The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-08-05

THE plain intention of article II
Ia to establish reasonable compro-
mise between the military interests OF
the belligerent contracting parties and
the commercial interests OF the neu-
trail party On the other hand. the
beiiigerent party 10 to have the right
to prevent the transportation OF war
supplies to his adversarfes. even wnen
carried on vessels of the neutral party.
On the other hand, the commerce and
navigation of the neutral party 10 10
be interfered with as little as possioie
by the measures necessary for sucn
prevention, and reasonable compensa-
ton IN TO be paid for any inconven-
fence or damage which may, nevertne-
less. ensue from the proceeding OF the
belligerent party.
Methods of Handling ships.
Article 10 recites the following
means whereby the belIigerent party
can prevent the vessels OF the neutral
party from carrying war supplies to
his adversary. The detention OF the
shin and cargo for such length OF
time as the belligerent may THINK
necessary: Furthermore, the taxing
over Of the war stores for his own
use, paying the full value OF the same
as ascertained at the place OF destina-
ton. The right of sinking Is not men
toned in the treaty, and Is, therefore,
neither expressly permitted nor ex-
nressIy prohibited. so that on this
point the part stipulations must be
supplemented by the general rules nj
international law. From the meaning
and spirit of the treaty, II really ap-
pears out of the question that IL was
intended to expect of the belligerent
that he should permit a vessel loaded
with CONTAMINATION example, snip
ment of arms and ammunition OF DE.
cisive Importance for the outcome Oh
the war-to proceed unhindered TO ms
enemy when circumstances forbid the
carving of the (omission) into port u
the general rules of international law
allow sinking of the vessel.
THE remaining stipuiattons or arti-
Gle 10 must likewise be considered In
this light; they provide that the cap
tain of a vessel stopped shall be al
lowed 70 proceed on his voyage II ne
delivers out the contraband to the
warship which stopped his vessel FOR
such delivering out cannot, or course
be considered when the ensuing 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 al
first tried to have matters settled by
the delivery of the contraband, but
convinced himself of the Impractical
bility of this attempt in that II would
expose his ship TO attack by whatever
superior force of enemy war vessels
pursuing him. and was accordingly
obliged to determine upon the sinking
of the Frye. Thus he did not exceed
on this point the limits to which he
was bound by article IS.
Not Bound by Law TO Pay.
However. article 10 asserts Itself
here to the extent that II found the
obligation to compensate the Ameri'
can citizens affected, whereas, accord
| ing to the general rules of interna'
tional law, the belligerent party does
not need to grant compensation fol
vessel lawfully sunk: for II by arti'
Gle IL the mere exercise of right o.
/ highways makes the belligerent liable
for compensation. this must apply &
fortiori to the exercise of the right o.
sinking.
THE question whether the German
commander acted legally was primari
lily a question for the consideration o
the German prize courts, according Il
general principles Of internationa
law, as laid down also in article / o
The Hague convention for the estab
lishment OF an international prize
court, and in article 81 of the declara
ton OF London The German govern
ment consequently laid the case o
the william P. Frye before the com
petent prize court at Hamburg. a
was stated In It's note of the 7th ulti
mo. This court found. by It's tudgmen
of the 10th instant. that the cargo o
the American vessel, William P. Frye
was contraband. that the vessels coul