Audubon Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Iowa) 1894-1925, 1905-03-02
BRITAIN IS GIVEN
BEST OF DECISION
The North Sea incident Has
at Last Been
Closed.
COMMISSION MAKES REPORT
Findings In Case Are Favorable to
Great Britain--Aii Contentious Made
BY That Country Are Sustained BY
the Admiralty Court at Paris.

farlH, teD. ga ucClSlOu III Iuo
controversy between Great Britain and
Russia arising from the firing on the
Gamecock fishing feet the night OF
October 21-22, by the Russian second
Pacific squadron commanded by Vice
Admiral Rojestvensky was officially
announced yesterday by the interna-
tional commission of inquiry which
was appointed to investigate the af'
fairs.
Paris, Feb. 26.-Admiral Davis was
seen last night by the correspondent
Of the Associated Press and discussed
the conclusions Of the commission
and the general effect of the decision.
The admiral did not desire this to ap-
pear in the form of an interviw, but
the following can be accepted as hav.
ing his approval:
The general results OF the findings
are favorable to Great Britain since
they sustain the statement Of facts as
presented by Great Britain.
Admiral Davis pointed out that the
first semi-official forecasts were mis-
leading and gave the British and
American public an entirely erroneous
idea Therefore he sent cipher
cable message to Washington, notify
ing the authorities not to place credit
in the forecasts. Today he again sent
cable dispatch summarizing the de.
nsC oI p;c
that 1t was favorable to Great Brit.
ain. AS evidence of this Admiral
Davis said that in the first place the
commission fins that Admiral Rojest.
vensky was responsible for the Incl
dent and it's consequences, and in the
second place the commission finds
that there were no hostile vessels
among the fishing fleet or anywhere
in that vicinity.
Taking up the detailed report Ad-
miral Davis showed that its essential
features are as follows:
The commission justifies Admiral
Rojestvensky in keeping his squadron
in state of preparation to resist a
possible attack. This is entirely nat
ural. No naval officer could be criti
cised for having Ais ships ready.
Either in time of war or in time of
peace, either on hostile waters or in
friendly waters. warships are sup
| posed to be always ready for action
| within five minutes. Consequently
no naval officer would criticize another
| for being ready.
The second point of the decision is
hn ln hot A
miral Rojestvensky was responsible
| for the results of the fire upon the
| fishing fleet, and it also holds that no
| torpedo boat or hostile vessel of any
kind was present among the fishing
| boats or in that vicinity, and that
| opening fire by Admiral Rojestvensky
was therefore not justified.
me finding also shows that consid-
| ering the alarming reports which had
| reached him, in other words the sur
rounding circumstances of the case,
Admiral Rojestvensky was justified in
not stopping after the incident, but
the commission expresses regret that
he did not make an opportunity for
notifying the authorities at some port
on the English channel so that some
assistance might have been sent TO
the damaged fishing feet.
The commission takes the view
that after once in fire Admiral Ro-
| jestvensky did all he possibly could
| to keep the fishermen from being fired
| directly upon.
In other words, said Admiral Davis,
| all the conclusions from the British
| presentation of facts were sustained
by the commission. This was natural
ly put in somewhat diplomatic lam
guage. But the fact of the findings
being favorable to Great Britain is un.
questionable, according to Admiral
Davis views.
Commenting upon the moral effect
of the decision, Admiral Davis ex-
pressed the belief that the results
ought to be most salutary and in the
interest of the general principle Of
arbitration. This principle naturally
calls for some concessions from both
sides In the present case both gov
ernments will accept the result and
Russia will doubtless provide money
consideration to the victims relatives