conflict with Article 3 of the Convention of
flict
St. Germain (Treaty series, 1919, No. 18) and would
conceivably have been challenged by Japan,
which was a party to that Convention.
But
Accordingly
the reservation of land to Europeans is not
expressly prescribed in any Kenya Ordinance; but
there is a provision in their land laws that
transfere of land between persons of different
races must be notified to the Commissioner of
Lands, and may be vetoed by the Governor in Council. The
Government is thus enabled to prevent, by administrative
action, the alienation of land in the Highlands to
non-Europeans.
It seems fairly clear that any agreement
with China, whether by Treaty or by exchange of
Notes, which gave the Chinese nationals or companies
the right to acquire landed property in the Colonies
on a basis of reciprocity, would be incompatible with
our policy in Kenya. On the other hand, for the
reasons indicated above, it seems that we should be
precluded even if it was desirable, having regard to
the Congo Basin Treaties) from asking that the position
in Kenya should be specially safeguarded in any exchange
of Notes with the Chinese But in the absence of any such
safeguard, the Secretary of State is likely to be placed
in great difficulty with regard to the Kenya Europeans.
Our concernas not with the possibility that a Chinese
might successfully invoke the provisions of any new Treaty
to establish his right to buy land in the Kenya Highlands;
that is remote, though perhaps it should not be excluded
altogether. The danger is that the Europeans, when the
Treaty is published, will immediately accuse H.M.G. of a
breach of faith in acquiescing in the undermining of the
White Highlands policy; and if the settlers do not become
seized
of
the point at once, there is always the geribility
that it will be dragged into the limelight by a claim on the
part of Indians whether in India itself or in Kenya, that
the right which had been recognised in the case of China should/
,