THE RUSSIAN OUTRAGE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13208, 15 February 1905, Page 5

THE RUSSIAN OUTRAGE.

THE CONCLUSIONS SUBMITTED, THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES. DECISION TO 'BE ANNOUNCED LATER ON. Press AssociatioiiT-By Telegraph-Copyright. PARIS, February 14. (Received Feb. 14, at 10.36 p.m.) Tlic Russian conclusions submitted to the Commission inquiring into the North Sea incident imply that the evidence shows that the commander was justified in firing; consequently Admiral - Rozhdestvensky and his subordinates are irresponsible, The Russian Government sincerely deplores the injury to innocent victims, and is prepaid to indemnify tlicm and repair damage, after referring the amount and distribution to The Hague Court. •The British conclusions are that there were no torpedoers or destfoyfers among the trawlers or in the neighbourhood! of the fleet, whose oflicers were mistaken; that there was no sufficient justification for firing at all; that they ought to have avoided injuring trawlers; that the firing was continued for an unreasonable time; and that the fleet ought to have assisted the injured fishermen and the damaged |essels. No fault was attributable to,'the trawlers or their management. /T> ' .1 TIM -in . - ~

(Received Feb. 14, at 10.53 p.m.) Observations supporting tlie British coifelusions showed' that (Prance, Japan, Germany, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, and Norway formally disavowed that their t-or-pedoers were near the. Dogger Bank. Itis suggested) that the Russian officers believed there were torpedoers, owing to the alarmist reports before starting, strengthened by the Kamschatka's mistaken report that she was attacked when she fired on the Sontag and l Aldebaran. 4 l'ho British suggest that Captain Clado mistook the Aurora's silhouette for torpedoers, 'l'lio searchlights being unablo to illuminate the silhouette created a- screen behind which the silhouette disappeared, l causing two partially illuminated trawlers to be mistaken for torpedoers e It is considered significant that Russia did not announce that the Aurora, had been struck five times until six weeks after the incident. The Russian case suggested that they sank °»e torpedoer and that the other escaped. The British claim that that is exactly met bj tlie eases of the trawlers Crane aiid Miro.

(Received Feb. 15, at 0.27 a.m.) Admiral Rozhdestvensky's two reasons for leaving the trawlcrg unassisted are contrasted. The first, alleged that the trawlers manifested complicity with the torpedoers; the second that the trawlers were numerous enough to help themselves." -the Russian case dwelt- on the superior facilities Russian .officers enjoyed/ (if peisonallv observing what had occurred over the busy fishermen* in vessels of low elevation without night glasses or searchlights. It emphasises Christiania's sent evidence, which explained that tlfe fleet did not understand the trawlers' signals, not being subject to international agreement -obligatory on Russia. The admiral was bound to leave the point of attack rapidly, since hfe had no-guarantee that it would not be repeated. Admiral' Fournier announced that tlie Commission's report) would"be read publicly at a later date.