New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-06-30
The FRYE Case Correspondence.

The correspondence with Germany IN
the FRYE case raises on its face no very
grave issue Of fact or Of principle. The
German government admits liability for
the sinking of the Frye. 1t couldn't well
do ANYTHING else in view Of the terms OF
the treaty Of 1928 between the United
States and Prussia. That treaty, renew
ing articles Of the treaties Of 1885 and
1899 between the same powers, obligates
each 10 make compensation TO the other
for the destruction of vessels or the
seizure Of contraband in case one nation
is neutral and the other is engaged IN war
with other nations.
There can be no possible dispute about
the principle Of liability. The only differ
ence Of opinion developed is over the
method to be followed in determining the
compensation TO be made for the destruc-
ton of American property. The United
States insists that in view Of the plain
violation by Germany Of the treaty OF 1873
the question Of reparation is one that
should be dealt with automatically. The
Berlin authorities seem TO hold that 1t
should he left in the first instance to the
German prize courts and should be taken
I'D automatically as a claim only in case
the prize courts do not make an award
satisfactory to the United States.
There is little question that ample
pecuniary satisfaction will be given. But
the German government is apparently
anxious to throw the Frye case into the
prize courts in order to get from the latter
a decision that the Frye was sunk, not in
violation of the provisions Of the treaty,
but in pursuance Of them, liability for an
interference with American commerce be-
ing fully acknowledged and compensation
being offered with apologies. But If the
FRYE is held to have been sunk with I'M
disputed recourse on the part of the
United States to the guarantees Of the
treaty, the prize courts may also feel at
liberty to pass upon the excuse Of mill
tary necessity" offered by the captain Of
the Fitel Friedrich for destroying the
vessel instead Of merely compelling the
crew to iettison the alleged contraband in
the cargo.
The Declaration of London allows the
captain Of a belligerent cruiser or COM
merce DESTROYER a certain degree Of lati-
tude in sinking vessels conveying contra
band to an enemy destination, and the
captain of the Eitel Friedrich claims that
he took that Declaration as his guide. But
the United States at the beginning Of the
war announced that it did not consider the
Declaration Of London TO be binding. 1t
is. therefore, against our interest ana
nolicv to have our claim judged by Ger
man prize court on the basis Of rules
which we do not accept. Moreover, we do
not concede that any individual captains
conception Of military necessity can alb
solve him from observing the established
laws of warfare at sea. We have held
that IN the I.usitania case, and do not
want TO have the plain and simple issue
in the Frye case complicated by any prize
court obiter dicta which may be used to
weaken or challenge our contentious in re-
gard TO the Lusitania massacre.
The frmness of Mr.. Lansing's note to
the German Foreign Office is therefore
fully justified Captain Thierichens had
no ground Of treaty right or international
law TO stand on when he sank the Frye.
All that the United States asks is an in
Identification covering the value Of the
vessel 1t does not care to be drawn into
an irrelevant discussion of extraneous
issues. We should insist to the end on
keeping the Frye case, which rests on the
promises Of specific treaty between this
country and Prussia, altogether separate
from the Lusitania case. which has TO be
dealt with under general international
law.