Fulton County tribune. (Wauseon, Ohio) 1883-1925, 1915-08-13

commercial interests of the neutral I
party. On the one hand. the belliger-
ent party is to have the right to pre- |
vent the transportation of war sup
plies to his adversaries even when |
party; on the other hand, the com
merce and navigation of the neutral |
party Is to be interfered with as lit !
lle as possible by the measures neo
essary for such prevention, and rea,
sonable compensation is to be paid fol
any inconvenience or damage which
may nevertheless ensue from the pro
eeeding of the belligerent party.
Article 13 recites the following
means whereby the belligerent party
can prevent the vessels of the neutral
party from carrying war supplies to
his adversary: The detention of the
ship and cargo for such length of time
as the belligerent may think neces-
sary; furthermore, the taking over of
the war stores for his own use, paying
the full value of the same as ascer-
tained at the place of destination The
right of sinking is not mentioned in
the treaty and is, therefore, neither
expressly permitted nor expressly pro-
hibited, SO that on this point the
treaty stipulations must be supple
mented by the general rules of inter
national law
From the meaning and spirit of the
treaty it really appears out of the
question that it intended to expect of
the belligerent that he should permit
vessel loaded with contraband, for ex-
ample, shipment of arms and ammu-
milton of decisive Importance for the
outcome of the war, to proceed unhin-
dered to his enemy when circum-
| stances forbid the carrying of the
(omission) into port, If the general
rules of international law allow the
| sinking of the vessel
The remaining stipulations of Ar
| ticle 13 must likewise be considered
in this light; they provide, that the
captain of vessel stopped shall be
allowed to proceed on mis- voyage if
he delivers out the contraband to the
warship. which stopped his vessel
For such delivering out cannot, of
course, be considered when the ensu-
ing loss of time imperils either the
warship herself or the success of her
other operations.
In the case of the William P. Frye
the German commander at first tried
to have matters settled by the deliv-
cry of contraband, but convinced him.
self of the impracticability of this at
tempt in that it would expose his ship
to attack by whatever superior force
of enemy war vessels pursuing him,
and was accordingly obliged to de-
termine 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 it founds the
obligation to compensate the Ameri
can citizens affected, whereas. ac
cording to the general rules of interna
tional law, the belligerent party does
not need to grant compensation for a
vessel lawfully sunk For, if by Ar
ticle 10, the mere exercise of right oi
highways makes the belligerent liable
for compensation, this must apply &
fortiori to the exercise of the righ
of sinking.
The question whether the German
commander acted legally was primar
lily subject for the consideration o
the German prize courts, according t.
general principles of internationa
law as laid down, also in Article 0
The Hague convention for the estab
. lishment of an international priz,
court, and in Article 81 in the Declar
alton of London. The German gov
, ernment consequently laid the case o
| the William P Frye before the CON
: petent prize court at Hamburg, as wa
| stated in its note of the 7th ultime
| This court found by it's judgment @
/ the 10th inst. that the cargo of tn
; American vessel William P. Frye wa
) contraband, that the vessel could nc
be carried into port, and that tn
/. sinking was therefore justified; at tn
! same time the court expressly reco.
8 nized the validity of the Prussiar
! American treaty stipulations several
l. (omission) model for the relations b.
, tween the German empire and Amer
!. ca, so that the sinking of the ship an
r cargo, so far as American propert.
!. makes the German empire liable fo
O indemnity. The prize court wa
n unable to fix the indemnity itsel
~ since it had no data before it, failin
the receipt of the necessary detail
n from the parties interested.
e 1t will now be necessary to sett
n these points in different way. Tt
e German government suggests as IL
n simplest way that each of the tv
y governments designate an expert, ar
,r that the two experts jointly fix IL
e amount of indemnity for the vess
C. and any American property whit
r may have been sunk with her. tt
German government will prompt
Y. pay the amount of indemnity thus a
8 certained; it expressly declares. ho7
IS ever, reverting to what has bee
q. stated above, that this payment do
not constitute satisfaction for the vi
lation of American treaty rights, b
a duty or policy of this governme
le founded on the existing treaty stip
lations.
- Should the American governme
;. not agree to this manner of settliI
:. the matter, the German government
N prepared to submit the difference
81 opinion as being a question of the
:, depreciation of the existing treati
: between Germany and the Unit
~ States to the tribunal at The Hagu
~ pursuant to Article SO of The Hag1
- convention for the settlement of
ternational disputes.
nd The undersigned begs to sugge
that the ambassador bring the abo
is to the attention of his governmel
Sc and avails himself, etc.
he Won JAGOW,