The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1915-06-29
U. S. DISPUTES
tcOntinaed From first P.s.)

provisions of Article l3 OF the treaty
OF 1923. between the United States
ana Prussia. which Is continued in
Iorce by the treaty OF 1928. justified
me commander OF the Prinz Eitel
friedrich In sinking the William r.
RYE. although making the imperial
herman government liable for the
damages suffered in consequence and
tnat lnasmuch as the treaty provides
no specific method for ascertaining
me amount OF indemnity TO be paid.
tnat question must be submitted to
the German prize court for determine
ton.
Finds No Justification.
ne government OF the United
states, on the other hand. does not
ma IN the treaty supulations mention
90 any Justification for the sinking of
thte Frye and does not consider that
the German prize court has any iuris-
dlction over the question OF the
amount OF indemnity TO be paid by the
imperial German government on ac-
count OF it's admitted liability for the
destruction of an American vessel ON
the high seas.
You state in your note of the 7th
instant that article Il OF the above
mentioned treaty Of 1893 expressly
reserves TO the party at war the -ignt
TO stop the carrying of contraband and
TO detatn the contraband: IL follows
then that II IL cannot be accomplished
IN any other way, the stopping Of the
supply may in the extreme case b. ef-
fected by the destruction of the con-
traband and of the snip carrying it,
The government of the United
states cannot concur in this conclu-
sion. On the contrary, II holds that
these treaty provisions do not author
lze the destruction OF a neutral vessel
IN any circumstances. BY its express
terms the treaty prohibits even the
detention OF neutral vessel carrying
contraband II the master of the vessel
Is willing TO surrender the contraband.
In this case the admitted facts
show that pursuant to orders from the
commander OF the German cruiser, the
master OF the Frye undertook to throw
overheard the cargo OF that vessel.
out the cargo was finished. the vessel
with cargo was sunk by order of the
German commander.
Contention Unfounded
For these reasons, even IL it be as
sumed as your eXcellency has done.
that the cargo was contraband. your
contention that the destruction of the
vessel vas justified by the provisions
or article 10. does not seem TO be well
founded. The government of the Unit
ed states has not thought IL necessary
IN the discussion Of this case to 20 into
the question of the contraband or non
contraband character of the cargo.
The imperial German government has
admitted that this question makes no
difference so far as its liability for
damages is concerned, and the result
Is the same so tar as the justification
Tor the sinking Of the vessel is con
cerned. As shown above. II we as
sumo that the cargo was contraband.
the master of the Frye should have
been allowed to deliver IL out, and
the vessel should have been allowed
TO proceed.
On the other hand. n 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 law.
1T seems clear to the government
OF the United States. therefore. that
whether the cargo of the Frye is re-
garded az contraband or as non-con-
traband. the destruction Of the vessel
was. as stated in my previous commu-
ntcation ON this subject. "A violation
OF the obligations imposed upon the
imperial German government under
existing treaty stipulations between
the United States aud Prussia
Oisagrees With Contention.
For these reasons the government
OF the United States must disagree
with the contention which 10 under
stands BE- now made by the imperial
German government. that an Ameri-
can vessel carrying Contraband may
re destroyed WITHOUT UabllitN or dC-
cOuntability beyond the payment Of
such compensation for damage as may
b. fixed b. a German prize court. The
issue thus presented arises on n dis
puted Interpretation Of treaty provi-
FiOns. the settlement of which re-
luires direct diplomatic discussion
between the two governments. and
cannot properly be based upon the de-
cisiOn Of the German prize court
which a. In no way conclusive or
binding upon the government Of the
United States
Moreover. even II no disputed
questions Of treaty Interpretation
were involved. the admission by the
imperial German government Of its
liability for damages for sinking the
vessel would see INTO make 10 unneces-
sary. 80 far a. this claim is concerned.
10 ask The prize court To- decide
whether the destruction Of the shin
end cargo was legal. and whether and
under what conditions the property
sunk was liable To- c0nnecation. '
which. you state in your note dated
June 3. are questions which should
be decided by the prize court lnso-