The North Sea Commission.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 7739, 15 February 1905, Page 3

The North Sea Commission.

FWAL ARGUREBTS SUBMITTED. THE RUSSIANS MAKE A VERY WEAK DEFENCE. (Received Feb. 14, 10.36 p.m.) , V TAIUS, Feb. 14. The Russian conclusions submitted , to the Commission inquiring into the North Sea incident imply that tne Snce shows that the commander , of the Russian fleet *«« J" B *'** '"J ordert ng lire to be oi>ened and that consequently Admiral Ro-,hdestvenskv and his subordinates must be held continues by saying that the Russian Government deplores the injury which was inflicted ( on innocent victims, and is prepared , to indemnify those concerned, and pair the damage done, after ""'"-, ring the matter of the amount and ~ distribution thereof to the Hague . Tribunal. .. t The British conclusions <jrgne that it has not been shown that there were any torpedo Doats or destro>crs among the trawlers, or in tne neighbourhood of the fleet, whose officers must therefore have been mis- . taken. It is further argued that Ihere was no sufficient just.ticat.on forthc firing at all ; that the Russians ough/to have avoided injunng the trawlers ; that in any case the XrTng was continued for an un- , rewnable time, and that the fleet , TughTto have assisted the injured , nsnermen and their damaged vessels , Tfe argument concludes by saymg ttot »o fault was attributable to the trawlers on the management of thur operations. FURTHER DETAILS OF BRITISH FL ARGUMENTS. (Received Feb. 14, 0.27 a.m.) y PARIS, Feb. 14. The observations supporting the British conclusions shoxvs that , France, Japan. Germany, Denmark, , Holland. Sweden and Norway foi- , mallv disavowed their torpdoers bav- , ing been near the Dogger Bank, and suggests that the R«**an officers believed the trawlers were torpedoers owing to alarmist reports circulated on the Continent before starting. This belief, it is suggested, was strengthened by the Kaimtchatka s mistaken report that she was attached when she fired on the Sontag and AMebaran. It is alleged that Captain Ktaiio mistook the Aurora. s silhouetto for a torpe'docr. The ; search iights, «.»ing unable to il- ] lumimUe the silhouette, there was , created a screen, behind which the , silhouette disappeared, and caused | two partially illuminated trawlers to be mistaken for torpedoers. It is considered significant that Russia | did not announce that the Aurora j had bectf struok five times until six j weeKs after the accident. The Russian case suggested that their fire sank one torpedoer, and that the other escaped. The British claim that this exactly meets the case of the British trawlers. DISCREPANCIES IN RUSSIAN ■}. DEFENCE. I PARIS, Feb. 14. :' Admiral Rozhdcstvcnsky's two rea- : sons for leaving the trawlers unassisted are contrasted. The first alleged that the trawlers manifested complicity with the torpedo boats ; the second that the trawlers were numerous enough to help themselves. The Russian case dwelt on the superior facilities the Russian officers enjoyed for personally observing what occurred over busy fishermen in vessels of low elevation, without night glasses or searchlights. It emphasises ChrLstiansend's evidence, and explains that the fleet did not understand the trawlers' signals, because those signals were not a subject of international agreement, and it was not obligatory on the Russian Admiral to know them. He was bound to leave the point of attack rapidly, since there was no guarantee that the attack would not be repeated. Admiral Fournicr has announced, that the Commission's report will bv read publicly at a later date.