Evening star., 1915-06-10
Claims in Latest Note Right to
Destroy Any U. S. Ship
Carrying Contraband.
BUT 1T AGREES TO PAY
DAMAGES FOR THE ACT
Opposes Contention of U. S. Govern
ment That Prize Cour. Proceed
ings Mean Unnecessary Delay.

day. makes the far-reaching claim of
right to destroy any American YES
sci carrying contraband. while agree
ing to pay damages for the act.
Two points made by the United
States are rejected by Germany. One
was the statement of the American
government in it's note of April 2S that
prize court proceedings meant unnec-
essary delay, all matters concerned
being susceptible of prompt settle
nent through diplomatic channels, and
the other was that the destruction of
the Frye was 'unquestionably a viola
tlon of the obligations imposed upon
the imperial government under exist
Ing treaty stipulations between the
United States and Prussia.
Under the Prussian-American treaty
of 1928, the binding force of which
was admitted by Germany in it's note
of April S. the right of citizens of
either country to ship arms and am
of contra band in their own vessels
was granted in time of war, but each
party had the right to detain such
contraband and make payment for it il
The note from Germany today en-
larges upon the treaty of 1928 by claim
ing that while the treaty did not spe-
cifically permit the destruction of
not be stopped in any other way, II
could. ''in the extreme case, be effected
by the destruction of the contraband
and of the ship carrying it.
Question Of Military Necessity.
The effect of Germany's answer today,
if its assertions are accepted by the
United States, would be to throw INTO
the prize courts for decision all cases
of whether destruction of an American
vessel constitutes an extreme case OF
military necessity.
International law, outside of treaty
stipuIations, has contained many
moot case on that point. Whlle the
declaration of London established
finally that in case of military neces-
sity ship whose cargo was more than
half contraband could be destroyed
after passengers and crew were re-
moved to place of safety, the decia-
ration was not ratified by the United
States, express notice having been
given again by the American govern
ment to Germany in the note of April
2S that the declaration was not re-
garded as in force.
The following Is the German reply:
Foreign Office, Berlin. June Z. 1915.
THE undersigned has the honor to
make the following reply to the note
of his excellency. Mr. James w;
States of America. dated April 80. 1915.
foreign office number 1921, on the sub
ject of the sinking of the American
sailing vessel William p. Frye by the
German auxiliary cruiser Prinz Eitel
Friederich:
The German government cannot ad-
init that, as the American government
assumes, the destruction of the sailing
vessel mentioned constitutes a viola
ton of the treaties concluded between
Prussia and the United States at an
earlier date and now applicable to the
relations between the German empire
and the United States, or of the Ameri-
can rights derced therefrom. For
these treaties did not have the inten-
ton of depriving one of the contract
ing parties engaged in war OF the
right of stopping the supply of con-
traband to his enemy when he recog-
nizes the supply of such as detrimental
to his military interests.
Right to Destroy Contraband.
."On the contrary. article 13 of the
Prussian-American treaty of July 10,
1888, expressly reserves to the party at
war the right to stop the carrying of
contraband and to detain the contra
bnd. It follows. then, that if it cnnnot
be accomplished in any other way. the
stopping of the supply may in the sx-
treme case be effected by the destruc-
ton of the contraband and OF the ship
carrying it. AS matter OF course, the
compensation to the parties interested
of the neutral contracting party re-
mains in force whatever be the manner |
of stopping the supply.
According to general principles OF
international law any exercise of the |
right of control over the trade in con- |
traband 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 |,
these
established by law prize jurisdictionl
for cases of the kind under considera-
tion. The case of the William p. Frye |
is likewise subject to the German prize
jurisdiction for the Prussian-American n |
treaties mentioned contain no stipuia-
tion as to how the amount of the COM |
pensation, provided by article l3 OF the |
treaties cited. Is to be fixed.
The German government, therefore,
complies with its treaty obligations toi
a full extent when the prize courts in !
stituted by it in accordance with inter |
national law proceed in pursuance to-
the treaty stipulation and thus award
the American interested an equitable
indemnity There would, therefore. be
no foundation for claim of the Ameri-
can government unless the prize courts
should not grant indemnity in accord
ance with the treaty; in such event.
however, the German government 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 reason that other claims of the
neutral and enemy interested parties
are to be considered in the matter
Decision by Prize Court
LAS was stated in the note of April
4 last, the prize court. should have to
decide the question whether the de-
struction of the ship and cargo was
legal, whether and under what condi-
tions, the property sunk was liable to
and to whom and in what
AMOUNT indemnity is to be paid pro-
vided application therefor is received.
Since the decision of the prize court
must first be awaited before any fur
ther position is taken by the German
the simplest way for the
American interested parties to settle
their claims would be to enters them in
the competent records Of prize pro-
'aThe undersigned begs to suggest
that the ambassador bring the above
10 the knowledge Of his government
md avail himself. etc.