The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-07-27
SINKING Of SHIP
CONTINUED From First Page.)
volve danger to the vessel making the
capture.
Position Of United states.

Irrespective of the principles of In
ternational law noted on that point,
however the United states has, in It's
correspondence with Germany, insisted
on the, application Of the following
article 10 OF the treaty:
"Ir the case of one of the contract
ing parties being engaged In war with
any other power, to prevent all the
difficulties and misunderstandings that
usually arise, respecting merchandise
of contraband. such as arms. amniu-
milton and military stores of every
kind. no such articles caTried In the
vessel, or by the subjects or citizens
| of either party to the enemies of the
other, shall be deemed contraband. so
as to induce confscation or condemna-
ton and loss of property to individ-
uals
Nevertheless. II shall be lawful to
stop such vessels and articles and to
deta!n them for such length of time as
I the captors may think necessary TO
prevent the Inconvenience or damage
that might ensue from their proceed
ing paving however. reasonable
compensation for the loss such arrests
shall occasion to the proprietors,
| But in the case supposed of yes
| sci stopped for articles of contra band,
| If the master of the vessel stopped Will
/ QeUtRT out lnS NOouS coppcSSb ~ ~
| of contraband nature. he shall be per-
mitted 10 do 1t, and the vessel shall
not In that case be carried into any
port. nor further detained, but shall
| be allowed to proceed on her voyage.
| Germany Immediately admitted
| her liability under the foregoing ar
| ticle when the Frye was sunk and
agreed to pay damages, but took the
view that the sinking OF the vessel was
not a violation" OF the treaty. put a
right that had inferentially been
granted by the treaty itself.
ION the contrary" said Berlin. ar
ticle g expressly reserves to the
party at war the right to stop the
carrying Of contra band and TO detain
the contra band: it follows then that II
It cannot be accomplished in any other
way. the stopping of the supply may, In
! the extreme case, be effected by the
destruction of the ship carrying It,
As matter of course, the obligation
of the party at war to pay compensa-
| ton to the interested persons OF the
neutral contracting party remains in
force whatever be the manner OF stop
ping the supply"
Frye Case n Precedent.
The United States,as late as June
"a, replied that the Government of
| the United States cannot concur in
this conclusion"
The case of the Leelanaw, 1t was in
dicated by officials, would be argued
along the same lines, as soon as an
pfficial report was received. Saving
of the lives of the crew. they thought.
could not allay the feeling of the
American Government that Germany
had not only violated international
| law in the case OF Americans travelling
on unresisting merchantmen, but had
four times. In the present war, violat-
ed treaty of nearly a century's stand
ing. Under that treaty the American
Government considers that the Amer
lean ships Gulflight and Nebraskan.
which were torpedoed without warn
! ing: the William p. Frye and the Lee
lanaw should have been immune from
violence of any kind.