Omaha daily bee., 1915-06-11
KAISER MAKES NEW
SEA LAW TO APPLY
TO THE FRYE CASE
CONTINUED from Page OncJ

Continued from Page one)
United states, would be 10 throw into
the prize courts for decision all cases OF
whether destruction Of an American ves-
sci constituted an extreme case OF mill
tary necessity.
international law. outside OF treaty
stipulations. has constrained many
moot case on that point While the
declaration OF London established finally.
that in case of military necessity ship.
whose cargo was more than half contra
band. could be destroyed after passen-
gers and crew were removed to a place
of safety. tho declaration was not ratified
by, the United states. express notice hav-
ing been given again by the American
government to Germany In the note Of
April IS that the declaration was not re-
garded as in force.
Text of Note.
The following is the German reply:
FOREIGN OFFICE, BERLIN, June :,
1sl5.-The undersigned has the honor to
make the following reply TO the note OF
his excellency, Mir. James w. Gerard,
ambassador os the United States of
America. dated April 30. 1915 Foreign Of
flee No, 1891. on the subject of the sink
ing Of the American sailing vessel, WI.
liam p. Frye. by the German auxiliary
cruiser, Prinz Eitel Friedrich
Tho German government cannot admit
that. as the American government as
sumed, the destruction of the sailing
vessel mentioned constituted a violation
of the treaties concluded between Prus-
STA and the United States at an earlier
date. and now applicable to the relations
between the German empire and the
United States. of the American rights
derived thercfIom. For these treaties
did not have the intention of depriving
one of the contracting parties engaged in
war, of the right of stopping the supply
of contraband to his enemy. when he
recognizes the supply of such as detri-
mental to his military interests.
Old Treaty II Quoted.
"On the contrary. article 10 Of the
Observation-Disclosures treaty of July II, 1893.
expressly reserves To the party at war
the right to stop the carrying of contra
band and to detaln the contraband. II
follows then that II it cannot be ac-
eomplished in any other way the stop
ping of the supply may In the extreme
case be effected by the destruction OF the
III.
AS a matter of course, the obligation of
the party at war to pay compensation 60
the parties Interested of the neutral con-
tracing party, remains In force. what
ever be the manner OF stopping the sup
ply
According to general principles OF in
ternatonal law, any exercise Of the right
OF control over the trade In contraband
is subject to the decision of the prize
courts, even though such right may be
restricted by special treaties.
AT the beginning of the present war.
Germany, pursuant TO these principles
established by law prize jurisdiction for
cases of the kind under consideration.
The case of William p. Frye is likewise
the subject to the German prize jurfs
dictlon for the Prussian-American
treaties mentioned contain no STIMULATION
to the amount of the compensation pro-
vided by article 10 of the treaties cited
is to be fixed.
Prize Proceedings Indispensable.
THE German government therefore
complies with its treaty obligations to a
full extent when the prize courts in
stituted by II in accordance with inter-
national law proceed in pursuance to
the treaty stipulation and thus award
the disinterested an equitable indemnity.
There would therefore be no foundation
for a claim of the American government.
unless the prize court should not grant
indemnity in accordance with the treaty;
in such event, however, the German gov
eminent would not hesitate to arrange
for equitable indemnity, Notwithstanding.
For the rest, prize proceedings of the
case of the Frye are Indispensable, apart
from the American claims for the rea-
son that other claims of the neutral and
enemy interested parties are to lie con-
sidered in the matter.
AS was stated in the note of April
last, the prize court should have TO de-
eide the question whether the destruc-
ton Of the ship and cargo was legal,
whether and under what condition, the
property sunk was liable to confIscation
and to whom and in what amount in
demnity is to be paid provided applica-
ton is received.
Since the decision OF the prize court