PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
│ :། ། ། ། ། mmimnimC.O. 885
15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2
We do not think it is practicable to carry out the first five of these Regulations. They would involve vexatious interference with banking business, and any attempt to enforce them would certainly break down. The 6th Regulation is thoroughly reasonable, and, as long as the banks conform to this Regulation, we do not think they should be pressed to observe the others.
We do not think that any further clause should be added prohibiting the payment of notes on banks issued in the Transvaal.
We do not consider it advisable to ask the London banks to co-operate in the above measures, except in general terms, and in the spirit of the letter from the Standard Bank dated the 9th instant. The terms of this letter appear to us very reasonable, and as long as the banks act in the spirit of this letter, we think that no attempt should be made to interfere with their business,
The attention of all banks should be called to the necessity of their making full inquiries into each case, so as to avoid entertaining any transaction likely to result in aid or assistance to the Queen's enemies.
1
Messrs. Warburg and Co., who are, as we understand, traders in London, should be warned that if they take part in any export of wool from the Transvaal or Orange Free State, or are concerned in any financial operation to facilitate such export, they will incur liability under the law against trading with the Queen's enemies.
Ditto
Ditto
Colonial Office
Standard Bank of South Africa
We have, &c.,
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.
List of Papers.
January 15, 1900. January 20, February 6, February 9,
*
n
13
6462.
No. 22.
(SOUTH AFRICA.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, SIR,
26th February, 1900. WE were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. H. Bertram Cox's letter of the 20th instant, stating that he was directed by you to inform us that, in con- nection with the notice issued on January 26th by the High Commissioner for South Africa regarding the forfeiture of properties by the Governments of the South African Republic and Orange Free State, certain further questions had arisen on which you would be glad to have our advice.
Natal,
S. of S. to H. C., 23
That Mr. Bertram Cox was to enclose a copy of a telegram from the Governor of Gov. Natal (together with copies of the earlier telegrams noted in the margin), from which we 4 Feb. (3). should see that the censors in that Colony had asked for instructions with regard to passing letters ordering or authorising payments to the Government of the South African Jan. (4). Republic, and that the Governor feared that he would be open to a claim for compensation H. C., 25 if he instructed the censors to refuse to pass the letters. That you were inclined to Jan. (48). approve Sir W. Hely-Hutchinson's proposed reply, but that Mr. Cox was to observe that, S. of 8., 27 although in the case of the City and Surburban and other mines, efforts had been made Jan. (2). to pay the license moneys due, it was probable that in many cases, the High Com. missioner's notice being general in terms and making no exceptions, it was believed that the notice was intended to prevent payment of, and to give protection against the conse quences of failing to pay, any sort of license or due to the Government of the Republic. That that, however, went beyond what was advised by us in our opinion given on the 18th of January,* and beyond the intentions of Her Majesty's Government, as shown in your telegram of 27th January (No. 2), and that considering the number of interests involved it was a question whether a further notice should not be issued to clear up all doubt, or whether it would be sufficient without public notice to intimate to those asking for advice that payment of licences, rents or royalties under contracts made prior to the commencement of the war were permitted-the procedure recommended by us in our Report supplemental to that of the 18th of January.
Feb. 1900.
That Mr. Bertram Cox was also to transmit to us the papers noted in the margin Mr. R. J. with regard to the imposition of " War Tax" by the Government of the South African Whitty, 6 Republic. That that tax was, of course, au entirely different one from the tax referred to Henderson in our Reports quoted above. That it was presumably imposed under Law 24 of 1996, Consold. although the amount of the tax, and the date at which notice appeared to have been Corpor., given, did not entirely comply with the requirements of the law. That it would be Feb. 1900.
H. C., Tel., within our recollection that during the past year a correspondence took place between 10 Feb. Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the South African Republic regarding (93). the imposition of War Tax under that Law in respect of the Magato campaign. That Her Majesty's Government were at first advised that the action of the South African Republic constituted a breach of the London Convention and that the companies concerned, though advised to pay, were told to do so under protest, and that their claims for a refusal would be supported diplomatically by Her Majesty's Government, but that in our Report of the 13th of October‡ we stated that we considered that the view of the South African Republic that there was no breach of the Convention must be accepted. That no action was taken on our Report in consequence of the outbreak of the war,
That you apprehended that the question of the liability of British subjects to pay the "War Tax
in respect of the present war, or of the issue of a supplementary notice declining to recognize confiscation for non-payment of that tax, such as was suggested by the Hender- son Consolidated Corporation, Limited, might be considered independently of the contro- versy with regard to the "War Tax"imposed in respect of the Magato campaign, but that it would be necessary in drafting any such notice as was proposed, to hear in mind that confiscations of property for "War Tax" might be due to failure to comply with the law on either of those two entirely different occasions.
• No. 9.
5047-23-9;1900 Wt 430 D & S 5
↑ No. 10.
No. 232 in Vol. V.
: