The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1915-07-02

| tie contrary, it holds that these treaty
provisions do not authorize the de-
struction of a neutral vessel in any
circumstances. BY its express terms
the treaty prohibits even the detention
of a neutral vessel carrying contra
band if the master of the vessel is
willing to surrender the contraband.
Article 13 provides:
'In the case supposed of vessel
stopped for articles of contraband, If
the master of the vessel stopped will
deliver out the goods supposed to be
of contraband nature NE shall be ad-
mitted to do it and the vessel shall not
in that case be carried into any port
nor further detained, but shall be al
lowed to proceed on her voyage"
In this case the admitted facts show
that pursuant to orders from the COM
mander of the German cruiser the
master of the Frye undertook to
throw overheard the cargo of that
vessel, but that before the work Of
delivering out the cargo was finished
the vessel with the cargo was sunk
by order of TIE German commander.
For these reasons, even if it be as
sumed, as your excellency has done,
that the cargo was contraband, your
contention that the destruction Of the
vessel was justified by the provisions
of article 13 does not seem to be we'll
founded. The government of the
United States has not thought it neces-
sary in the discussion of this case to
60 into the question of the contraband
or non-contraband character Of the
cargo. The imperial German govern
ment has admitted that this question
makes no difference so far as its la
bility for damages is concerned and
the result for the sinking Of the
vessel is concerned. AS shown above,
if we assume that the cargo was con-
traband, the master of the Frye should
have been allowed to deliver it out,
and the vessel should nave been al
lowed to proceed on her VOYAGE.
On tee other hand, if we assume
that the cargo was non-contraband,
the destruction either of the cargo or
the vessel could not be justified in
! the circumstances of this case under
any accepted rule of international
warfare. Attention is also called to
the provisions of article II Of the
treaty of 1855 between the United
States and Prussia which, like article
13 of the treaty of 179, was contin-
ued in force by article II of the
treaty of 1928. So far as the pro-
visions of article u of the treaty of
1885 apply to the question under con-
sideration they are as follows:
~If one of the contracting parties
should be engaged in war with any
other power, the free intercourse and
commerce of the subjects or citizens
of the party remaining neutral with
tae belligerent powers shall not be
| interrupted. On the contrary, inthat
case, as in full peace, the vessels OF
THE neutral party may navigate freely
to and from the ports and On the
coasts Of the belligerent parties, free
vessels making free goods, in so much
that all things shall be adjusted free
witch shall be on board any vessel
belonging to the neutral party al
though sucn things belong to an en-
emy of the other
1t seems clear to the government
of the United States, therefore, that
whether the cargo of TIE Frye is re-
garded as contraband or as nonocon-
traband the destruction of the vessel
was, as stated in my previous commu-
nication on this subject, "a violation
of the obligations imposed upon the
imperial German government under
existing treaty stipulations between
the United States and Prussia
For these reasons the government
of the United States must disagree
with the contention which it under
stands is now made by the imperial
German government that an Ameri-
can vessel carrying contraband may
be destroyed without liability or ac-
countability beyond the payment OF
suen compensation for damages as
may be fixed by German prize court
The issue presented arises on a dis
puted Interpretation of treaty pro-
visions, the settlement of which re-
quires direct diplomatic discussion
between, the two governments and can