Evening star., 1915-03-11
ADMITS NO RIGHT
TO SINK NEUTRALS
American Government Has
Been Consistent 0ppo-
nent of Policy.
PROTESTED TO RUSSIA
DURING JAPANESE WAR
Vigorous Diplomatic Action Expect
ed to Follow Inquiry Into
Case of the Frye.

Case OF the Frye.
The contention Of tho commander of
the German converted cruiser Prtnz
Eitei that the American ship William
P. Frye. which she sank In tho south
Atlantic. had contraband Of war aboard
and therefore destruction was justified.
has been set up as a plea in other cases.
but never has been recognized by the
United States as the only explanation
for such action on tho part Of bel
ligerent
The fact that tho Eitel was COM
manded by German naval officer under
ment, and the fact that no lives were
lost when the Frye was sunk. trans
ferred the case from the realm of crimi-
nal proceedings under the federal
statutes under a simple charge Of piracy.
and makes it a subject Of diplomatic
negotiations with the object of gaining
reparation for the owners and a dis
claimer Of unfriendliness.
Expected to Ask Damages.
That the United States would ask for
damages and an explanation from the
German government was regarded as
certain. Some officials thought the
Berlin government would hnd itself
compelled to repudiate the act OF the
German captain or abandon the posi-
ton taken by Germany in recent corre-
spondence with the United States on
the subject Of conditional contraband
and foodstuffs. Precedents in interna-
ttonal law reveal that the circum-
stances under which neutral govern
ments have acquiesced in the deStruc-
ton Of their vessels in time of war are
very few.
The general rule that has been ap-
piled is that a belligerent warship
must take its prizes into port unless
there are controlling reasons. such as
unseaworthiness, lack of a prize crew,
danger Of recapture and the presence
on board Of q cargo OF contraband
which would mako certain Its con-
demnation by a prize court. The COM
preserve the neutral ships papers and
bring them to q prize court for the
entering Of a decree.
Protested to Russia.
In the Russo-Japanese war the
United States protested to the Russian
government against the sinking Of the
Knight Commander, an American ship,
in far eastern waters. The crew testi-
fed that tho vessel had been sunk for
want Of coal to proceed to Vladivostok,
and "the United States considered that
the sinking of the vessel was not JUS
tined by the bare facts that tnere was
contraband OF war aboard
The fact that wheat is conditional
contraband. that a ship would be liable
to condemnation only II 1t were proved
that its cargo was destined to the
beiligerent forces Of an enemy and that
no opportunity was afforded for the
furnishing of evidence convinces Off
cials that the case Of the United States
against Germany Is strong one.
During the Russo-Japanese war
vigorous correspondence with Russia
on the right Of a captor of neutral
ship to sink it II it was difficult or
impossible to carry 1t into port. Great
Britain declared that such measures
would occasion complete paralysis
Of all neutral trade" and characterized
them as contrary to acknowledged
principles Of international law" and
"intolerable to all neutrals.
Moore Discusses Issue.
John Bassett Moore. former counselor
Of the State Department, in reviewing
those discussions, said the correspond
ence SERVED to emphasize the poten-
TALLY important relation of the aues-
ton of contraband to the question OF
destruction"
when publicists have spoken of the
presence of ontraband." he wrote, "as
justifying or excusfng the destruction
of neutral ship that could not be
brought, in. they have no doubt had in
mind cargoeS composed or Things Spe-
cially adapted to use in war and con-
fessedly contraband. such as arms and
ammunition, and cannot be assumed to
have contemplated the subsection of
neutral commerce to general depreda-
ton under an extension of the cate
gories of contraband."
It was believed this would be the posi-
ton assumed by the United States in
its correspondence with Germany.
Captains Change in Plan.
Some Washington officials were in
clined to view the action of the COM
mander of the German commerce de-
stroyer in having first ordered the
wheat cargo of the Frye thrown over
board, and when that work was not
accomplished swiftly enough to SUIT
him, having ordered the American snip
dynamited and sent to the bottom, as
a virtual admission that the latter act
was contrary to international law
While there might possibly have been
some shadow of excuse for destruction
of the cargo, it was maintained by
the destruction of the ship. and Capt.
Thierichsen evidently took this view
in issuing his first orders.
1t was presumed the German com
mander was unwilling to stand by with
his ship until the Frye was empty of
cargo, preferring to keep in motion
and sieze every opportunity to eiude
pursuers. The destruction of the Frye
also operated to mask the cruisers
movements and identity, since the
floating wreckage would not serve to
tndentify the lost ship or the agency
or exact scene Of her destruction. 1t
was pointed out, and further helped
to cloak the movements of the Eitel
friedrich in mystery.
Navy Department Statement.
The Navy Department last night is
sued the following statement. based on
4 report to Secretary Daniels by Rear
Admiral Beatty, commandant of the
Norfolk navy yard.
"Prinz Eitel Friedrich. German navy.
transferred from command of gunboat
in China. Officers are regular German
officers. The crew came from the
Kaiserin Lutz. The captain said that
the merchant captain Is on board now.
On examination made at sea the chief
engineer thinks it will take about two
or three weeks to make repairs. The
captain says he thinks much longer
time necessary and says ship must be