the inconsistencies of the Congress in dealing with the subject. There is perhaps an easy explanation for the anomaly. We should remember that while we of the military-naval profession usually cast no vote, the members of the various hereditary, patriotic, and commemorative societies number many men in civil life who do. It is, therefore, comparatively an easy matter for these societies to secure the legislation they regard as necessary for the full recognition of the privileges of their respective institutions, including laws conferring upon all members the right to wear their respective insignia with the United States uniform.
Now the solution of the problem entrusted to the general staff was no easy matter. They had to deal not only with the past inconsistencies of the Congress, its prejudices originating from the ancient days of our infant Republic, but also some very practical considerations. What pleases us to call virtuous and soldierly conduct, and the considerations underlying such conduct, are matters that necessarily do not appeal to the civilian. The civil code is different from the military. What we hold to be military crimes come not under the ban even of misdemeanors in their relation to the civil. Now the soldier may not quit his job nor transfer his allegiance to another competitor. We hold that the deserter and the traitor merit but one end. The soldier also must be punctual; he must be alert and watchful on duty; he must be neat in his person and particularly in his care of the implements of war, his rifle, entrusted to his keeping. If failures in these particulars are the rule, the military organization becomes inefficient and unreliable. We cannot treat such derelictions with the leniency observed in the civil code. We look upon these offenses as high crimes—some carry with them, in war, the penalty of death. Our soldier must so behave at all times that success in battle may fall to our arms. Measures that inspire him to be forgetful of self are important. Courage in the individual is so essential to our success in action that every means must be employed to instill and develop it. Cowardice means failure.
To ask of the civilian legislator to consider and to initiate a satisfactory code to cover a system of military decorations was an appeal to be resorted to only under the doctrine that such a procedure was an absolute necessity. Public opinion flushed by news of victories had influenced the Congress to recognize the service of successful commanders. But could it be expected of the Congress, in the piping days of peace, to establish the code of decorations desired? On the other hand, had not the Congress entrusted sufficient authority to the Executive to consider and institute the foundations upon which the desired system could be built? Could what was wanted lawfully be done by our Commander in Chief, The President? That was the question General Chaffee wanted the general staff to answer.
The problem for the general staff to solve, under Colonel Kerr, was to devise the foundations of a system for bestowal of badges to the individual, distinctive of his particular service as rendered, either with or without the immediate authority of the Congress, as the necessity of the case might dictate. It was found that under the authority of Section 1296 of the Revised Statutes, reading thus:
Sec. 1296. The President may prescribe the uniform of the Army and quantity and kind of clothing which shall be issued annually to the troops of the United States.
The President had authorized as part of the uniform of the enlisted force of the Army, certain distinctive badges, among which were the “service chevron,” and the “service in war chevron.” Thereby the number of enlistments, or length and the character of the previous service, of this enlisted veteran was at once to be recognized.
Colonel Kerr proposed that the fullest advantage be taken of this delegated authority of the Congress so vested in the President of the United States. The plan proposed was one subject to further enlargement by legislation after the bases of the approved system might be established, even, if necessary, that legislation be attempted to the end that these non-governmental decorations could be retired from further use and in favor of the badges the proposed system was to initiate. The plan as drawn up was one for the immediate issue of campaign badges to commemorate and distinguish the participants in service then who were veterans of recognized wars and campaigns. These badges were to be part of the Army uniform. The plan was examined by the Judge Advocate General of the Army (Brigadier General George B. Davis) and by the Quartermaster General of the Army (Brigadier General Charles F. Humphrey). It was pronounced to accord to authority granted by the law; money was found available in current Army appropriations. This plan, as a basis for a system of decorations, was submitted to the War Department by the chief of staff (Lieutenant General Adna R. Chaffee). On January 4, 1905, it was heartily endorsed by the Honorable Robert Shaw Oliver, Acting Secretary of War, and later promulgated to the Army in General Orders Nos. 4 and 5, War Department, January 11 and 12, 1905.
The plan contemplated the issue, according to existing regulations, of campaign badges as an article of uniform under the authority of the President, but only to officers and enlisted men then in the Army. These badges were to mark those then on the rolls of the Army who had served in campaigns in the Spanish, Philippine, China, Indian, and Civil Wars. The expense of purchase was to be borne from current Army appropriations. The officers were to reimburse the government for the cost of their badges. The statutory privilege of wearing the insignia of hereditary patriotic societies was recognized and confirmed. But by a clever provision inserted in these orders their display on the uniform was discouraged. Those who desired to exercise their statutory rights could not wear them with the new campaign badges. It was not proposed that oil and water be mixed. These campaign badges were not, without authority from the Congress, to be issued to anyone not then in the Army. Men who had left the service being prohibited from wearing their former uniforms, the campaign badge as part of that uniform could not then be issued to them. It was only for those on current Army rolls.
