Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-08-05

| oehSeiep5 CONTRACTING party and the
commercial interests OF the neutral
party. On tho one hand. the belligerent
party is to have the right to prevent
the transportation of war supplies to
his adrersaries. even when carried on
vessels OF the neutral party: on the
other hand, the commerce and naviga-
tioh or the neutral party IS to be inter
ierrcd with as little as possible by the
measures necessary for such prevention
with' and reasonable compensation is
! 10 be paid for any Inconvenience or
damage which may, nevertheless, ensue
from the proceeding of the belligcrcnt
party.
HOW BI:LLIGERENTS
MAY STOP VESSELS
Article IS 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 shin
ana cargo for such length of time as
she belli5erept may think necessary;
furthermore. the taking over of the war
stores TOR his own use. paying tho full
value OF the same as ascertained at tn
pace or destination The right of sink
ihs Is not mentioned in the treaty and
ID therefore neither expressly permitted
, NOT expressly prohibited: SO that on
,h's point the treaty stipulations must
oe supplemented by the general rules of
international law. From the meaning
, ana spirit OF the treaty 1T really an
pears out or tho question that IL was
intended TO expect of the belligerent
that he should permit a vessel loaded
Win contraband. for example, a shin
i,ch. oi arms ana ammunition Of de-
cisire Importance for the outcome OF
the war. TO proceed unhindered TO his
enemy when circumstances forbid the
CARRYING OF the tomission) into port, il
the general rules of international Law
| allow sinking of the vessel
The remaining stipulations of Arti-
Gle lS must likewise be considered in
TINS light; they provide that the can
| tain or vessel stopped shall be al
| lowed TO proceed OH his voyage If he
delivers out the contraband to tho war
/ snip which stopped his vessel. For such
delivering out can not, OF course, be
considered when the ensuing loss Of
time impcrils either the warship her
SELF or the success Of her other opera-
! ions. In the case OF the William p
frNc. the German commander at first
| tried TO have matters settled by tho
delivery OF contrahand. hut convinced
himself OF the Impractical bility OF this
attempt in that It would expose his ship
10 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
"'' hpt exceed on thiS point the limits
TO which he WAS hound by Article l3
|. However. Article ID asserts Itself
here to tho extent that il Pounds the
obligation TO compensate the American
citizens affected, whereas according TO
the general rules OF international law
the heiliSerent party docs not need TO
grant compensation for a vessel law
| fully sunk For. II by Article -. the
mere exercise of right of highways
MAKES the belligercnt liable for COM
pensation. this must apply tortiori to
the exercise Of the right OF sinking
QUESTION Of LEGALITY
SUBJECT FOR PRIZE COURT
The question whether the German
commander acted legally was primarily
subject for the consideration OF tho
German prize courts according TO gen
cral principles OF international law as
| laid down, also in Article | OF The
Hague convention for the establishment
OF an international prize court and in
Article u OF the declaration of Lon
don. The German government conse-
qucntly laid the case of the William +.
Frye before the competent prize court
at Hamburg, az was stated in its note
| OF the Tth ultimo. This court found by
| its Judgment of the 10Th instant that
the cargo Of the American vessel VIII
| liam =. Frye was contra band, that the
vessel could not he carried into port,
and that the sinking was therefore JUS
tined: at the Same time the court ex
pressly realizes the validity Of the
/ Pruss!an- American treaty stipulation
severally tomissi model for the re-
lations between the German empire and
America, so that the sinking Of the ship
and cargo. so far as American prop
crty makes the German empire liable
for indemnity. The prize court was
unable TO fix the indemnity itself. since
ii had nd data before IT. failing the re-
ceipt of the necessary details from the
parties Interested.
NECESSARY TQ SETTLE
POINTS IN DIFFERENT WAY
1T will now he necessary to settle
these points in ii different way. The
German government suggests as the
simples, way that each Of the two gov
ernments designate an expert, and that
the two experts jointly hN the amount
OF indemnity for the vessel and any
| American property which may have
been sunk with her. The German gov
eminent will promptly pay the amount
Of indemnity thus ascertaincd; II cS-
pressly declares, however, reverting to
what has been stated above. that this
payment does not constitute satisfac-
ton for the violation OF American