The evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1914-1922, 1915-03-13
GERMAN MINISTER
DEFENDS SINKING
Of THE FRYE
BY EITEL
Count Bernstorf Claims Act
Was in Accordance With
Declaration of London, Com.
mander's Only Guide.
ACTIONS OF TEUT0N
PRIZE COURTS UNKNOWN
Ambassador Has Received No
Instructions from Govern
ment and Calls at State De-
partment Quite Informally.

Washington, March is.-Count
Bernstorn, German ambassador. in
discussing with state department Of
hcials today the sinking of the
American ship W. r. Frye. defended
The action or Captain Thlerichons OF
the German auxiliary cruiser Prinz
Eitel Friedrich contondinE that he
acted ulder the declaration of Lon
don, which was the only guide he had
as 10 disposition OF prizes.
/. The Ambassador before going To the
state department conferred with
Captain Boy-ed, naval pttache of ;he
embassy, who returned yesterday from
Newport News.
Count Bernstorn ala NOT present
any note 10 the state department and
said he had received no instructions
from his government. He said he
called to discuss the question infor-
mally.
In defending the action OF Com
mander Thierichens. the ambassador
contended that when the officer left
Using Tau at the outbreak OF the war
last August he had nothing to follow
save the declaration OF London In de-
Gliding what TO do with vessels he
might seize. For that renson the am
bassador argued he had right to
sink the Frye as It's cargo Of wheat
was CONSIGNED TO order and des-
sined To "a fortified port of the en-
emy. So long az there was no port
into which he could take his prize, he
had right. the ambassador contend
ed to destroy not only the cargo but
the vessel itself.
Furthermore. the ambassador ar
gued ihut the commander of the PTlnZ
leitel when hr sank the Frye ala not
know that "a German prize court on
August Q had held that the mere fact
that merchant ship was bound for
an enemy port has not sufficient proof
that her cargo was destined for the
enemy.
While no formal comment was
made al the department after the
Gormaa ambassadors visit, officials
took the view that although the cap
tain of the Prinz Eitcl may have been
acting under the Declaration Of Lon
don that might he n factor IN reliev-
! ing him from personal responsibility
| but would not anect the case ns be-
tween the United states had tho Ger
man government. Under that dec
laration. vessel carrying cargo
more than half uf which Is contra
band can be destroyed if unable To be
taken to port
II WAS held by administration Off
cials that the German captain had no
right to act under the declaration m
any event for when the war broke
out Il has not been generally ratified
, ana therefore was not In force.
Tho general expectation was that
The case would he decided under in
/ ternational law as existing before tho
declaration Of London was made
when II was moi legal to destroy d
neutral prize unloss its cargo was con-
fessedly contrahand. such as arms and
ammunition, and In ease OF extreme
necessity To avoid recapture.
Onlcikls were confident restitution
would be made Tor the loss of the
ship. though they were not 80 sure ai
= to the cargo because It's status In d
prize court would be as complicated
as that Of the Wilhelmtna, now held
by England.