Connecticut western news., 1915-08-12

NOt6 OontTduICtS RIrnoSI every rom
 Raised by America-Sugeests Amoun
 to Be Paid May Be Determined b,
 Two Experts-Arbitration at Hagu,
 Offered as an Alternative.
 Germany replied to the United States note of June 26 regarding the Fry, case. After the usual preamble thu note states that the American note ha: been carefully examined It continue. in part:
 This examination has led to the follow ing conclusions The government of. the United States believes that 1t is incum- bent upon it to take the position that the treaty rights to which America is en- titled as contained in article IS of the Prussian-Arnerican treaty of amity and commerce of Sept. 10 17S5. in article F of the Prussian-American treaty of amity and commerce of July il, 1199. were vio- lated by the sinking of the William P. Frye
 It interprets these articles as meaning that merchantrnan of the nelrtral con- tracting party carrying contrahand can not in any circumstances be destroyed by a warship of the helligerent contrac cttng party and that the sinking Of the William P. Frye was. therefore in violation of the 
 sisted of contra band. which it leaves out side of the discussion.
 The German government can0ot accept this view. II insists as heretofore tho { the commander of the German auxilia~v cruiser acted in the legal exercise of the right of control of tra6a in contraband enjoyed by warships of helliperent na- tions and that the treaty e+inrlations men toned merely oblige the German govern ment to make compensation for the dam age sustained by the American citizens concerned.
 It Is not disputed hv the Anne~ican gov ernnent that according to the general principles of international law beliger- ent is authorized in sinkino neutral ves- sells under a1rr,ost any condition for carry ing contraband. As Is well known these principles were laid down in articles Aa and 20 of the declaration of London. a1d were recognized at that time hv the d,rlv en- powered deleoates of all the sations which participated in the conference. including the American delegates. to be decTarative of existing international law fsee pre- Iiminarv clauses of the declaration of Londonl moreover at the beoinning of the present war the Aner'oan government proposed 10 the belligerent nations to ratify the declaration of London and give its prqyistons formal validity also. Y Sinking of the Frye Justified. The German government las already explained in it's note of April lest for what reasons it considers that the con ditions justifving the sinking under inter national law were present in the case of the William P. Frye. The cargo con sisted nf conditional contrahand. the destination of which for the hostile aEned forces was to be presumed under the circumsta ances: no proof to overcome this presumption has been furnished.
 hoJ ba oor of tIa ocaI was contraband. so that the vessel was liable to confsca tion The attempt to bring the American vessel into German port would have greatly irnrerled the German vessel in the given situation of the war. and at any rate practically de- feated the success of her further opera lions. Thus the authority for sinking the vessel was given according to general principles of international law.
 There only remains then to be examined the question how far the Prussian-Ameri- can treaty stipulations modify these prin- ciples of international law.
 In this connection article 12 of the treaty of 1785 provides that in the event of war between one of the contra cting parties with another power the free commerce anI intercourse of the nationals of tine party remaining neutral with the belliger- ent powers shall not be interrupted but that on the contrary, the vessels of the
 
 from the ports of the beligerent powers. even neutraIizing enemy goods on board thereof.
 However this article merely formuates general rules for the freedom of maritime intercourse and leaves the question of contraband untouched; the specific stipu- lations on this point are contained in the following article. which is materially identical with article 13 of the treaty of i799 now in force.
 Right to Sink Is Not Mentioned.
 Article 13 recites the following means whereby the heIligerent party can prevent the vessels of the neutral party from car rying war supplies to his adversary: The detention of fhe ship and cargo for such length Of time as the beligerent may think necessary: furthermore the taking over of the war stores for his own use. paving the full value of the same as ascer- tained at the place of destination.
 The right of sinkne is not mentioned in the trea tv ard is therefore neither ex- presse1y permitted nor expressly prohibit. ed. so that on this nont the party stipula- lions must be supplemented hv the gen eral rules of international law.
 However article B asserts itself hers to the extent that it found the obligation to compensate the American citizens affected, whereas. according to the gen eral rules of international law. the bel ligerent party does not need to grant com rensaton for a vessel lawfully sunk Fo If by article 13 the mere exercise of righ of highways makes the belligerent liabI, for compensation. this must apply i; fortiori to the exercise of the right O sinking.
 The German governn7ent consequent Il, laid the case of the William P Frye be fore the competent prize court at Ham burg, as was stated in it's note of the 7tl ultimo. This court found by it's iudgmen of the 10th instant that the cargo of tn American vessel William P. Frye wa contraband, that the vessel could not b carried into port and that the sinkin; was therefore justified
 Should the American government no agree to this manner, of settling the mat ter the German government is prepares to submit the difference of opinion as be ing a question of the interpretation of tn existing treaties between Germany an the United States to the tribunal at Tn Hague, pursuant to article S of Tn Hague convention for the pacific settle ment of international disputes.
 VON JAGOW.
 To Demand Ships Release,
 H.