35.8.
No. 124.
(SOUTH AFRICA.)
SIR,
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, January 4, 1897.
We were honoured with your commands, signified in Mr. Bramston's letter of the 26th December last, stating that he was directed to invite our attention to an accompanying translation of the Press Law of the South African Republic which had recently been passed, and to refer especially to Article I. which defined the phrase 'printed matter," and to Article V. which empowered the President and Executive to prohibit the circulation of printed matter the contents of which were, in his opinion, contrary to good order, or a danger to the peace and order of the Republic.
66
That Mr. Hess, a British subject, proprietor of a newspaper called the " which was published in Pretoria, appealed to Her Majesty's Government for protection Critic," because the State President, purporting to act under Article V. of the Law, had prohibited the circulation of the "Critic " for six months.
That Mr. Hess disputed the legality of the law, but that this question need not be considered at present, and it would therefore only be necessary for us to read the latter portion of his statement, commencing with the words "Leaving its legality for the present."
That two questions arose on this statement-
1. Did Article V. of the Law justify the prohibition of a newspaper in the future, or,
was it limited to the prohibition of matter already printed.
2. If the latter, did this interference with the business of a British subject constitute
an infraction of Article XIV. of the Convention of 1884.
In obedience to your commands we have taken the matter into our consideration, and have the honour to
Report-
That, in our opinion Article V. of the Press Law, No. 26 of 1896, is capable of the construction which has been put upon it by the Transvaal Government. President has reason to believe that a publication will be a danger to the peace and If the order of the Republic, we think that he may forbid it without waiting until the publication has taken place.
•
The construction for which Mr. Hess contends would reduce the Article to a nullity in the case of newspapers.
We, therefore, are of opinion that Article V. justifies the prohibition of a newspaper in the future. If, however, this power were oppressively exercised in the case of a British subject it would form a proper ground for diplomatic remonstrance.
If the "Critic" has been a properly conducted newspaper, it would appear that the President can have no ground for concluding that the future numbers will be dangerous to peace and order.
We, therefore, advise that Her Majesty's Government should not take up Mr. Hess's case unless it appears to them that the power given by Article V. has been abused in this way. The President was justified in making the Order only if he was fairly and honestly satisfied, upon reasonable grounds, that the publication would be dangerous.
We have, &c.
The Right Hon. J. Chamberlain, M.P.,
&c.
&c.
&c. Colonial Office.
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.
95386.-1.
25-1/97. G. 19. E. & S
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
C.O. 885
Reference :-
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TOPage 481
2173.
1
*
SIR,
No. 125.
(SOUTH AFRICA,)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, January 28, 1897.
We were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. Wingfield's letter of the 20th instant stating that he was directed to transmit to us a copy of a Despatch from the High Commissioner for South Africa on the subject of a law recently enacted by the Volkeraad of the South African Republic imposing a tax on foreign transport riders, together with a translation of the law referred to.
That it would be seen that this law purported to be supplementary to Law No. 1 of 1893 and to insert four new articles between Articles 15 and 16 of that law.
That the law of 1893 defined the duties and privileges of travellers and transport riders with regard to outspan places, roads, watering, driving cattle, &c., and made no distinction between persons residing in and those not residing in the South African Republic; that Article 15 of the law directed the Government to provide proper roads and outspan places in town and village lands, and that Article 16 gave to landdrosta, field cornets, and certain other officials, jurisdiction over offences against the law.
That a translation of Law No. 1 of 1893 could, if desired, be furnished, but that it was not enclosed as the law did not appear to contain anything relevant to the question now raised..
That Mr. Wingfield was to draw our attention to Clause (d) of Article XIV. of the London Convention of 1884, and was to enquire whether in our opinion the application of the law of 1896 to British subjects, not being natives, would constitute an infraction of the Convention.
We have taken the matter into our consideration and have the honour to
Report-
That, in our opinion, the law in question does not constitute an infraction of the Convention.
The tax of 21. a quarter is imposed upon transport riders who cannot prove that they are bona fide inhabitants of the Republic. Inhabitants of the Republic, whether citizens or foreigners, are subject to the tax per head, for the maintenance of the roads. The new tax of 21. a quarter will, no doubt, be paid almost entirely by persons not` citizens of the Republic, but it would have to be paid by citizens "living abroad" under the same circumstances.
There is nothing inequitable in requiring such a payment from persons habitually using roads, for the support of which they do not otherwise contribute.
We do not advise that any remonstrance should be addressed to the Republic in respect of this tax.
The Right Hon.
J. Chamberlain, M.P.
We have, &c.
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.
o 93386.-3.
25.-2/97.