27947.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
PERC.O.885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
SIR,
No. 232.
(SOUTH AFRICA.) · ·
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice,
October 13, 1899.
We were honoured with your commands signified in Sir Edward Wingfield's letter of the 15th ultimo, stating that with reference to our Reports of the 6th April and the 6th June last,* upon the question whether British subjects and British Companies within the South African Republic were entitled to claim exemption from the war tax levied by the Government of that Republic, he was directed by you to transmit to us a copy of a despatch which you had addressed to the High Commissioner for South Africa, dated July 22nd, 1899, from which it would be seen that directions were given that diplomatic representations should be made to the Government of the South African Republic with a view to securing the exemption of companies composed of British resident shareholders from the burden of that tax.
That Sir Edward Wingfield was further to transmit to us a copy of a despatch from the High Commissioner, dated 26th July, enclosing copy of a note received by Her Majesty's Agent at Pretoria from the State Secretary of the South African Republic in reply to a protest made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government on the receipt by the High Commissioner of the telegram of 11th May, a copy of which was transmitted to us in the letter from the Colonial Office of the 24th of May.
That it would be seen that the Government of the South African Republic contended that Article I. (b) of Law No. 24 of 1896 drew a distinction, not between burghers and foreigners, but between burghers serving on commando on the one hand, and all other burghers and foreigners on the other. That it was therefore argued that no improper discrimination was made between burghers and foreigners, and that no ground existed for the protest made by Her Majesty's Government.
That Sir Edward Wingfield was to request us to take these papers into our consideration and to advise
you :->›
1. Whether the contention of the Government of the South African Republic was
correct.
2. Whether, upon consideration of the arguments put forward on behalf of the Government of the South African Republic, we saw any reason to modify the opinions previously expressed.
3. What reply should be made to the Government of the South African Republic. We have taken the papers into our consideration, and in obedience to your commands have the honour to
Report-
That our Report of 6th April, 1899, as to head (b) of the Law No. 24 of 1896, depends entirely upon the interpretation of the phrase "dienst doende" given in the petition to the Colonial Secretary of the 22nd February, 1899, and apparently adopted in Mr. Fraser's despatch of 31st of December, 1898.
According to that interpretation it means liable to military service whether in fact called out or not, and in this view the law would be an infraction of Article XIV. of the Convention, for the reasons given in our Report.
The Government of the South African Republic allege that the term means actually called out for the particular expedition. On this interpretation it seems to us impossible to maintain that there is that disproportion between the burthens imposed on aliens and on burghers which formed the basis of our Report of 6th April, 1899.
is a very different thing from the mere contingent liability to it.
Actual service
We are not in a position to express an opinion as to which interpretation of the words is correct, but we think that, at any rate for present purposes, the view officially put
Nos. 209 and 214.
$883-25-10/99 Wr 439 D&S 3