The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1915-08-05


 course of the nationals of the party | remaining neutral with the belligerent l powers shall not be interrupted, but I that on the contrary the vessel of the | neutral party may navigate freely to and from the ports of the belligerent power even neutraHzing enemy goods on board thereof. However, this ar ticle merely formlflates general rules for the freedom of maritime inter course and leaves the question of con traband untouched; the specific stipu- lations on this point are contained in the following article. which is mate rial1y identical with Article 1 8 of the Treaty of 1790 now in force.
 The plain intention of Article 13 is to establish a reasonable compromise between the military interests of the be1Hgerent contracting party and tn e commercial interests of the neutral party. On the one hand the belliger- ent party is. to have the right to pre- vent the transportation of war sup plies to his adversaries even when carried on vessels of the neutral par ty; on the other hand, the commerce and navigation of the neutral party is to be-interfered with little a. pos sib1e by the measures necessary for such prevention, and reasonable com pensation is to be paid for any in convenience or damage which may nevertheless enSue from the proceed ings of the belligerent party.
 Article/13 recites the following means whereby the belligerent party can prevent the vessels of the neutral party from carrying war supplies to his adversary. The detention of the ship and cargo for such length of time as the belligerent may think ne cessary; furthermore, the taking over of the war stores for his own use, paying the full value of the same as ascertained the places of destination TffrI I1f of in the treaty, and is, therefore, neither expressly permitted nor expressly prohibited, so that on this point, the party stipulations must be, supple mented by the general rules of inter national law. From the meaning and spirit of the treaty it really appears l out of the question that it was in tended to expect of the beligerent that he should permit a vessel loaded with contraband, for example a ship nnent of arms and ammunition of de- cisive importance for the outcome of l the war, to proceed unhindered to his enemy when circumstances forbid the carrying of the %* into port, if the general rules of international law allow sinking of the vessel.
 Disposition of Cargo.
 The remaining stipulations of Arti- cle 3 must likewise be considered in 1 this light; they provide that the Cap tain of a, vessel stopped shall be all | lowed to proceed on his voyage if he delivers out the contraband to the warship which stopped his vessel. For such delivering out cannot. of course, be considered when the ensuing loss of time inperials either the warship herself or the success of her other operations. In the case of the Will 1 liam P. Frye, the German commander at first tried to have matters set 1 tied by the delivery of contrabAAd, but convinced himself of the imprac- ticabflity of this attempt in that it would expose his ship to attack by I whatever superior force of enemy war l vessels pursuing him, and was ac- EcordingIy obliged to determine upon the sinking of the Frye. Thus he did not exceed on this point the hm- it's to which he was bound by Article l13.
 However, Article 1s asserts itself I here to the extent that it founds the obligation to compensate the Ameri- l can citizens affected. whereas accord ing to the general rules of interna- tiona1t law the belligerent party does not need to grant compensation for a 1 vessel lawfully sunk. For, if by Arti- cIe 13, the mere exercise of right of 1 highways makes the be1ligerent liable for compensation, this must, apply a fortiori to the exercise of the right of sinking.
 The question whether the German commander acted legally was prinaar- fly a subject for the consideration Of the German prize courts, according -to general principles of international law as laid down, also in Article of The ] Hague Convention for the establish
 nent of an international prize court ] and in Article 51 of the Declaration of London. The German Government si consequently laid the case of the Will l liam P. Frye before the competent bsprize court at Hamburg, as was stated in it's note of the 7th u1t. This court found by it's judgment of the 10th
 inst. that the cargo of the American vessel. William P. Frye, was contra
 band; that the vessel could not be car ried into port. and that the sinking
 was therefore justified at the same
 time the court expressly recognized the validity of the Prussian-Anericar treaty stipulations severally* model for
 the relations between the German Elm
 pire and America, so that the sinking of the ship and cargo, so far as Amer
 ican property, makes the German Elm
 pire liable for indemnity. The Prize
 Court was unable to fix the indemnity
 itself, since it had no data before it
 failing the receipt of the necessary de- tails from the parties interested.
 It will now be necessary to settle
 these points in a different way. The
 German Government suggests as the
 simplest way that each of the twC 1 Governments designate expert ana
 that the two experts jointly fix the
 amount of indemnity for the vesse
 and any American property whicH
 may have been sunk with her. Int
 German Government will prompt!
 pay the amount of indemnity thus as
 certafned; it expressly declares, how ever, reverting to what has beer
 stated above, that this payment doe not constitute satisfaction for the vio
 latton of American treaty rights, bu