The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1915-06-29
Department of State.
washington, June 24. 1915

I have the honor to inform your E1lcellency that duly communicated to my Govern ment your note of the 7th inst. on the subject of the claim pre- scented in my note of April 8 last on behalf of the owners and cap tain of the American sailing ves- seI William P. Frye in conse- quence of her destruction by the German auxiliary cruiser ; Prinz EiteI Friedrich.
 In reply I am instructed by i my Government to say that it has carefully considered the req sons given by the Imperial Ger man Government for urging that this claim should be passed up- on by the German prize court instead of being settled by direct diplomatic discussion between the two Governments. as propos- ed by the Government of the United States, and that it re- grets to find that it cannot con cur in the conclusions reported by the Imperial German Govern ment.
 AS pointed out in. my last note to you on this subject, dated April 30, the Government of the United States has consi sidered that 2 the only question under discus sion was the method which should be adopted for ascertain- ing the amount of the indemnity liability, and it notes with sur prise that in addition to this question the Imperial German Government now desires to raise some questions as to the mean ing and effect of the treaty sti- puIations under which it has ad- nitted it's liability.
 If the Government of the United States correctly under stands the position of the I'm perial German Government as visions of Article IS of the Treaty Of 1799 between the United States and Prussia, which is continued in force by the Treaty of 1928, Justified the com naander of the Prinz Eite1 Fried- rich in sinking the William F. Frye, although making the Inn perfaI German Government liable for the damages suffered in con- sequence. and that inasmuch as the treaty provides no specific amount of indemnity to be paid. that question must be submitted to the German Prize Court for determination
 The government Of the United States, on the other hand, does not find in the treaty stipulations mentioned any justification for the sinlzingl of the Frye, and does not consider that the German Prize Court has any jurisdiction over the question: of the amount of indemnity to be paid by the Imperial German government on account of its admitted liability for the destruction of an Ameri- can vessel on the high seas.
 You state in your note of the seventh instant, that article 1 3 of the above mentioned Treaty of 1799 expressly reserves to the part ty at war It e right to stop the carrying of contraband and to de- tain; it follows then that if it can not be accomp pIished in any oth- CT way the stepping of the sup ply may be in the extreme case effected by the destruction of the eontraband and of the ship car ry1ng it.
 Neutral Ships Immune.
 The government of the United ktLSsJ66 -CS11lAOI COnCuT 1I11S con- clusion. On the contrary, it holds that these treaty provisions do not authorize the destruction of a < neutral vessel in any circurn- stances. By it's express terms the treaty prohibits even the deten- ton of a neutral vessel carrying contraband if the master of thee sysseI is willing to surrender the contrabalnd. Article 13 pro- vides: 'fTn the case supposed of a vessel stopped for articles of contraband, if the master of the vessel stopped will deliver out the goods supposed to be of contra band nature, he shall be admitted to do it, and the vessel shall not in that case be carried into any port, nor fuEther detained, but shall be allowed to proceed on her voy- age''
 Tn this case the admitted facts show that, pursuant to orders from the commander of the Ger man cruiser, the master of the Frye undertook to throw over board the cargo of that vessel, but that before the work of deliver ing out the cargo was finished the vessel with the cargo was sunk by order of the German command CT.
 For these reasons, even if it be assumed, as your Bxcellency has done, that the cargo was contra band, your contention that the destruction of the vessel was jus tiled by the provisions of Article 13, does not seem to be well 7 founded. The Government of the United States has not thought it necessary in the discussion of this case to go into the question of the contraband or non-contraband character of the cargo. The I'm perial German Government has admitted that this question makes no difference so far as it's liability 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, if we assume that the car go was contraband, the master of the Frye should have been allow ed to deliver it out, and the ves- seIs should have been allowed to proceed on her voyage.
 On the other hand, if we assume that the cargo was non-contra- band, the destruction either of the cargo or the vessel could not be justified in the circI477a stances of