New Britain herald., 1915-06-29

last night the text of the note, Senb on June 24 by the United States, ask l ing Germany to reconsider her refusal I to settle by direct diplomatic negotia- I tions, instead of by prize court pro- l ceedings, the claim presented on be- 1 half of the captain and owners of l the American ship William F Frye, sunk with her cargo of wheat by the l commerce raider Prinz Eitel Fried- I rich Ambassador Gerard cabled that he had delivered the note last Satur- day afternoon
 I The American note declares that inasmuch as Germany has admitted l liability for the sinking of the Frye l under the treaty of 1928, prize court l proceedings are unnecessary and not binding upon the Unted States
 Denies Germany's Contention. Aside from the question of how the 1 indemnity should be paid, the note brings out clearly the refusal of the United States to accept the conten- 1 ton that Germany has a right to stop the carrying Of contraband by American ships, by the destruction of the contraband and by the ship carrying it..
 While no mention of submarine warfare was made in either the last German note or the present reply, occasion was taken to deny this right because of belief that admission of it now might in the future be used as a justification for submarine at tacks on American ships.
 Note in German Hands.
 The American note, dated June 24 and addressed to Am bassador Gerard, was delivered to the Foreign office in Berlin last Saturday afternoon. It reads as follows:
 Department of State,
 Washington June "A, 1915.
 " ou are instructed to present the following note to the German Minis ter of Foreign affairs:
 T have the honor to inform your excellency that I duly communicated to my government your note of the 7th instant on the subject of the claim presenter in my note of April 3 last on behalf of the owners and captain of the American sailing yes. sel William F. Frye in consequence of her destruction by the Gerrnon auxiliary cruiser Prinz Eitel Freid- rich. a 3i,s ei
 In reply I am instructed by my SONcTHII1GHL5tO tO say JndC u IlSS 5CSdIS- fully considered the reasons given by the imperial German government for urging that this claim should be passed upon blythe German prize court, instead of being settled by df- rect diplomatic discussion between the two governments, as proposed by the i, government of the United States, and that it regrets to find that it cannot I concur in the conclusions reached by the imperial German government.
 Only One Question Up.
 .As pointed out in my last note to you on this subject, dated April 30, the government of the United States has considered that the only question under discussion was the method which should be adopted fer ascertaining the amount of the ill- demnity to be paid under an admitted liability, and it notes with surprise that. in addition to this question, the imperial German governne ent now de- sires to raise some questions as to the meaning and effect of the treaty stfpulations under which it has ad- mitted it's liability.
 ..If the government of the United States correctly understands the posi- ticn of the imperial German govern rnent as now presented, 1t is that the rroyisions of Article IS of the treaty ' Of 1799f between the United States and Prussia, which is, continued in force s by the treaty of 1925, justified the commander of the Prinz Eitel Fried rich in sinking the William F. Frye, although making the imperial German government liable for the damages suffered in consequence; and that, in s,smuch as the treaty provides no specific method for ascertaining the amount of indemnity to be paid that question must be submitted to the German prize court fer determination
 No Justification Found.
 aThe government or the United States, on the other hand, does not find in the treaty stipuiations mem toned any justification for the sinking < Cf the Frye, and does not consider that t.re German prize court has any jurisdiction over the question of the amount of indemnity to be paid by the imperial German government on ac- count of it's admitted liability for the destruction of an American vessel on the high seas.
 You state in your note of the 7th Instant that Article 1s or the above mentioned treaty of l799 expressly reserves to the party at war the right to stop the carrying of contraband and to detain the contraband. It follows then that If it cannot bc accomplished in any other way the stepping of the supply may be, in the extreme case, effected by the destruction of the con traband and of the ship carrying It.
 Cannot Destroy Vessel.
 "The government of the United States cannot concur in this con-