Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1915-06-29

- just iiiduS puOiiI uN al q * SShi
and the German foreign Office, al
You are instructed to present the fol
lowing note to the German minister o,
foreign affairs:
~ have the honor to inform your ex'
cellency that | duly communicated tt
my government your note of 9TH IN
slant on the subject of the claim pre-
scented in my note of April Sd last. or
behalf of the owners and captain o.
the American sailing vessel William
+. Frye, in consequence of her de
struction by the German auxlliar!
cruiser PrinZ Eitel Friedrich.
I'm reply. | am instructed by my gov
eminent to say that it has carefuiis
considered the reasons given by tne
imperial German government Tor urs
ing that this claim should be passeo
upon BY the German prize court IN
stead of being settled by direct diplo'
matte discussion between the Two gov
ernments as proposed by the govern
ment Of the United States. and that IL
regrets to find that 1t cannon eo" ~,
in the conclusions reached Dy the i"'
perial German government
Real Issue Presented.
AS pointed out in my last note &c
you on this subject. dated April 50. the
government of the United states mas
considered that the only question uhdef
discussion was the method which shouio
he adopted for ascertaining the amount
of the indemnity to be paid unuer
admitted liability. and it notes WIN
surprise that in addition to TINS ques.
. zion the imperial German government
now desires to raise some questions
as to the meaning and erect OF tne
treaty stipulations under wnlch IL Has
admitted it's liability. ,
IF the government of the uhlteu
States correctly understands the posi
ton of the imperial German govern
ment as now presented, it is that lhe
provisions of article Is of the treaty OF
1899 between the United states any
Prussia which is continued IN ioISe
nv the treaty of 1925. justined tne
commander of the PrinZ Eitel Fried
rich in sinking the William fr!e
although making the imperial Herihai
government liable for the damages SUI
fered in consequence. and that lIas
much as the treaty provides no specinf
method for ascertaining the amount OF
inren;nity to be paid. that questioi
must be submitted to the German prize
court for determination
Denies Jurisdiction Of Prize Court.
."The government of the United States
m the other hand. does not iio
in the treaty stipulations mentioned
any justifica ton for the sinking OF the
FRYE. and does not consider that the
German prize court has any ourisolc-
lion over the question of the amount
of indemnity to be paid by the 1mperial
German government on account of its
admitted liability for the destruction
Of an American vessel on the high seas
You state, in your note OF the th
instant. that article - OF tne apoNe
nf
serves to the party at war the right
TO stop the carrying of contraband ana
to detain the contraband: IT follows
then, that il it cannot be accompisneo
in any other way, the stopping OF the
supply may in the extreme case he
effected by the destruction of the con
traband and of the ship CARRYING IT:
The government of the United states
cannot concur in this conclusion IN
the contrary. 1T holds that these treaty
provisions do not authorize the oe-
struction of neutral vessel in any
circumstances. BY its express terms
ton OF a neutral vessel carrying con-
fraband IL the master OF the vessel is
willing to surrender the contraoahd.
Article 13 provides:
I'm the case supposed of a vessei
stopped for articles of contraband, J!
the master of the vessel stopped VIII
deliver out the goods supposed TO be OF
contraban nature, he shall be admltteo
TO do il and the vessel shall not IN tnat
case be carried into any port, nor !uf
Their detained, but shall be allowed 10
proceed on her voyage
Citation of Admitted Facts.
"I, this case the admitted facts show
Z. mat pursuant to orders from the com
WANDER of the German cruiser, the mas
ter of the Frye undertook to throw
overheard the cargo of that vessel. but
that before the work Of delivering out
the cargo was finished the vessel. with
the cargo. was sunk by order OF the
German commander.
For these reasons. even il it be as
sumed. as your excellency has done,
that the cargo was contra band, your
contention that the destruction of the
vessel was justified by the provisions
of article 10 does not seem to be well
founded. The government of the
United states has not thought 1t neces-
sary in the discussion of this case to
20 into the question of the contraband
or non-contrab band character of the
cargo The imperial German govern
ment has admitted that this question
makes no difference SO far as it's liza
bility for damages is concerned. and
the result Ii the same so far as the JUS
LITIGATION for the sinking of the vessel
is concerned. AS shown above. II we
assume that the cargo was contraband,
the master of the Frye should have
been allowed to deliver II out, and the
vessel should have been allowed to
proceed on her voyage.
Destruction Not justified.
"On the other hand, IL we assume
that the cargo was non contraba nd the
destruction either of the cargo or the
vessel could not he justified in the cir
cumstances Of this case under any ac-
repted rule OF international law At