The Washington times., 1915-08-05

enemy goods on board thereof. How
ever, this article merely fprmulates
general rules for the freedom Of
maritime Intercourse and leaves the
question of eontraband untouched;
the specific stipulatiohs on this point
are contained In the following, article,
which ID materially Identical with
Article 13. of the treaty Of 17S9 now
In force. r'.',. -. = - 49,
A Reasonable Compromise,
The plain intention Of Article .lSr ~
to establish a reasonable compro-
mise between the military interests
OF the belligerent contracting party
and the commercial interests OF the
neutral party. On the one hand the
6slIigsrent nrsnt party is to have the ., right
supplies to his adversaries even
when carried on vessels Of the neutral
party; on. the other hand the com!
merce' and navigation OF the neutral
party is to be interfered with as
necessary for such prevention. and
reasonable compensation Is to be paid
for any Inconvenience or damage
which may nevertheless ensue from
the proceeding Of the belligerent
Article 13 recites the following
means whereby the belligerent party
can prevent the vessels Of the neu-
-trai party from carrying war sup
plies to his adversary: The deten-
ton Of the ship and cargo for such
length Of timo as the belligerent
may think necessary; furthermore,
the taking over of the war stores for
his own use, paying the full value OF
the same as ascertained at the place
OF destination. The right Of sinking
is not mentioned In the treaty and
is. therefore. neither expressly per-
fnitted nor expressly prohibited. so
that on this point the party stipula-
tions must be supplemented by the
general rules of international law.
From the meaning and spirit Of the
question that It was intended to ex-
pect OF the belligerent that he should
permit a vessel loaded with contra
band. for example a shipment. of
arms and ammunition Of decisive I'm
portance for the outcome OF the war.
to proceed unhindered to his enemy
when circumstances forbid the car
rying Of the (omission) into port. il
the general rules OF international
law allow sinking of tho vessel.
Exposed to- Attack.
The remaining stipulations Of
article 13 must likewise be con-
sidered in this light; they provide
that the captain Of vessel stopped
shall be allowed to proceed on his
voyage II he delivers out the con-
his vessel. For such delivering out
cannot, Of course. be considered
when the ensuing loss Of time i'm
perils either the warship herself or
the success OF her other operations.
In the case Of tho William II. Frye
to have matters settled by tho de-
livery Of contraband. but convinced
himself Of tho impractica bility OF this
attempt. in that 1t would expose his
ship to attack by whatever superior
him. him. and % was accerdins1y obliged 70
determine upon the sinking Of the
Frye. Thus he did not exceed on this
point the limits to which he was
bound by article 13.
However. article 13 asserts itself
here to the extent that 1t founds the
obligation to compensate the Amerl-
can citizens affected. whereas ac-
cording to the general rules OF in
ternational law the belligerent party
does not need to grant 'compensa-
For. II by article IS. the mere eAer-
else of right Of highways makes tho
belligerent liable for compensation.
this must apply a fortiori to the
exercise Of the right Of, sinking:
The question whether the German
rily a subject. for the consideration
Of the German prize courts. accord
ing to general principles OF inter-
national law as laid down, also. in
article / Of The Hague convention
for the establishment Of an interna-
tional prize court. and In articls 81
German government consequently
laid the case of William P. Frye be-
fore the competent prize court at
Hamburg. as was stated in Its note
Of the 1th ultimo. This court found
by its Judgment oftlhe 10Th instant
ssat se Wam thn saFfo E Pf pr a Yes
that the vessel could not be carried
hs9 foFe astaa asd Isf ssns ssms tms Mns
the court expressly ,;reagnized the
validity of the Pftssidh- American
treaty stipulations> beNerally (omis-
the German empire and America, so
that the sinking of the ship and
cargo. so far as American property,
makes the German empire liable for
indemnity. The prize court was un-
able to fix the indemnity itself, since
It had no data before 1t. failing the
the parties interested.
Would Fix Indemnity.
IT will now be necessary to settle
these points in a different way. The
German government suggests as the
simplest way that each Of the two
governments designate an expert,
and that the two experts Jointly fix
the amount of indemnity for the
vessel and any American property
which may have been sunk with her.
The German government will
promptly pay the amount Of in
demntty thus ascertained; II ex-
pressly declares. however. reverting
to what has been stated above, that
this payment does not constitute
satisfaction for the violation Of
American treaty rights, but a duty
or policy of this government founded
on the existing treaty stipulations.
Should the American Government
not agree to this manner Of settling
the matter, the German government
Is prepared to submit the difference
of opinion as being a question of
the Interpretation Of the existing
treaties between Germany and the
United States to the tribunal at
The Hague. pursuant to article 3s of
The Hague convention for the pa-
cifc settlement of international dis
putes.
The Undersigned begs to sursest
that the ambassador bring the
hNN