NORTH SEA COMMISSION.

Gisborne Times, Volume XVII, Issue 1380, 15 February 1905, Page 2

NORTH SEA COMMISSION.

THE RUSSIAN AND BRITISH -, CONCLUSIONS. r - THE SAMS OLD ,TORPEDO TALEu By Electric Telegraph—Per Press Aflsociatioa—Copyright. Received 10.66 ji.m., Feb. H t PARIS, February 11. . The Russian conclusions s,ubmittecLio the North Sea Commission, iob ply that the evidence shows that •the commamUer was justified in firing, and that consequently, AdmiralvRosii.dest.ve nshy and his subordinates were not responsible. The Russian .Government sincerely, deplore the injury to innocent victims and are prepared to indemnity them v and repair the damage after referr- _ ing the amount and distribution the Hague Court. The British conclusions submitted that noi itorpedoers and destnpy-y era were among the trawlers or in, the neighborhood .of the fleet, whoso officers'- mistake was not sufficient justification for firing at all. They/ ought to nave avoided injuring, ther*'trawlers. The firing was: copHau*® for; an unreasonable time. Tin fleet ought to have assisted the injured fishermen and damaged yesr> eels. No fault was attributable ±<p the trawlers .on their management;,,.Received 10,53 p,m., Feb.. 11, $■ PARIS, Feb. 14* Observations supporting the Brits-: • itish Conclusions showed that France, : - Dalian, Germany, Denmark, Holland,, Sweden, and Norway formally disavowed that their .torpedoers were at Dogger Bank. .:.v\V It is suggested that Russian ofiw, cers believed there were torpedoers,owing to alarmist reports tieforo starting, strengthened by the Kami chatka’s mistaken reports that sho Was attacked when she fired, at' the # Sonitag and Aldebaran* The British suggest that Captain dado mistook the Aurora and Silhouette for torped-oers. The searchlights being unable to illuminate the Silhouette, created a screen behind Which the Silhouette disappeared, causing two partially illuminated trawlers being mistaken for itorpedoers., Ik .is considered significant that Russia did not announce that the"* Aurora was struck fivo times until six weeks after the incident. The Russian case suggested that the fire sank one toEpedoer and that the other escaped. The British* claim that that exactly met the' cases of the .Crane and Minor. Reoeived 12.27 a.m., Feb 15. Paris, Feb 14. X' Admiral Rozhdestvensky's two roasons; for leaving the trawlers unassisted were;', given. The first alleged the trawlers v manifested oomplioity with torpedoers; the second that the trawlers were numer--* pus enough to help themselves. The Russian case dwelt on the superior facilities the Russian officers enjoyed of personally observing what occurred over busy fishermen on vessols at a low eleva-y tion, without night glasses or searohlights, v It emphasises thatChristiansend’s evidence [ explained that the fleet did not understand the trawlers’ signals because thS" signals were not subject to law obligatory on Russia. The was bound to leave tbe point of attack rapidly, since there was no guarantee tba * it would not be repeated. * M. Fournier announced that the Commission’s report would bo read publicly at „ a later date.