Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/383

 THE GREEN BAG Inquiry, was adopted November 25, 1904, and was, by agreement, termed a "Declara tion." In accepting the final draft Decla ration proposed by the Russian Govern ment, Great Britain stipulated that, in the event of any inconsistency or conflict be tween the terms of the Declaration and the Hague Convention, the Declaration should override the Hague Convention. PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSION The proceedings of the Commission were distinctively in the nature of an inquest. It will be noted that Article XIV of the Hague Convention provides that the report of the Commissioners shall have in no sense the character of an arbitral award. At the hearing of February 13, 1905, M. Nekludoff, the Russian agent, entered an objection to the use by the British agent of the word "Tribunal" in referring to the Com mission; upon which Mr. O'Beirne, British agent, promptly signified his willingness to substitute some other word for the objection able term. After eliminating statements of opinion and statements not contested, the issues, as presented by the "Cases," or pleadings, may be summarized as follows: 1. Were there any torpedo-boats in the vicinity of the Russian fleet at the time of the cannonade? 2. Was the firing continued for an un necessary or unreasonable time? 3. Were the fishing-boats negligent in failing to show the proper signals, or other wise, so as to contribute to the damage which they sustained? 4. Was there any obligation on the part of the Russian officers and crew to give assistance to the fishermen? 5. Was the action of the Admiral of the Russian fleet in firing on the fishing-boats justifiable under all the circumstances of the case? After the reading of the "Cases" the hearings of the Commission were continued from day to day until completed. The

testimony of the witnesses was taken, in each case, in the native tongue of the witness. French being the official language of the Commission, the questions were first put to the witness in his own language, the question, before being answered, being trans lated into French. The witness then an swered and his reply was translated intoFrench. After hearing the evidence (which will be discussed more fully hereafter) the agents of the two Governments summed up. their respective cases as follows: THE BRITISH CONCLUSIONS 1. That on the night of the 2ist-22d (Sth-gth) October, 1904, there was in fact no torpedo-boat or destroyer present among the British trawlers or in the neighborhood of the Russian fleet, and that the Russian officers were mistaken in their belief that such vessels were present, or in the neigh borhood, or attacked, or intended to attackr the Russian fleet. 2. (a) That there was no sufficient justi fication for opening fire at all. (6) When opened, there was a failure todirect and control the fire, so as to avoid injury to the fishing fleet. (c) The firing upon the fishing fleet was continued for an unreasonable time. 3. That those on board the Russian fleet ought to have rendered assistance to the injured men and damaged vessels. 4. That there was no fault of any kind in the conduct of those on the British trawlers or those connected with their man agement. THE RUSSIAN CONCLUSIONS The conclusions drawn by the Russian Government from the evidence on both sides and from the facts established by the inquiry were thus summed up : That the cannonade of the Russian squadron on the night of October 21-22,. 1904, was ordered and executed in the legiti mate accomplishment of the military duties of the chief of a squadron. That conse quently no responsibility can possibly rest