The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1915-07-03

the contrary, 1t holds that these treaty
provisions do not authorize the de-
struction Of a neutral vessel in any
circumstances. BY it's express terms
the treaty prohibits even the detention
Of neutral vessel carrying contra
band If the master of the vessel is
willing to surrender the contraband.
Article 13 provides: .'gg.
I'm the case supposed Aof-a vessel
stopped for articles Of contraband, If
the master Of the vessel stopped will
deliver out the goods supposed to be
OF contraband nature, he 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 vargo was finished
the vessel with the cargo was sunk
by order of the 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
go into the question of the contra band
or noncontraband character of the
cargo. The imperial German govern
ment has admitted that this question
makes no difference SO far as it's lia-
bility for damages is concerned and
the result is the same so far as the
justification for the sinking of the
vessel Is concerned. AS shown above,
II 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 have been al
lowed to proceed on her voyage.
On the other hand, if we assume
that the cargo was noncontraband,
the destruction either of the cargo or
the vessel could not be justified in
tho circIIroSta pco, of +h;, ....
any accepted rule Of international
warfare. Attention Is also called to
the provisions Of article IL of the
treaty Of 1885 between the United
States and Prussia which, like article
l3 Of the treaty Of 1899, was contin-
ued in force by article 12 Of the
treaty of 1928. So far as the pro-
visions Of article IL 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
or the party remaining neutral with
the be!ligerent powers shall not be
interrupted. On the contrary, in that
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 adjudged free
which shall be on board any vessel
belonging to the neutral party al
though such 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 the Frye Is re-
garded as contraband or as noncon-