New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-06-29

the discussion Of this case to 20 into
the question Of the contraband or non
Contraband character OF the cargo
The imperial German government has
admitted that this question makes no
difference so far as its liability for
/ damages is concerned. and the result
is the same so far as the justification
for the sinking Of the vessel IL con-
cerned. As shown above, If We assume
that the cargo was contraband' the
master OF tho Frye should have been
allowed TO deliver II out and the yes
sci should have been allowed TO pro
coed on her voyage
No Law for Destruction.
"On the other hand, II we assume
that the cargo was non-contraband, the
destruction either Of the cargo or the
vessel could not be justified in the
circumstances Of this case under any
accepted RUE Of international law.
Attention is also called 10 the pro.
visions Of Article XII Of the Treaty OF
1885 between the United states ana
Prussia. which, like Article Nil OF
3 the Treaty Of 1899. WAS continued IN
force BY Article MI of the Treaty OF
1928 SO far as the provisions OF Aru-
Gle XII Of the Treaty Of 50 apply TO
the question under consideration, they
are as follows;
of one Of the contracting parties
should be engaged IN war with any
other power, the free intercourse and
commerce Of the ubiects or citizens OF
the party remaining neutra! with the
belligerent powers shall not be inter-
. rupted. On the contrary, IN that case
as in full peace. the vessels OF the
neutral party may navigate freely 70
and from the ports and on the COASTS
Of the belligerent parties, free vessels
making free goods, insomuch that al!
things shall be sdjudged free which
shall be on board any vessel belonging
; 10 the neutral party, although such
things belong 20 an enemy OF the
other
at seems clear 70 the government Of
the United States. therefore, that
whether the cargo of the Frye Is re-
garded as contraband or as non-con-
traband the destruction of the vessel
was, as stated in my previous COM
munication on this subject, violation
of the obligations imposed upon the
imperial German government under
existing treaty stipulations between
No Prize Court Jurisdiction.
For these reasons the government
Of the United States must disagree
with the contention which it under
stands is now made by the imperial
German government. that an American
vessel carrying contraband may be de-
strOyed without liability or accountable
ity beyond the payment of such com
penSation for damages as may be fixed
by German prize court. The issue
thus presented arises on a disputed in
depreciation of treaty provisions. the
settlement of which requires direct
diplomatic discussion between the two
governments. and cannot properly be
based upon the decision of the German
prize court, which is in no way conclu-
sive or binding upon the government of
the United States.
Moreover. even IL no disputed ques-
tons of treaty Interpretation were in
volved, the admission by the imperial
German government of its liability for
damages for sinking the vessel would
seem TO make II unnecessary, so far as
this claim is concerned, to ask the
prize court to decide whether the de-
struction of the ship and cargo was
legal. and whether and under what con-
ditlons the property sunk was liable
10 conhscation. which, you state in
your note dated June 7, are questions
which should be decided by the prize
court. In so far as these questions re-
late to the cargo, they are outside of
the present discussion, because. as
pointed out in my previous note to you
on the subject, dated April 80, the
claim under discussion does not include
damages for the destruction of the
cargo
The real question between the two
governments is what reparaton must
be made for a breach of treaty obliga-
tons, and that is not a question which
falls within the jurisdiction of a prize
court.
"ln my note on the subject the gov
eminent of the United States requested
that full reparation be made by the
imperial German government for the
destruction Of the William 2. Frye
Reparation necessarily includes an in
demnity for the actual pecunisry loss
sustained, and the government of the
United States takes this opportunity
TO assure the imperial German govern
ment that such an indemnity, If
promptly paid. will be accepted as sat
isfactory reparation, but 1t does not
rest with prize court 10 determine
what reparation should be made, or
what reparation would be satisfactory
to the government Of the United
States.
Time TO Act Now.
"Your Excellency states in your note
of June that in the event the prize
court should not grant indemnity IN
accordance with treaty requirements
the German government would not
hesitate to arrange for equitable in
demnity, but it is also necessary that
the government Of the United States
should be satisfied with the amount of
the indemnity, and it would seem to be
more appropriate and convenient that
an arrangement for equitable indem-
nitv should be agreed upon now rather
/ than later. The decision of the prize
court, even on the question of the
/ amount Of indemnity TO be paid, would