Perth Amboy evening news., 1915-06-29

der existing treaty stspulations between
the United States and Prussia
FOR these reasons the government
OF the United Ststes must disagree
with the contention which It under
stands is now made by the imperial
German government that an American
vessel carrying centraband may be de-
sfroyed without liability or account
ability be<ond the payment OF such
compensation fer damages as may be
fixed by German prize court. The Is
sue thus presented arises On q disputed
interpretation of treaty provisions, the
settlement of which requires direct
diplomatic discussion between the two
governments and cannot properly be
based upon the decision OF the German
prize court, which is IN no way con-
elusive or binding upon the government
Of the United States
Caroo Not Included.
Moreover, even II no disputed uues-
tions of treaty Interpretation was In
volyed, the admission by the imperial
German government of its liability for
damages for sinking the vessel would
seem to make It unnecessary so far as
this claim IL concerned to ask the
prize court to decide whether the de-
struction OF the ship and cargo was
legal and whether and under what
conditions the property sunk was liable
to consscatton. which you state in
your note dated Tune 7, are questions
which should be decided by the prize
court In SO far us these questions re-
lHte to the cargo, they are outside OF
the present discussion because, as
pointed ont tn my previous note to you
on The subject dated April 30, the
claim under discussion does not include
damages for the destruction OF the
cargo
'-rhe real question between the two
governments is what reparation must
be made for breach of treaty obliga
tons, and that is not question which
falls within the Jurisdiction of prize
court.
an my frst note on the subject the
government Of the United States re-
auired that full reparation be made by
the imperial German government for
the destruction Of the William P. Frye
Reparatien necessarily includes an IN
| demnity for the actual pecuniary loss
sustained. and the government Of the
United States takes this opportunity to
assure the imperial German govern
ment that such an indemnity, II prompt
| ly paid, will be accepted as satisfactory
reparation, but IL does not rest with
the prize court to determine what repa-
ration should be made or what repara-
tion would be satisfactory to the gov
eminent of the United States.
"Your excellency states In your note
of June that In the event the prize
court should not grant indemnity In ac-
cordance with the treaty requirements
the German government would not hes
itate to arrange for equitable indem-
nifty, but II is also necessary that the
government OF the United States should
be satisfied with the amount OF the in
dennity should 1t be agreed upon now
ra ther than later The decision of the
prize court, even on the question of the
amount of indemnity to be paid. would
not be binding or conclusive on the
government of the United States. The
government of the United States also
dissents from the view expressed in
your note that there would be no .foun-
dation for claim of the American gov
ernment unless the prize courts should
not grant Indemnity in accordance with
the treaty. The claim presented by the
American government Is for an in
demnity for violation OF a treaty, In
distinction from an indemnity in ac-
cordanee with the treaty, and therefore
is matter for adjustment by direct