NORTH SEA COMMISSION.

Gisborne Times, Volume XVII, Issue 1389, 25 February 1905, Page 2

NORTH SEA COMMISSION.

THIRD BALTIC FLEET,

By Telegraph—Preßß Association —Gopyrigh! London,' Feb 23.

The Times’ Paris correspondent declares emphatically that the admirals of the Commission kept the secret of their deliberations so well that'the British and Russian Governments’ agsnt3 were unaware whether they had arrived at a unanimous agreement, whether there was a majority or minority, and if so whether a minority report would be issued. The Daily Telegraph’s Paris correspondent says that he is assured that the text of the Commission’s report, will round off considerably the sharp edges of the summary. ■ . ; . .

The Times, believing all the rumors regarding the Paris Commission’s findings as unfounded, doos not publish the alleged report. Admiral Spann is the fifth Commissioner, whose findiug will be final if the other members are equally divided. Danish reports state that the third Baltic fleet keeps close to the Dutch coast, avoiding the

FURTHER DETAILS. COMMISSION'S ANSWERS ON CHIEF POINTS. THE FIRING JUSTIFIED.

By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright Received 9.51 p.m., Feb 24. London. Feb 24, All other points of tho report are entirely favonrable to Britith contentions. The Commission unreservedly dismissed the Russian affirmation of the aotual presence of a torpedo. It is also understood it declares that' the Russians fired upon the Aurora.’ Reuter’s Paris agenoy reports that the Russians fire, whereof the trawlers were the victims, lasted too long, and when Admiral Rozhdestvensky arrived in British waters he ought to have informed the maritime authorities of the deplorable molestation of Britishers.

M. Fournier, at a private sitting yesterday, read the report, wbioh the commissioners then signed’. A copy was oommunicated to the agents. The report was drafted partly from the questions and answers, with a record showing whether the answers were unanimous or .if there was a majority. Reuter’s Paris agency telegrams, and those from St, Petersburg, concur in stating that while Russian good faith is recognised, Russia is held responsible for damages, and must adequately compensate the sufferers.

The first question was: Were the Russians justified in apprehending attack ? Answer: Yes, in view of rumours currently Circulating. The second question was: Was the admiral justified in taking ■ the precautions ho did in firing upon what he thought was a torpedoer ? Answer: Yes. Third question : Ought the squadron to have stopped to render assistance ? Answer : No ; but it is added that the admiral ought to have conveyed information by wireless telegraphy, or otherwise, to France or England.