The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1915-08-05

N1OuS CId1u1 bIlCLG t11O OCo VI" "oNS AAO sian-American treaty or lnterna
 The whole controversy hinges on Article 8 of that treaty, the American Contention being that it specifically protected the Frye from being sunk, although not protesting a contraband cargo Germany. on the other hand. contends that the article only obli- gates her to pay damages. In offer ing to pay for the ship, Germany accepts the American proposal that the amount of damages be fixed by two experts, one to be selected by each country and pledged prompt payment, with the stipulation, however, that it shall not be regarded as payment for violation of American rights Should that method be unsatisfactory, the United States is invited to arbitration at The Hague.
 It is considered likely, that the com mission method will be satisfactory to the United States, however; that no treaty rights are waived.
 Should the United States allow the controversy to go to The Hague for interpretation of the treaty provisions or continue to discuss the issue through diplomatic channels, it is vir- tua1ly certain that it will insist that meanwhile Germany refrain from vio- lation of what the United States con tends are it's rights. :. ...... .
 The note follows:
 TEXT or THE NOTE.
 Following is the text of the note:
 Ambassador Gerard to the Secretary of State.
 elegram No. 2,65e.
 American Embassy, Berlin. July 30. 1915. i Following note received:
 Foreign Office,
 Berlin. July 80. 1915.
 The undersigned has the honor to inform his ENcellency. MT. James w. Gerard, Ambassador of the United Estates of America, in reply to the note of the 26th u1tirno. Foreign Office No. E 3.990, on the subject of the sinking of the American merchant vessel I William P. Frye by the German auxiI- l iary cruiser, Prince Eitel Freidrich, that the points of view brought out in 1 the note have been carefully examin- ed by the Imperial German govern ment This examination has led to the following conclusions:
 | The government of the United States believes that it is incumbent upon it to take the position that the treaty I rights to which America is entitled, l as contained in Article 12 of the Prussian- American treaty of aInity I and comm cree of Sept 10, 17S5, and in Article 13 of the meri- can treaty of aInity and commerce o1 July H. 1799, were violated by the sinking of the William P. Frye II fnterprets these articles as meaning s that a merchantmen of the neutral contracting party carrying contraband cannot in any circumstances be de stroyed by a warship of the belhger- ent contra cting party, and that the sinking of the William P Frye was therefore, in violation of the treaty even if her cargo should have con- sisted of contraband, which it leaves outside of the discussion
 The German government cannot ac- cept this view. It insists as hereto fore that the commander of the Ger man auxiliary cruiser acted in the 1e- gal exercise of the right of control o1 trade in contra-band enjoyed by war: ships of be1ligerent nations, and tha' the treaty stipulationS mentioned merely oblige the German governInent sustained by the American citizens concerned.
 Cites London Declaration.
 It is not disputed by the American Government that according to genera : principles of international law a bel Iigerent is authorized in sinking neu- i, tral vessels under almost any condi- , tions for carrying Ncontraband- As is : we'll known. these principles were laid down in Articles 49 and 50 of the { Declaration of London, and werS recognized at that time by the-dulS empowered delegates of all the na- tions which participated in the con ference, including the American del egates, to be- declarative of existing in ternat tionaI law, c (see preliminary 5 ! clause of the Declaration of Lond on; moreover, at the beginning of the present wal the American Govern ' ment proposed to the belligerent na- let 4<, 1Jo r kdon and give it's provisions formal va. 1idity also.
 The German Government has al I ready. explained in it's note of Apri 4 last for what reason it consider that the conditions justifying the sink ent in the case of the William P. Frye The cargo consisted of conditiona contraband, the destination of whict for the hostile armed forces was tC be presumed under the circumstan S ces; no proof to overcome this pre- sumption has been furnished. Nor, than half of the cargo of the vesse was contraband, so that the vessel wa :. liable to confiscation The attemp 5 to bring the American vessel into l German port would have greatly i'm periled the German vessel in the giv en situation of the war, and at an. rate practically defeated the success of her further operations. Thus tn authority for sinking the vessel wa. ! given according to general principle \ of international law
 There only remains then to be ex anined the question how far the Prus ? sian-American treaty stipulation : modify these principles of information al law.
 Question of Contraband. : In this connection Article 12 of tn l Treaty of 1785 provides that in tn l event of a war between one of tn contracting parties with another pow CT, the free commerce and inter