Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-06-11
Treaty of 1928

Under the Prussian- American trea-
ty of 1928 the binding force of which
was admitted by Germany In it's note
of April the right of citizens Of Ell
Their country to ship arms and am
munitions as well as all other kinds
of contraband in their own vessels
was granted in time of war, but each
party had the right to detain such
contraband and make payment for it
II confscated.
The note from Germany today en-
larges upon the treaty of 1928 by
claiming that while the treaty did not
specifically permit the destruction Of
a ship, nevertheless, if it's contraband
could not be stopped in any other way
it could sin the extreme case be eff
fected by the destruction of the con-
traband and Of the ship carrying it,"
Effect of Answer
The effect of Germany's answer today,
if its assertions are accepted by the
United States, would be to throw into
the prize courts for decision all cases of
whether destruction of an American YES
sci constituted an extreme case of mill
tary necessity.
International law, outside of treaty
stipulations, has contained many moot
case on that point While the declara-
ton Of London established finally that
Of military necessity a ship whose cargo
was of more than half contraband could
be destroyed after passengers and crew
were removed to a place of safety, the
declaration was not ratified by the Unit
ed States, express notice having been
given again by the American govern
ment to Germany in the note of April
% that the declaration was not regarded
as In force.
German Contentious
The German answer insists that the
stopping of supplies to an enemy bellig-
erent may be effected by the destruction
of the contraband and the destruction of
the ship carrying the contraband to the
violation of treaty obligations. 1t con-
tends that a prize court is necessary to
fix the amount of compensation and that
there is no occasion for direct diplomatic
negotiations on the case unless the prize
should fail to award compensation.
The obligation of belligerent to pay
compensation remains, regardless Of the
action of the prize court, the German
contends. and should the prize court fail
to award compensation, Germany would
undertake to arrange equitable indem-
nifty. AS precaution and a preliminary
procedure, Germany suggests that the
on record.
Text Of Reply
The following Is the German reply:
Foreign Office, Berlin, June Z, 1915.
The undersigned has the honor to make
the following reply to the note Of His
Excellency, Mr.. James w. Gerard, am
bassador Of the United States Of Ameri-
ca. dated April 80. 1915. foreign office No.
S91. on the subject Of the sinking OF the
American sailing vessel William P. Frye
by the German auxiliary cruiser Prina
Eitel Friedrich.
''The German government cannot ad-
NIT that. as the American government
assumes. the destruction Of the sailing
vessel mentioned constitutes violation
Of the treaties concluded between Prus-
eia and the United States at an earlier
date. and now applicable to the relations
between the German Empire and the
United States, or of the American rights
derived therefrom. For these treaties
did not have the intention of depriving
ono Of the contracting parties engaged in
war Of the right Of stopping the supply
Of contraband to his enemy when he rec
ognizes the supply Of such as detrimen-
tai to his military interests.
ION the contrary, Article 10 of the
Prussian-American treaty Of July II, 1879,
expressly reserves to the party at war
the right to stop the carrying of contra
band and to detain the contraband. It
follows, then, that If 1t cannot be ac-
complished in any other way the stop
ping Of the supply may m the extreme |
case be effected by the destruction Of |