18100.
No. 44.
(SOUTH AFRICA.)
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TLC.O. 885
14 PUBLIC, RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- | COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Law Officers' Department,
Royal Courts of Justice,
October 23, 1893.
MY LORD,
WE were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Bramston's Harvey & Co., letter of the 3rd instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to invite our 1 August 1898. consideration of the papers noted in the margin.
to Sir H. Loch,
Sir J. De Wet
10 Aug. 1893.
That Mr. Bramston was to explain that Lippert was the agent of a French company to Sir H. Loch, which manufactured dynamite, and that the trade in explosives in the South African Telegram, Republic was very large, owing to the magnitude of the mining operations in that 13 Aug. 1898. country.
Mr. Searle's Opinion,
Nobel Co. to
That Mr. Bramston was to request us to advise your Lordship whether any of the 193. three undermentioned acts of the Government of the South African Republic would be 8. of 8. a breach of the London Convention :—
(a.) Refusing to Nobel's Company permits for importation of dynamite while such
permits were granted to a French Company.
(b.) Creation of a monopoly in favour of the Government as indicated in the letter of 12th August. (i.) If actually exercised by the Government through its own officials. (ii.) If exercised by agents who represented certain favoured foreign manufacturers of explosives for the benefit of those agents and their foreign principals.
(c). Making a contract with a Foreign Company for the exclusive (1) importation, or, (2) manufacture of explosives within the Republic, as alleged in the letter of 25th September.
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your Lordship's commands, have the honour to
Report→→
That in our opinion Articles 13 and 14 of the London Convention are intended only to prevent undue preference of one nation over another, and could not be invoked, say, by British manufacturers generally as against one particular British manufacturer who might have obtained an exclusive contract with the South African Republic.
It follows that the Government of the Republic acting in good faith, and for the purpose of carrying out a national object, may take upon themselves the whole dynamite trade and provide themselves with the material from any source-provided that there is no national preference-e.g., may contract with Lippert's Company for the whole supply-excluding all other French Companies as well as companies of other nations, without breach of the Convention.
We therefore answer the questions as follows:-
(a). If permits are granted generally to French Companies they cannot be refused
to Nobel's Company consistently with Treaty obligations; but
(b). The creation, in good faith, of a monopoly in favour of the State is not inconsistent with Treaty obligations whether this be effected either in the mode (1) or (2), but in neither case can the monopoly be made the colourable means of preferring French citizens as such over other nationals. (c). A concession may be granted to a Foreign Company for the exclusive (1) importation or (2) manufacture of explosives into or within the Republic provided that it is, in good faith, intended to benefit the State generally and not simply to favour the Concessionaires.
The Most Hon.
The Marquess of Ripon, K.G.,
&c. &c. &c.
We have, &c. (Signed) C. RUSSELL.
JOHN RIGBY.
25 Sept. 1893.
vention, 1884. London Cou-
o 74772.-30.
25.-11/93.