New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-06-29
Prize Courts Power
Over American
Ship Denied.
CLEAR BREACH
OF 1928 PACT
Washington Declares the
Question of Contraband
Is Not Involved.
TIME TO SETTLE NOW
Indemnity Demanded for Treaty
Violation, Not Because OF
Treaty Provisions.
urom The Tribune Ruteau.l

n rom The Tribune RuteauI
Washington, June 28.-The juris-
diction Of a German prize court
over the case of the American ship
William P. Frye is expressly denied
by the State Department in its note
to the German Foreign Office, given
out here to-day. This government
asserts that the treaty of 1928, in
voked by Germany, was violated
when the Frye was sunk, and the
question must therefore be settled
automatically. In the language OF
the note, the claim of the American
government is for Indemnity for a
violation of a treaty, in distinction
from an indemnity in accordance
with treaty."
The insistence by Germany Of the
recognition Of the right to sink ves-
sells under the Prussian treaties "in
extreme cases" is thought by Off
cials here to be thinly veiled at
tempt to establish a precedent for
the sinking of such vessels by sub
marines, and the fear of such ruse
Is held to be the real reason for the
State Departments strong opposi-
tion to this doctrine. It is felt there
is no practical question involved in
the present case which would war
rant the governments contention on
this point, as it is understood the
proposals of Germany are consid-
cred sufficient by the owners Of the
vessel.
The United States insists that the
sinking of the Frye constituted a
breach of treaty, and rejects the
German contention that in extreme
cases a vessel may be destroyed if
there is no other effective means Of
stopping the transportation Of con-
traband, maintaining that the treaty
expressly prohibits the destruction
of the vessel in any circumstances
and prohibits even its detention il
the commander is willing to surren-
der the contraband in the cargo. The
commander of the Frye started to
throw the cargo overheard at the
order Of the captain of the German
auxiliary cruiser, Prinz Eitel Fried
rich, and in so doing fulfilled the
treaty from an American point Of
view.
The German government is remind
ed that this government does not ad-
nit the cargo of the Frye to have been
contraband, but that, according to the
German note of June 7, the question
of the contraband or non-contraband
nature Of the cargo was not matter
that affected the status of the case un-
der the existing treaties. Furthermore.
the note refers 10 the fact that no
claim has been entered by the United
States for damages on account OF the
destruction of the cargo.
Unjustifiable in Any Case.
In case the cargo Of the Frye was
contraband, the note asserts, the COM
mander OF the Frye should have been
allowed to deliver IL out, and the yes-
sci should have been allowed TO pro-
ceed. II, on the other hand. the cargo
was non -contraband. "the destruction
either of the cargo or the vessel could
not be justified in the circumstances
Of this case under any accepted rule
Of international law"
This is the only direct reference 10
international law" made in the note.
The note is friendly in tone, bu. so
; uncompromising in contents that il
/ leaves no loophole for further parley
by Germany, insisting, as it does. on
the recognition of the American claims
! in full.
! Il is not thought the Frye note has
I any bearing on the Lusitania case, as
/ the contentious are based entirely on
the treaties with Prussia Of 1899 and
/ 1928, which do not apply to the claims
| OF this government relative to the Lu-
sitania losses. II is pointed out, how
ever, that in refusing 20 recognize
Germany's claims TO modify procedure
ir "extreme cases" the government
virtually reasserts its position on the
| question OF submarine warfare and
| denies the right Of the German gov
eminent TO modify existing laws on
account OF the peculiar exigencies Of
a specific case.
The note states in conclusion that
there is no need at present for COM
plicating the issue by references to
"other claims OF neutral and enemy in
terested parties" which Is taken 10 re-
fer TO the question of indemnity for
the cargo. The German contention that
the claim for the cargo would have
TO be judged by prize court is held
TO be irrelevant. as the United States
is not int -es,ed therein.
1t is understood that in refusing to