Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1915-08-05
CONTROVERSY OVER
FRYE is UNSETTLED
[Continued From First Page. ]
Text of German Note

Text OF German Note
Following is the German note in
full;
The undersigned has the honor to
inform his excellency. Mr.. James w.
Gerard, ambassador of the United
States of America, in reply to the note
OF the 26th ultimo, foreign Office, No.
1890, on the subject of the sinking of
the American merchant vessel William
p Frye by the German auxiliary
cruiser Prinz Eitel Friedrich, that the
=. points of view brought out in the note
Lhave been carefully examined by the
imperial German government. This
examination has led to the following
conclusions:
The government of the United
States believes that it is incumbent
upon 1t to take the position that the
treaty rights to which America is en-
titled as contained in article IL of the
Prussian-American treaty of amity and
commerce of September 10, 1885, in
article 13 of the PrusSian-American
treaty of amity and commerce of July
II, 1893, were violated by the sinking
OF the William P. Frye. 1t interprets
these articles as meaning that a mer-
chantman of the neutral contracting
party carrying contraband cannot in
any circumstances be destroyed by a
Warship of the belligerent contracting
party and that the sinking of the Will
liam P. Frye was, therefore, in vio
latiop OF the treaty even If her cargo
should have consisted of contraband.
which it leaves outside of the discus
sion.
The German government cannot
accept this view. 1t insists as hereto
fore that the commander of the Ger
man auxiliary cruiser acted in the legal
exercise of the rights of control of
trade of contraband enjoyed by war
ships of belligerent nations and that
the treaty stipulations mentioned
merely oblige the German govern
ment to make compensation for the
damage sustained by the American
citizens concerned.
1T is not disputed by the American
government that, according to general
principles of international law, a bel
ligerent is authorized in sinking net
trail vessels under almost any condition
for carrying contraband. AS is we'll
known, those principles were laid
down in articles 49 and so of the
Declaration of London and were rec
ognized at that time by the duly en-
powered delegates of all the nations
which participated in the conference,
including the American delegates to
the declarative of existing International
law (see preliminary clause of the
Declaration of London); moreover, at
the beginning of the present war the
American government proposed to the
belliSerent nations to ratify the Decla-
ration of London and give its pro-
visions formal validity also.
Justify Sinking OF Ship
The German government has al
ready explained in its note of April 4
last for what reasons it considers that
the conditions justifying the sinking
under international law were present
in the case of the William P. Frye. !
The cargo consisted of conditional con-
traband, the destination of which for
the hostile armed forces was to be
presumed in the circumstances; no
proof to overcome this presumption
has been furnished. More than halt
the cargo of the vessel was contra
band, so that the vessel was liable to
confscation.
The attempt to bring the Ameri-
can vessel into a German port would
have duly imperiled the German vessel
IN the given situation of the war and
at any rate practically defeated the
success of her further operation. Thus
the authority for sinking, the vessel
was given, according to general prin-
Sliples of international law.
There only remains, then, to be |
examined the question how far the |
Prussian-American treaty stipulations |
modify these principles of inter- |
national law.
In this connection Article IL of |
the treaty of 1885 provides that in the !
event of war between one of the con- |
tracing parties with another power, |
the free commerce and intercourse of |
the nationals of the party remaining !
neutral with the belligerent powers !
shall not be interrupted, but that, on |
the contrary, the vessel of the neutral |
party may navigate freely to and from |
the ports of the belligerent powers, |
even neutralizing enemy goods on |
board thereof. However, this article |
merely formulates general rules for |
the freedom of maritime intercourse |
and leaves the question of contra band !
nnt0llphaH the Snaoifir CT
this point are contained in the follow
ing article, which is materially iden- |
tilted with Article 13 of the treaty of |
1893. now in force.
The plain intention of Article 13 is |
to establish a reasonable COMPROMISE ,
between the military interests of the I
belliserent contracting parties and the |
commercial interest of the neutral |
party. On the one hand the belligerent
party is to have the right to prevent !
the transportation OF war supplies to |
his adversary even when carried on /
vessels of the neutral party; on the /
other hand, the commerce and navi-
cation of the neutral party is to be
interfered with a slittle as possible by !,
the measures necessary for such pre-
vention and reasonable compensation
is to be paid for any inconvenience
and damage which may nevertheless +
ensue from the proceeding of the bel !
ligerent party.
CARRYING war supplies
'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- |
tanned at the place of destination: the /
right of sinking is not mentioned in I
The treaty, and is. therefore, neither !
expressly permitted nor expressly pro- |
hibited, so that on this point the party
STIMULATION must be supplemented hy 1