2869
S.
No. 12.
(NATAL)
K
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
To To To Te
Reference :-
mmimmimC.O. 885
15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
SIR,
LAW OFFICERS TO COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, January 25, 1900. WE were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. Bertram Cox's letter of the 19th instant, stating that he was directed by you to submit, for our considera- tion, a Confidential Despatch, dated 23rd November, 1899, received from the Governor of Natal, which raised certain questions as to the treatment of real property owned by burghers of the South African Republic in the Colony of Natal, having regard to the existence of war between Her Majesty and the Government of that Republic, and certain further questions as to what course should be adopted in dealing with the property of such of Her Majesty's subjects in Natal as had joined with or given assistance to the enemy during the progress of the war.
That Mr. Bertram Cox was also to inclose:—
1. A copy of a telegram received from Sir A. Milner on 16th October last, announcing the proclamation of martial law in certain districts of the Cape Colony, together with certain documents bearing on the subject of martial law in the possession of the Colonial Office,
2. A Secret Despatch from the Governor of Natal, dated 29th September, 1899, inclosing à Report of the Attorney-General of the Colony upon the same subject.
That it would be observed that the Governor of Natal had been advised that neither under the Roman-Dutch law nor by international law would the Government of Natal be justified in confiscating landed property of a burgher of the South African Republic in Natal acquired before the commencement of hostilities, on the ground that he was an alien enemy.
That the Governor was further advised that by Roman-Dutch law it was not possible to award the punishment of confiscation or forfeiture of property for the crime of treason, and that the Attorney-General was strongly of opinion that it would be Contrary to right principle to pass a law having retrospective operation for the purpose of inflicting such a punishment.
+
That Mr. Bertrani Cox was to request us to take these matters into our consideration, and to advise you→
1. Whether, according to the rules of international law, it was competent for one belligerent to confiscate the property, real or personal, of the subjects of the other belligerent situate within its jurisdiction.
2 What course should be adopted with regard to the persons and property of subjects of Her Majesty in Natal or the Cape Colony who had adhered to the enemy during the course of the war.
3. Should a law he passed having retrospective operation to render possible the confiscation of the property of such persons,
4. What directions should be given to the Governors of Cape Colony and Natal with respect to the treatment of the persons and property of such persons.
5. Generally,
In obedience to your commands we have taken these matters into our consideration, and have the honour to
REPORT--
1. That, whatever may have been the technical rights of belligerents in former times, we are of opinion that, according to international law as now practised and understood, apart from special circumstances in the individual case, a belligerent has not the right to confiscate the real or personal property of the subjects of the other belligerent situate within its jurisdiction.
2. Subjects of Her Majesty who have joined the enemy may, if captured during the war, be tried by martial law, or treated as prisoners of war. Forfeiture of real property is not a penalty which could be properly imposed by a court-martial. After
[344]