History recalls that Joan of Arc at her inquisition was asked why her standard had been placed with the Royal emblems of France at the coronation at Rheims. She replied in simple, beautiful language that will live as long as language is spoken: “It had borne the burden; it had earned the honor.” With the issue of these badges to the Army there came to us, and at once, a flood of applications from the marines that they receive them. They had participated with the Army in the campaigns in the Philippines and in Cuba. They had borne there the burden. How about the honor? But the War Department had then but one answer. Its child must not die a hornin’. No article of Army uniform, paid for in the case of its enlisted personnel from Army appropriations, could, without specific legislative authority, be issued to anyone not then in the Army, not even to participants since discharged from the Army; certainly not to the marines, no matter upon what basis, in common justice, their right thereto rested.
A plain inference could be drawn from this attitude. It did not take long for us to arrive at the correct conclusion. Could we not with equal propriety and like legality cause these selfsame badges to be made an article of uniform for the interested naval personnel? Then would it not follow that our veterans, participants in these distinguished campaigns, could properly be marked with like honors? But the quartermaster’s department of the Marine Corps, then presided over by the late Colonel Frank L. Denny, said there was no money available in the Marine Corps appropriations to cover the cost; that their use for such object, was of doubtful legality; in fact he said that the entire proceeding was of the same tenor, at least in his estimate of the situation. So there the matter, for the time being, rested.
It is true that neither the Navy nor the Marine Corps has any statute, as that quoted for the Army, vesting in the President authority to prescribe articles of uniform. But such has been done by executive, rather than legislative authority, from the very beginnings of the naval establishment, and long usage, lawyers say, makes law. There was a further obstacle that troubled us. While there was appropriation to defray any expense for purchase of material for uniforms of the enlisted naval personnel, excluding the marines, the issue of the finished product to the bluejacket was a charge against his pay. The badge, in this situation, if authorized for the Navy as an article of uniform, would only go to the enlisted marine free of cost. In these conditions we turned to Brigadier General George F. Elliott, our commandant, and bided the time when he could take the situation in hand.
On December 18, 1907, when these campaign badges had been in fact distributed to the Army, when they were being currently worn by our comrades of the Army of our Philippine expeditions and of North China, it was thought the appropriate time to act. On that date General Elliott proposed to the Navy Department that the identical campaign badges with ribbons, then being so worn by those of the Army entitled to the privilege, be adopted, so far as practicable, as part of the uniform of the Navy and Marine Corps; that they be issued to our personnel there associated with the Army; that, preliminary to departmental action, an authoritative decision be obtained from the then comptroller of the treasury as to which of the specific appropriations, if any, for the support of the naval establishment, were available to meet the expense of purchase, and that the conditions underlying the issue of these articles of uniform to the veteran personnel of the Navy be further determined.
The Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable Victor H. Metcalf, acted promptly upon these representations. The first answer came in due time over the signature of the Honorable Leander P. Mitchell, then assistant comptroller of the treasury. He said that, if these decorations be prescribed as part of the uniform of the Navy and Marine Corps, the expense of purchase and issue would be chargeable to the “Clothing and Small Stores Fund’’ for the Navy, and the appropriation “Clothing, Marine Corps” for the Marines. Their issue was to be under the same condition as any other parts of the uniform. From this followed what we anticipated, that the enlisted marine would receive his decoration free of expense, while the officers of the Navy and Marine Corps, and the enlisted men of the Navy, had to pay for its cost. When this condition was understood by Secretary Metcalf, he directed that appropriations be asked for in the annual estimates then before the Congress to cover all the expense, so that all would be treated alike. Congress acted favorably May 13, 1908. As a result there was no reason to adopt the rigid rules found necessary in the Army at the institution of the system. The naval service was informed through promulgation of Special Orders Nos. 81 and 82, dated Navy Department, June 27, 1908. This congressional sanction of the Navy Department’s action, this act of making appropriations, by the legislative department of our government, for the object of the issue of these campaign badges, free of cost, to men since discharged, and to officers of the Navy and Marine Corps, has a wider significance. The Navy had succeeded most effectively in fortifying what the Army had initiated upon its own responsibility. That success with the Congress laid the groundwork for later legislative acts enlarging the systems. In the World War, General John J. Pershing asked for proper steps to be taken in this direction. He has explained his action in the following terms:
The problem of decorations in our Army had long been a knotty one, and except for the Medal of Honor and the Certificate of Merit we had only campaign badges and those given for marksmanship. The allies desired to confer their decorations on our men who served with distinction under them, but we were not permitted to accept foreign decorations without permission from Congress.
