Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1915-06-29


IL willing to surrender the coniraband.
Article 1s provides In the casc sup
posed Of "a vessel stopped for articles
81 contraband. II the master of the
vessel stopped win deliver out the
goods supposed to be OF contrahand
nature, he shall be permitted to do it.
and the vessel shall not IN that case
be carried into any port, nor further
detained but shall be allowed to pro-
coed on her voyage.
Commander Mould Not Wait.
I'm this case, the admitted facts
show that pursuant 10 orders from the
commander OF the Gcrman cruiser
the master or the frye undertook 20
throw overheard the cargo Of that ves-
sci. but that before the work Of de-
llvcrlng out the cargo was finished,
The vessel with the cargo was sunk By
order of the uermnn commander.
"For these reasons. even II It be
assumed as your eXcollcncy has done
that the cargo was contraband your
contention that the destruction of the
vessel was justified ny the provisions
OF article l3 does not seem 60 be well
founded The government Of the
United States has not thought II net
cssary IN the discussion ~ this case
TO SO into tho question Of the contra
band or n0n-contrnhnnd character Of
the cargo The imperial German gov
eminent has admitted that this Ques-
ton makes no difference so far as It's
liability for damages Is concerned aud
the result Is the same SO far as the
justification for the sinking of the
vessel Is concerned Az shown above,
NJ we assume that the cargo was con-
trahand. the master OF the Frye
should have been allowed 10 deliver Il
out, ana the vessel should have been
allowed TO proceed on her voyage.
Terms OF Treaty Cited.
ION 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 ia the
circumstances of this case under any
accepted rule Of international law
Attention Is also called TO the provis-
ions OF article 2 OF the treaty OF 1855
between the United states ana prus-
STA, which. like article "a Of the treaty
OF 1889, was continued Ia force hy ar
ticle ~ Of the treaty of 1873 so far
as the provisions OF article II Of the
treaty OF 1855 apply To- the Question
I under confederation, they are as fol-
lows
"'lf one Itf the contracting lmfliea
\ should be hngaged in war with any.
other power, the free intercourse and
commerce Of the subjects or citizens
~ the party remaining neutral with
the belligefeat powers shall not be IN
ierruptcd On the contrary. Ia that
case. az IN full peace the vessels of
the neutral party may navigate freely
10 and from The ports ana on the
coasts of the belligorcnt parties, free
Nessela making free goods in so much
that all things shall be adiudged free
which shall he on board any vessel be-
longing 10 the neutral party although
such things belong tonn enemy Of the
other
Destruction Not Justified.
1T seems cloar 20 the government
of the United states therefore that
whether the cargo of the Frye ia re-
garded as contrHband or ns non-eon-
irahnnd the destruction of the vessel
was, as stated IN my previous come
munication on this subject, "a viola
ton Of the obligations imposed upon
the imperial German government I'M
der existing treaty stipulations be-
tween the United states and Prussia.
For these reasons the government
OF the United Suites must disagree
with the contention which Il under-
stands Is now made by the imperial
German government that an American
vessel carrying contrahand may be de-
ptroyod without liability or accountn-
bility beyond the payment OF such
compensation for damages as may he
fixed by a German prize court The
ISSUE thus presented arises on a dis
lar t4f Of af
sions, the settlement Of which requires
direct diplomatic discussion between
the two governments and cannot prop
erly DC based upon the decision Of the
German prize court, which IS IN no
way conclusive or binding upon the
government Of the United states.
Prize Court Unnecessary.
Moreover even II no disputed
questions OF treaty Interpretation were
involved the admission by the imperial
German government OF ITS liability
for damages for sinking the vessel
would seem 10 make II unnecessary. S
far az this claim is concerned to ask
he prize court to decide whether the
destruction Of the ship and cargo was
legal and whether and under what
conditions the property sunk waa H.
able TO contiseatiou. which you state
IN your note dated June Z are ques-
lions which should be- decided by the
prize court Insofar as these ques- /
lions relate 10 the cargo, they are out |
side Of the present discussion because |
as pointed out IN my previous note 20 I
you on the subject. dated April so /
the claim under discussion does not /
include DAMAGES for the destruction /
Of the cargo
The real question between the two /
governments is what reparntiou must I
be made for "a breach Of treaty obi /
cations aud that is not question /
which fats within the jurisdiction of T
"A prize court
In my note on the subject the