The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-02-27
North sea Commissions Decision.

The text Of the decision rendered by
the North Sea Commission, which was
published on Feb. %, does not confirm
the report that the firing upon British
fishing vessels by the Russian Baltic fleet
had been approved but it is self-contra-
dictory, and by its exculpaton OF Adj
miral RoJEsTvENsKY has established a
misehievous precedent
The North Sea Commission, like some
preceding boards Of arbitrator, seems
TO have misconceived its function,
which was simply TO determine whether
Admiral RoJEsTvFNsRY, who properly.
is held accountable for the conduct of
his subordinate officers, did or did not
violate the rules of international law
and disregard the rights Of neutrals.
Whether II such violation We're proved,
tho violator could be deemed profession
ally competent 20 retain command, and
whether or not be was guilty of inhuman-
ity in leaving the victims of his lawless
aggression 20 drown, were questions for
Russia 10 decide, having due regard to the
just indignation Of the British Govern
ment and 10 the enlightened opinion Of
all other neutral powers. In word, the
North Sea Commission, like more than
one preceding board Of arbitrators.
evidently forgot that it was strictly
judicial tribunal, created TO decide a
question of facts, and supposed itself
to be clothed with the powers of diplo-
compromise more or less acceptable TO
all parties To invite sailors 10 serve IA
JuTists in controversy which involved
capital principle Of international law was
OF doubtful expediency; 10 allow them to
act rs diplomats is clearly inadmissible.
The majority Of the commissioners
declared that there were no japanese
torpedo boats or any other bolliger-
cnt vessels present when tne firing
by the Russians took place, and that the
British fishing fleet itself was in no wav
guilty of hostile action They even 20 so
far rs To acknowledge that the firing was
probably caused by the arrival of belated
Russian vessels that failed by signalling,
to give the commander of the Baltic fleet
timely notice OF their character. Having
found these - be the facts, the commits
sion should have confined itself TO stating
whether, under the circumstances, the
Russian Admiral, by firing, had or had
not violated plain rule of international
law If he had, his uniitness for command
was patent on the face of the findings.
and it was for the Russian Government
W take cognizance Of his unhtness
The commission, however, swaved
maniestly by pro-Russian sympathies,
so far MS the French and Austrian mem
bers are concerned, proceeded to act
ultra rres, and to stIltify its own
decision by declaring that the logical
deduction therefrom, to-wit the dis
missal or recall OF RoJEsTvESsKY for pro-
fessiond incompetence, ought not to be
drawn. For il says explicitly that, in
what occurred, there was nothing to
reflect upon the martial qualities Of
Admiral RoJEsTyENsKY and his staff
For martial we must read professional,
for, assuredly no one would describe
firing upon fishing smaclss by hattleships
as an act Of bravery II follows that,
in the judgment Of the commission,
EoJBsTyENsRY ought not to be recalled,
and that all other Russian Admirals and
officers should take notice that, at any
time when they fen like it, they can fire