There is no doubt that some sort of visible evidence of exceptional military service arouses pride and stimulates effort. The generous bestowal of decorations in each allied Army by its commander in chief was unquestionably an important factor in maintaining the morale of their troops. Our own Medal of Honor had inspired many a heroic act.
As it was a matter of importance to our officers and men, the whole question of decorations was taken up by the War Department on my suggestion, with the result that congressional action established certain medals of our own and authorized our soldiers to receive those of foreign governments.
The medals created by Congress at this time were the Distinguished Service Cross for extraordinary heroism in connection with military operations against an armed enemy, and the Distinguished Service Medal for exceptional meritorious service in a position of great responsibility, which replaced the Certificate of Merit. There were in addition to the Medal of Honor, our highest decoration, established in 1862, for gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty. The award of the Certificate of Merit was discontinued.
Authority was also eventually given the War Department to confer our decorations on allied officers and men who had rendered deserving service with our armies. The different grades of medals in the various countries were not entirely the same as ours. We had none that corresponded to the French or Belgian Croix de Guerre. There ought to have been one for gallantry in action somewhat less conspicuous than that covered by the Medal of Honor or the Distinguished Service Cross. I made a recommendation to this effect, but nothing came of it.
There were thousands of instances in our armies where a medal of this class should have been bestowed. We were as liberal in decorating allied officers and men as the provisions of our law would permit, and there is no doubt that the exchange of decorations helped materially to promote friendly relations.
The enactments followed of July 9, 1918, for the Army, re-creating the Medal of Honor and instituting the Distinguished Service Cross and Distinguished Service Medal as well as other decorations, and that for the Navy, February 4, 1919, re-creating similarly the Medal of Honor and instituting the Distinguished Service Medal and Navy Cross and other medals.
These laws prescribe a Medal of Honor for the Army and one for the Navy, supposedly of equal importance, to be bestowed upon any person in the military or naval service who should “in action involving actual conflict with an enemy distinguish himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life, above and beyond the call of duty.” There is one distinction, however, in the case of the Navy Medal of Honor. It is further restricted to acts “without detriment to the mission of his command or the command to which attached,” a condition that does not apply to the Army.
There were, prior to these enactments, three cases in the Army of officers and enlisted men awarded more than one of the then existing Congressional medals; there are two cases in the Marine Corps of officers or enlisted men receiving more than one of the then like Navy Medals of Honor.
The next decorations of importance are; for the Army the Distinguished Service Cross, on a parity with the Distinguished Service Medal for the Navy. The Distinguished Service Cross for the Army, however, is restricted in its award to persons, male or female, “distinguished by extraordinary heroism in connection with military operations against an armed enemy,” while the award of the Navy Distinguished Service Medal is limited to any person, apparently male, who has “distinguished himself by extraordinary meritorious service to the government in a duty of great responsibility.”
The next decorations in order of their importance are, for the Army the Distinguished Service Medal, apparently co-equal with the Navy Cross. The Army Distinguished Service Medal is limited in its award to any person, male or female, who “has distinguished himself or herself by extraordinary meritorious service to the government in a duty of great responsibility,” while the Navy Cross, on the other hand, may be bestowed upon any person who shall “distinguish himself by extraordinary heroism or distinguished service in the line of his profession, such heroism or service not being sufficient to justify the award of a Medal of Honor or a Distinguished Service Medal.”
Both the Army and the Navy laws provide that no more than one Medal of Honor, one distinguished Service Cross, one Distinguished Service Medal, or one Navy Cross, shall be issued to any one person, it being further provided for both services that succeeding deeds or service should be marked by the award of a suitable bar, device, emblem, or insignia, to be worn with the decoration.
The time limit for award of the Congressional Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, and Distinguished Service Medal for World War service, expired seven years ago, but a special act of Congress in 1928 authorized the War Department to consider for further awards all applications which were pending when the time limit expired. Under this extended authority a number of decorations have been conferred during the past few years.
So far ninety-three awards of the Congressional Medal of Honor “for individual acts of gallantry in the World War” have been made, in addition to six medals bestowed on unknown, unidentified soldiers and one conferred on Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh by special act of Congress. Before the World War a total of 1,723 Congressional Medals had been issued.
