The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-06-29


the Imperial German government for
urging that this claim should be
passed upon by the German prize
court instead Of being settled by de
rect diplomatic discussion between
the two governments, as proposed by
the government Of the United States,
and that ii regrets TO find that II
cannot concur in the conclusions
reached by the Imperial German gov
eminent.
Merely Question OF Amount Due.
AS pointed out In my last note TO
you on this subject, dated April 80,
the government of the United States
has considered that the only dues-
ton under discussion was the method
which should be adopted for ascer-
tanning the amount of indemnity TO
be paid under an admitted liability
and IL notes with surprise that in
addition to this question the Imperial
German government now desires to
raise some questions az to the mean
ing and effect of the treaty stipula'
tons under which IL has admitted Its
liability.
If the government of the United
States correctly understands the po-
sition of the Imperial German gov
e9ment as now presented. between
the provisions of article ID OF the
treaty of 1893, between the United
States and Prussia. whicf, rs contin-
ued in force by the treaty of 1928
justified the commander of the Prinz
F.itei Friedrich in sinking the VIII
liam p. Frye. although making the
Imperial German government liable
for damages suffered in consequence,
and that inastnuch as the treaty pro
vides no specific method for ascer-
tanning the amount OF Indemnity to
be paid, that question must be sub
mitted to the German prize court for
determination.
Treaty Shows No justification.
The government of the United
States, on the other hand, does not
find in the treaty stipulations men
toned any Justification for the sink
ing of the Frye, and does not con-
slider that the German prize court
has any Jurisdiction over the ques-
ton of the amount of indemnity to be
paid by the Imperial German govern
ment on account of Its admitted liza
bility for the destruction OF an AmeFi-
ca n vessel on the high seas.
You state in your note OF the 7th
instant that article 3. of the above
mentioned treaty OF 1879, expressly
reserves to the party at war the right
TO stop the carrying OF contra band
and TO detain contrabani; 1t follows
then that il II cannot be accomplished
in any other way, the stopping OF
the supply may In the extreme case
be effected by the destruction of the
contraband and of the ship carrying
It,"
Does Not Concur.
The government of the United
States cannot concur in this conclu-
sion. On the contrary. 1t holds that
these treaty provisions do not au'
thorize the destruction of neutra
vessel in any circumstances BY its
express terms the treaty prohibit.
even the detention of a peutral ves-
sci carrying contraband RI the mas
ter OF the vessel is willing TO surren-
der the contraband. Article 13 pre-
yides:
I'm the case supposed of
vessel stopped for articles of
contraband, liz the master of the
vessel stopped will deliver out the
goods supposed to he OF contra
band nature. he shall he admitted
to do II and the vessel shall NOT Iva
that case he carried into any port,
nor further detained. but shall NC
allowed TO proceed on her
voyage"
In this case the admitted facts show
that pursuant to orders from the
commander of the German cruiser
the master of the Frye undertook IL
rNT hnt
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
Contention Not Well Founded.
For these reasons, even IL IL be
assumed, as Your Excellency has
cone. that the cargo was contraband
your contention that the destruct'on
of the vessel was justified by the pro-
visions of article 3 does not seem to
be well founded. The Government p1
the United States has not though!
ii necessary in the discussion of this
case to go into the question of the
contraband, or noncontraband, char
acter of the cargo. The Imperial Ger
man Government has admitted that
this question makes no difference sc
far as it's liability for damages is con-
eerned. and the result is the same Sc
far as the justification for the sink
ing of the vessel Is concerned. AS
shown above. If We assume that the
cargo was contraband, the mas.e. OF
the Frye should have been allowed TO
deliver it out, and the vessel should
have been allowed TO proceed on her
voyage.
- On the other hand. If we assume
that the cargo was noncontya band ,hs
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
Attention is also called to the pre-
visions of article 12. of the treaty CT
between the United States and
Prussia. which, like article Is OF the
treaty of 1893. was continued in foree
by article IL of the treaty of 1898.
Sc far as the provisions Of article II
CT the treaty of 1875 apply 20 the
question under consideration, they
are as follows:
III one of the contracting parties
should be engaged in war with any
other power, the free intercourse and
commerce OF the subjects or citizens
OF the party remaining neutral with
the belligerent powers shall not re-