2
Under these circumstances, I am to request that you will favour Lord Salisbury with your opinion whether a work simultaneously first produced in the United States and in Canada by a citizen of the United States is entitled to copyright in Canada under section 8 (1) of "The International Copyright Act, 1886;" and generally with any observations which you may have to make as to the proper course to be taken in the matter.
I have, &c.
REPORT.
(Signed) T. H. SANDERSON.
We are of opinion that a work "simultaneously first produced States and in Canada by a citizen of the United States is entitled to copyright in "in the United Canada by virtue of section 8 (1) of "The International Copyright Act, 1886."
We think also that the law of copyright in force, not only in the United Kingdom, but in all British possessions, including Canada, does give to citizens of the United States the benefit of copyright on substantially the same basis as to British subjects, and that there is not any necessity for negotiating a Treaty with the United States of America.
Lincoln's Inn, September 9, 1892.
(Signed)
LIST OF PAPERS.
(A.) An Act to amend Title 60, Cap. 3, of the Revised
Statutes of the United States, respecting copy- rights.
(B.) To Mr Lincoln
(C.) Mr. Lincoln
(D.) Sir J. Pauncefote
(E.) Mr. Lincoln
(F.) Colonial Office
C. RUSSELL. JOHN RIGBY.
June July
16, 1891.
2
(No. 35. Treaty) December 22
January 9, 1892. July 26,
(G.) Canadian Copyright Act (Cap. 62 of the Revised
Statutes of Canada).
(H.) Report of Departmental Committee.
(I.) International Copyright Act
1886.
18495.
No. 18.
SOUTH AFRICA.
COLONIAL OFFICE to LAW OFFICERS.
GENTLEMEN,
Downing Street, August 22, 1892. YOUR predecessors in a report of the 28th of February 1889* stated that the acquisition of certain concessions, viz., a postal concession and a railway concession by the South African Republic within Swaziland was not a violation of the 12th Article of the London Convention of 1884 between Her Majesty and that Republic; but they added that a contract not coming within the terms of that Convention might constitute an evasion of it, and involve the same results as a direct diplomatic engagement, but to determine this point it would be necessary to examine the terms of the particular con- cession and the circumstances in which it was granted. A copy of this report is sent herewith.
I am now directed by the Marquis of Ripon to enclose, for your consideration, a copy of a concession relating to the levying of customs duties and excise within Swaziland, which, for the purposes of this report, may be taken to have been acquired and to be now held by the Government of the South African Republic, and I am to explain that whilst the London Convention of 1884 remains in full force, the independence of the Swazi nation has been further assured by the Convention of 1890 between Her Majesty and the Republic, of which a copy is enclosed, and of which the first article provides that "no inroad on the independence of the nation shall be allowed, even with the "consent of the Swazi nation, without the consent of both Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the South African Republic.
I am to add that the Customs Convention was brought before the Chief Court con- stituted by Article II. (c.) of the Convention of 1890, and having been examined by that Court under Article II. (4.) was found to be valid.
In these circumstances I am to request that you will advise his Lordship on the following points :
1. Is the acquisition of the enclosed Customs concession or its attempted enforce- ment by the Government of the South African Republic a violation of Article 12 of the London Convention of 1884 or of the first Article of the Swaziland Convention of 1890 ?
2. Assuming that this is not so, is the concession a treaty or engagement with any State or nation within the meaning of the fourth Article of the London Convention of 1884, which requires to be submitted by the South African Republic for the approval of Her Majesty the Queen ?
A copy of the London Convention‡ is enclosed for convenience of reference.
The Law Officers of the Crown.
I am, &c.
(Signed) EDWARD FAIRFIELD.
OPINION.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Reference :-
C.O. 885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
SWAZILAND CUSTOMS CONCESSION.
In our opinion the enforcement of the Customs Concession of 23rd April 1889 would
be contrary to Article 12 of the Convention of 1884, and Article 1 of the Convention
of 1890, unless the consent of Her Majesty's Government is given.
It is to be noticed that the terms of the concession are very wide in their scope. All questions touching the imposition, amount, and collection of Customs duties and Excise duties are to be determined not by the Government of Swaziland but by that of the South African Republic. It seems to us that a serious inroad would be made on the independence of the Swazis within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention of 1890 if a foreign state enforces the exclusive right of fixing and levying Customs and Excise within Swazi territory,
2. Further, we are of opinion that the acquisition of the Customs Concession creates a treaty or engagement with a state or nation within the meaning of the 4th Article of the Convention of 1884 which requires to be approved of by Her Majesty.
Lincoln's Inn,
September 15, 1892.
No. 141 in Vol. IV., and No. 20 in African No. 374.
+.[C-3914.j
(Signed)
C. RUSSELL. JOHN RIGBY,
† Page 142 of African No. 100.
0 70451.-27. £5.-9/92,