New Britain herald., 1915-04-09
ASSUMES LIABILITY
 FOR SINKING OF FRYE
Germany Wants Case 10 Be Taken
 Before Prize Court.

Washington, April 9.-The German government has replied to the claim of the state department for compen- sation for tn esinging by the Prinz Eitel Friedrich of the American ship William P. Frye, assuming liability not only for destruction of the yes sel, but of the cargo, under the treaty of 1928.
 Germany requires, however, that the case shall be taken before a prize court for the establishment of facts concerning ownership of ship and cargo. To this the state department will assent.
 Text of Reply.
 The reply was handed by the for eign office at Berlin to Ambassador Gerard, who cabled it yesterday to the state department. It follows:-
 The undersigned has the honor to make reply to the note of his excel lency, MT. James w. Gerard, ambas- sador the United States America, dated the third instant, foreign office No. 2892, relative to claims for dam ages for the sinking of the American merchant vessel William Frye by the German auxiliary cruiser Prinz Eitel Friedrich.
 According to the reports which have reached the German govern ment, the commander of the Prinz Eitel Friedrich stopped the William P. Frye on the high seas January 27, 1915, and searched her. He found on board a cargo of wheat consigned to Queenstown, Falmouth or Plym- outh. to order. After he had first tried to remove the cargo from the William P. Frye he took the ships papers and her crew on board and sank the ship
 Complied With Principles. "lt results from these facts that the German commander acted quite in 1 accordance. with the principles of in ternational law as laid down in the Declaration of London and the Ger man prize ordinance. The ports of | Queenstown, Falmouth, and Plym- mouth, whither the ship visited was bound, are strongly fortified English l coast places, which moreover serve as bases for the British naval forces. The cargo of wheat, being food or | foodstuffs. was conditional contra . band within the meaning of Article 24, Mo-. of the Declaration of I.on- don and s Article 23, No. 1 of the German Prize Ordinance and was therefore, to be considered as des- tined for the armed forces of the. en- emy pursuant to Articles 33 and 34 of the Declaration of London and Articles 32 and 33 of the German prize ordf- nance and to be treated as contraband 1 pending proof of the contrary.
 This proof was certainly not ca- pablo of being adduced at the time of the visiting of the vessel, since the cargo papers read to order. This. however, furnished the conditions un- der Which, pursuant to Article 49 of the Declaration of London and Article l13 of the German prize ordnance. the sinking of the ship was permis- sible, since it was not possible for the auxiliary cruiser to take the prize into a German port without involving dan ger to its own security or the success of its operations.
 ''The legality of the measures taken by the German commander is further more subject to examination by the German prize court pursuant to Arti- cle 51 of the Declaration of London and Section 1, No. 2, of the German code of prize procedure. These prize proceedings will be instituted before the prize court at Hamburg as soon as the ships papers are received and will comprise the settlement of ques- tions whether the destruction of the cargo and the ship was necessary within the meaning of Article 49 of the Declaration of London; whether the property sunk was liable to cap ture, and whether, or to what extent, indemnity is to be awarded the own | CTS.
 l Must Show Proof.
 Tn the trial the owners of ship and