TOPIC:

Source: A 3 page typed document in the Important Decisions Book
22300 12-7/02 Pk.337 E&S
Marked as Confidential.

Report of the Committee appointed to consider claims to the South African War Medal, &c.

(1.) The Committee appointed to consider the claims to the South African Medal and other Medal questions held their first Meeting on the 27th February 1902.

(2.) They first proceeded to consider the awards already made before entertaining the miscellaneous applications referred to them. Where possible they also laid down rules which they suggest should be adopted for the future.

(3.) With reference to cases decided upon by His Majesty the King, the Committee suggest in future that—

(a.) Civilian Officials who are employed in territory within the theatre of War, whose action, materially assists in the success of operations, shall be considered as eligible for the grant of a Medal without clasps.
(b.) Civilian Officials appointed to assist the Commander-in-Chief, or other subordinate Commanders, at the front, in matters connected with the conduct of the War, or in the administration of territory shall be also considered in like manner eligible.
(c) Duly accredited War Correspondents shall receive Medals, without clasps, subject to conditions laid down by the War Office, which are as follows :—
(i) Correspondents must have been granted and have remained in possession of permits to act as such from the Chief Censor at Army Headquarters, from the Senior Censor in Natal, or from the Senior Censor at Capetown.
(ii) They must have been authorised to act as permanent, as distinguished from occasional, correspondents for duly accredited newspapers.
(iii.) Their communications to their several newspapers must have been ordinarily forwarded by telegraph, and not solely by; letter.
Similar rules to be applicable, mutatis mutandis, in future campaigns.
(d) Conductors of Convoys shall receive Medals without clasps.

(4.) In reference to the cases decided upon by the Secretary of State, the Committee propose to lay down as a ruling that:—

(a.) Duty on transport vessels does not in itself qualify for the grant of a War Medal. Service on land performed by any of the personnel of a transport vessel is not to be recognised, unless the individual concerned was ordered on duty by competent Military authority.
(b.) Masters and Officers of transports, and Civil Surgeons on transports come under the same non-qualification ruling as to medals.
(c.) The same ruling applies to nurses employed solely on transports, not used as hospital ships.
(d.) No Nurses will under any circumstances be eligible for clasps.
(e.) Mercantile Firms, Contractors and Tradesmen who provide supplies for an army in the field in the ordinary course of business, have no claim to be considered for the grant of medals.

(5.) In considering the question of the award of medals to Nurses, the Committee discussed the cases referred for their decision.

Their opinion is that, as a general rule, the terms laid down in Army Order 195 of 1901 should be strictly adhered to. In cases, however, where the services of ladies have been utilised by competent military medical authority for actual nursing duties, and such services could not have been rendered by persons belonging or attached to the Army, the ladies performing such services may be considered for the grant of a medal.

In accordance with this view, the Committee consider that the decision in the case of Mrs. Leather [sic] Culley should be reversed, and that lady and her secretary, Miss Mills, be allowed to receive the medal.
They decide that Lady O'Hagan and Miss Thomas were officially employed, and are therefore entitled to receive a medal.

Lady Farley, as Assistant Commissioner of the Red Cross Committee, is also entitled to a medal.

On the other hand, Mrs. Gunning is not considered entitled.

The Committee consider that servants to nursing sisters and ward maids are not entitled to the award of silver medals, their ordinary classification being that of "menials," but that the staff of ambulance trains such as cooks and attendants, if serving on written agreements, are entitled to medals as part of the medical staff.

(6.) With regard to the hospital ship "Maine," the Committee consider that the male members should receive the medal with the local clasp, but that the females (including Mrs. Cornwallis-West) not having performed actual nursing duties, are not entitled to the medal.

(7.) Military Attaches of Minor Foreign Powers.—The Committee consider that the grant of the war medal may be allowed in the cases referred as an act of international courtesy.

(8.) Scripture Readers and Army Temperance Workers.—The Committee think that these individuals should, if sent out under the authority of the War Office, be allowed to receive medals, but they should receive no clasps. They therefore recommend that the old precedent of these cases shall no longer hold good.

In the case of Miss Brooke Hunt which has been referred to them, they consider this lady is entitled to the medal.

(9.) Soldiers' Homes and Workers.—The Committee think that the local I organisers, and those in local independent charge thereof, may be considered I eligible for medals without clasps, provided they are recommended, and the Homes have been duly recognised by the Military authorities.

(10.) St. Helena.—With reference to the cases which have been referred to the Committee, they consider that the decision arrived at should hold good. They recommend, however, that enrolled Volunteers who have taken part in military duties should be allowed the medal equally with the regular Garrison;

(11.) The Committee do not consider that the three clergymen whose claims are submitted on 68/Chaplains/176, are entitled to the medal.
Mr. Macfarlane is considered entitled, as a transport officer.

Mr. Tissot is not considered entitled, as it cannot be considered that a French cook is a necessary servant to a General commanding a Division in the Field.

The cases of Captain Crowe, Mr. E. N. Macdonell, and Mr. P. H. Robbs come under the decision already given in para. 3 (a).
The case of Mr. B. B. Weil is decided in the negative, under the ruling in para 4 (e).

The cases of men employed in canteens of the Co-operative Society, and of Mr. Sanderson, have been already referred to Lord Kitchener.

The Committee consider that Lieutenant-Colonel, Hon. L. Dawnay should be called upon to give back the medal he received, to which he is not entitled, he having never been officially recognised in Army Orders.
They consider that Lord Romilly is not entitled to the medal, the order recognising him not being issued by a competent Military authority.
The Reverend Canon Knox Little is entitled to the medal, he having been officially recognised.

The Committee lay down as a general ruling that "if an Officer or civilian proceeds to the seat of operations without leave from the War Office, he is not entitled to a medal unless employed by order of the Officer in chief command of the force concerned, or under orders of some Officer specially authorised to make such appointment."

It has been considered advisable to refer to Lord Kitchener in the cases of the two officials of the municipality of Maraisberg, and that of the Press Censor at Aliwal North.

Similarly, the case of the Lydenburg Police has been referred, as there is nothing to show that the men were placed under the orders of the Military authority. The mere fact that they took part in operations does not seem to entitle them to the medal, and if the claim is entertained many other cases might be let in.