Perth Amboy evening news., 1915-06-29
RENEW DEMAND IN
FRYE SHIP CASE
u. S. Denies 1t Is One for Prize
Court Proceedings - In
wolves 1928 Pact.

Washington. June 2a.--The jurisdic-
ton of a German prize court over the
case OF the American ship Ntham +.
Frye is expressly denied by the state
department in its note to the Gernaan
foreign Office. given out here. This gov
eminent asserts that the treaty OF 1923,
invoked by Germany, wss Ffe'SsSa
when the Frye was sunk, and the
question must therefore be settled dip
lomaticaliy. In the language of the
note. the claim OF the American gov
ernment Is for Indemnity for viola
tion of treaty, in distinction from an
Indemnity In accordance with treaty"
Tset of the Mote.
THE Secretary OF State to the Amer
lean Ambassador at Berlin:
department of State, Washington,
June "A, 1918.
"Yeu are instructed to present the
following note to the German minister
of foreign affairs:
81 have the honor to inform your ex-
cellency that I duly communicated to
my government your note OF the TIN
instant on the subject OF the claim pre-
sented In my note Of April last on
behalf of the owners and captain OF
the American sailing vessel William p.
Frye In consequence Of her destruction
by the German auxiliary cruiser Prinn
Eite1 friedrich.
SIN reply am Instructed By my
government to say that Il has care
fuzzy considered the reasons given by
the imperial government for urging
that this claim should be passed upon
by the German prize court instead OF
being settled by direct diplomatic dis
cussion between the two governments,
as proposed by the government of the
United States, and that II regrets TO
find that 1t cannot concur in the con-
illusions reported by the imperial Ger
man government
Sinking Was Unjustlfsbie.
.If the government OF the United
States correctly understands the po-
eminent, as now presented, 1t Is that
the provisions of article 13 of the treaty
Of 1899 between the United States and
Prussia, which is continued In force
by the treaty Of 1928. justified the COM
mander of the Prfnz Eitel Friedrich In
sinking the William P. Frye, although
making the imperial German govern
ment liable for the damages suffered
In consequence. and that inasmuch as
the treaty provides no specific method
for ascertainlng the amount or In
demnity 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 sinking of the
Frye and does not consider that the
German prize court has any jurisdic-
ton 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 American vessel on the high seas.
''You state in your note OF the 7th in
stant that article Is of the above men
toned treaty OF 1899 expressly re-
serves to the party at war the right to
stop the carrying Of contraband and to
detain the contraband; it follows then
that If it cannot be accomplished in
any other way the stopping of the sup
ply may In the extreme case be effected
by the destruction Of the eontraband
and OF the ship carrying It
"grhe government of the United
States cannot concur In this conclusion.
On the contrary, it holds that these
treaty provisions do not authorize the
destruction of a neutral vessel In any
circumstances. By It's express terms
the treaty prohibits even the detention
OF a neutral vessel carrying eontraband
II the master of the vessel Is willing to
surrender the eontraband. Article 13
provides:
I'm the case supposed OF vessel
stopped for articles of contraband, II
the master of the vessel stopped Will
deliver out the goods supposed to be
of contraband nature he shall bs ad-
mitted 10 do 1t, 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
an 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 the
German commander.
For these reasons, even II it be az
sumed, as your exeellency 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 well
founded. The government of the Unit
ed States has not thought 1t necessary
in the discussion of this case to go into
the question OF the contraband Or non
contraband character of the cargo. The
imperial German government has ad-
mitted that this question makes no diff
ference so far as its liability for dam
ages 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 conrsband the master OF