There is also specific statutory authority for certain other decorations, viz.: The Philippine Congressional Medal of Honor, for the Army alone; the Distinguished Flying Cross, identical in all details for the Army and the Navy; and the Soldier’s Medal, solely for the Army with nothing similar for the Navy. These include such distinctly military-naval decorations as may be classed as statutory. The others, i. e., the campaign badges, not forgetting good conduct medals and marksmanship badges, all rest more upon the administrative authority of the executive branch of the government, though they all receive in one form or another the sanction of the legislative. These campaign badges include now medals for field service in the Civil, Indian, and the Spanish Wars, in the Cuban occupation and that of Porto Rico; also service in the Philippines in the “days of the Empire,” and in China in the Boxer hostilities. Badges have also been issued to cover the Mexican service at Vera Cruz and the concurrent Mexican border service of the Army. There is also the Victory Medal to commemorate any military-naval service in the World War.
The foregoing, in general, include the Army campaign badges. The Marine Corps badges include these Army campaigns with special ones for service in Haiti in 1915 and 1919-20, Santo Domingo in 1916, the Nicaraguan campaigns of 1912 and 1927-29, and all Marine Corps expeditionary services not otherwise classified. There is a more recent Navy campaign medal prescribed for that service known as the Yangtze patrol. The statutory authority for these badges is found in the Navy in sustaining appropriations in current naval appropriation acts; in the Army in that provision of the act approved May 12, 1928, which reads:
Sec. 3. That the Secretary of War be, and is hereby, authorized to expend from the appropriations for the support of the Army so much as may be necessary to defray the cost of the issues provided by this act.
This law was one authorizing, among other things, the Secretary of War to procure for issue without expense to the persons entitled thereto, including the families of persons deceased, of all campaign badges and other decorations then authorized by executive authority. Another enactment of the Congress of interest in relation to this subject is that approved April 21, 1928, which prohibits the unauthorized wearing, manufacture, or sale of medals and badges awarded by the War Department, and this includes service medals and badges that are known as campaign badges. The act is a penal statute providing for the punishment of any individual who knowingly offends the provisions of this law. So far as is known there is no like statute to cover similar badges issued by the Navy Department. That there should be such a law in the circumstances would seem apparent.
That these legislative sanctions, as well as these statutory extensions of the system of decorations, between the Army and the Navy, might have been made in identical terms, and that uniform methods of administration of the law and regulations might obtain, has been the thought of many officers of both services. There seems no sufficient reason to prescribe that for like acts of gallantry in each service one Medal of Honor for the Navy and Coast Guard and another of different design for the Army should be the rule. Nor is there equally reason for the Army to have one Distinguished Service Cross of a higher value and different design than is prescribed for the Navy Cross for the Navy and the Coast Guard. Nor is there warrant for different circumstances governing the various services in the award of decorations of like value. Very recently, innumerable hours and manifold efforts have been spent to bring representatives of the different branches of national defense to one mind with respect to systems of pay and plans for uniformity in promotion, factors that bear upon the morale and efficiency of national defense. That the system of awards of decorations is a like factor cannot be gainsaid.
The War and the Navy Departments are now working to develop better methods to bring about a more thorough understanding of the major problems of one service in their relation to what confronts the other, under the theory that better exchange of information and opinion would be most helpful in times of national emergency. To this same end and for some years many of the officers of the Army have attended and become graduates of our Naval War College at Newport. Equally the reverse has obtained. Many naval officers, including those of the Marine Corps, have been graduated from the service schools of the Army, both at Washington and at Leavenworth. It has been recently proposed that the undergraduates of Annapolis and West Point receive the benefit of a series of lectures by officers of the Army and the Navy. Annapolis is thus to get, if found practicable, an insight into the Army problems, while those of the Navy are to be brought under scrutiny of the prospective Army officer at his school on the banks of the Hudson. These are conditions of today that promise much good for our nation’s future security.
It is to be hoped that some workable plans may be evolved that will serve to disclose and remedy the defects apparent in our system of awarding decorations. A single system of decorations common to all the services forming our national defense would seem desirable. A more rigid administration of such a system, an administration that would serve to enhance in the service mind the value of the decoration, seems equally desirable. The future military-naval personnel must write, in its day, even brighter pages of individual achievement, more thrilling stories of personal self-sacrifice than those that have adorned the annals of our past.
This has its peculiar relation to the naval service. With our country committed with other nations to parity in ships and in guns, our success will depend more and more upon the high quality of the naval personnel to come after us. Admiral Farragut once wrote: “The best guns and the best vessels should certainly be chosen, but the victory three times out of four depends upon those who fight them.” Our naval officer of the future, with his seamen, will fight under different conditions from those that obtained in our past. His weapons may be wholly unlike such as have marked that era. His problem is more difficult. That future commander with his subordinates in his heavier task must have, comparably, better men than those who have gone their way before. They must be better than the best of any nation that may oppose them. Admiral Mahan’s oft repeated quotation will be true then as it has always been: “Historically good men with poor ships are better than poor men with good ships.”