The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1915-06-29
TEXT OF NOTE ON FRYE CASE


 question under consideration, they are as follows:
 Treaty Terms Clear.
 eff one of the contracting par ties should be engaged in war with any other power, the free in- trcourse and commerce of the subjects or citizens of the party remaining neutral with the be1Iig- erent powers shall not be inter rupted On the contrary, in that case, as in full peace, the vessels of the neutral party may navigate freely to and from the ports and on the coasts of the belligerent parties, free vessels making free < goods, in so much that all things shall be adjudged free which shall be on board any vessel belonging to the neutral party, although such things belong to an enemy of the other.''-
 It seems clear to the govern ment of the United States, there fore, that whether the cargo of the Frye is regarded as contra band or as non-contraband, the destruction of the vessel was, as stated in my previous communi- cation on this subject, "a, violation of the obligations imposed upon  under existing treaty stipulations between the United States and Prussia
 For these reasons the govern ment of the United States must disagree with the contention which it understands is now made by the Imperial German govern ment. that an American vessel carrying eontraband may be de- stroyed without liability or ac- countability beyond the payment { of such compensation for dam ages as may be fixed by a Ger man prize court. The issue thus presented arises on a. disputed i'm depreciation of treaty provisions, the settlement of which requires direct diplomatic discussion be- tween 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 gov ernment of the United States.
 Moreover, even if no disputed questions of treaty interpretation was Involved, the admission by the Imperial German govern ment of it's liability for damages for sinking the vessel would seem to make it unnecessary, so far as this claim is concerned, to ask the Prize Court to decide t'whether the destruction Of the ship and cargo was legal, and whether and under what condi- tions the eproprtyi sunk was liable to confiscatdon,' '' which, you State in your note dated June are questions which should be dscidE ed by the Prize Court. In so far as these questions relate to the cargo, they are outside Of the present discussion, because, as pointed out in my previous note to you on the subject dated April 30. sthe claim under discussion does not include damages for the { destruction of the cargo.
 The real question between the two governments is what repara- ton must be made for g. breach of obligations, and that is not a question which falls within tha jurisdiction of a Prize Court.
 Not a Prize Court Case.
 In my note on the subject, the government of the United States requested that full reparation be made by the. Imperial German government for the destruction of  ton necessarily includes an in demnity for the actual pecuniary loss sustained, and the govern ment of the United States takes this opportunity to assure the Inn X peria1 German government that such an indemnity, if promptly paid, will be accepted as satisfaF- tory #reparation, but it does not rest with a Prize Court to determ- inc what reparation should be made, or what reparation would be satisfactory to the govern ment of the United States. Your Excellency states in your note of June that in the event the prize court should not grant indemnity in accordance with treaty requirements, the German Government would not hesit tate to arrange for equitable indem- nifty, but it is also necessary that the Government of the United States should be satisfied with the amount of the indemnity, and it would seem to be more appro- priate and convenient that an ar rangement for equitable indem- nity should be agreed upon now, rather than later. The decision of the prize court, even on the question of the amount of dn- aen1nity 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 foundation for a claim of the American Government unless the prize courts should not grant indem- nifty : in accordance with the ~ treaty.
 The claim presented by the American Government is for an indemnity for a violation of treaty, in distinction from an in demnity in accordance with the treaty, and therefore is a mat ter for adjustment by direct di- pldmatic discussion between the two governments, and is in no way dependent upon the action of a German prize court.
 U. s. Opposes Delay
 For the reasons above stated, the Government of the United States cannot recognize the pro- priety of submitting the claim presented by it on behalf of the