Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T11:10:34.895Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Arbitration of the Sabotage Claims Against Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

L. H. Woolsey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial comment
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , October 1939 , pp. 737 - 740
Copyright
Copyright © by the American Society of International Law 1939

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Commission, established under the Claims Agreement of Aug. 10,1922, is composed of Mr. Justice Owen J. Roberts, of the United States Supreme Court, Umpire; Col. Christopher B. Garnett, American Commissioner; and Dr. Victor L. F. Huecking, German Commissioner, retired March 1, 1939.

2 For the decision of the Umpire see this Journal, infra, p. 770.

3 This evidence included a secret message written with lemon juice in code in a magazine by an admitted German sabotage agent and transmitted by him in April, 1917, from Mexico to a co-saboteur in Baltimore, which message implicated them in the destruction of the “Jersey City Terminal” (Black Tom) and “Kingsland.”

4 Among this evidence was a copy of a German report dated April, 1917, found in the archives of the Austrian Government in 1935, saying in translation that: “According to the latest news twenty-one more munition factories have been blown up” including the Kings- land and Dupont plants. It continued: “Still further surprises are said to be impending.”

5 In the evidence produced was a letter from one of the chief defense witnesses to another German agent implicated in both destructions. This witness had repeatedly denied any knowledge of sabotage matters or of sabotage agents, but this letter clearly showed his full knowledge and complicity.