We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to
Report-
1. Yes. In our opinion there is nothing in the Law of 1898 to limit the period during which the terms of section 19 are to be complied with-to the period for which the subsidy is payable.
*
2. In our opinion "the rights" mentioned in section 23 refer to those cónferred by the law on the Cable Company; and the term of 20 years is the defined maximum period for which those rights are to continue. The subsequent reference in the section to the subsidies is inserted with a view to preserving the rights of the Government to take possession in the event of the cables not being kept in proper order to enable them to be efficiently worked. The question as to the supply of the News Bulletin after 20 years does not arise as all the rights of the Company will come to an end unless, under section 21, an extension has been granted, in which case it will be open to the Government to insist upon such terms as they think proper.
3. No. See previous answer. The law does not anywhere contemplate a renewal of the subsidy.
4. Yes. We think it has reference to Article 9 of the contract of 2nd August, 1898, which is also incorporated in section 18 of the Law of 1898, as amended by the Law of 1899.
5. Nothing further occurs to us.
The Right Hon. J. Chamberlain, M.P.,
&c.,
&c.,
&c.
We have, &c.,
R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.
38663
S.
No. 109.
(SOUTH AFRICA.)
LAW OFFICERS TO FOREIGN OFFICE.
My Lord,
Royal Courts of Justice, October 11, 1901. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. F. Bertie's letter of the 1st instant, stating that he was directed to transmit to us the accompanying papers on the subject of the competence of the Administrative Council of the Perma- nent Court of Arbitration at the Hague to deal with a letter which had been addressed to them by the Boer Delegates in Europe, soliciting their intervention in regard to various questions arising out of the war in South Africa.
That it appeared to your Lordship that Articles XXVI and XXXI of the Final Act of the International Peace Conference, in accordance with the terms of which the question would have to be considered, made it necessary that both the parties to a dispute, and not only one, should, in such a case, apply for arbitration, and that the attempt made
the Boer Delegates to overcome this difficulty by a reference to Article XXVII could not be considered to the point, since not only was that Article applicable to the Signatory l'owers of the Final Act alone, but, even in their case, only applied to disputes which seemed likely to break out ("où un conflit aigu menacerait d'éclater"), and not to such as had already done so, and been actually followed by war.
That Mr. Bertie was to request us to take the papers into our consideration, and to favour your Lordship with our opinion as to the correctness of the above view of the question, and also with any other observations in regard to it which might occur
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and have the honour to
to us.
REPORT
That we agree with the view taken by your Lordship, as stated in the letter of reference. There is nothing in the Hague Convention to authorize the Signatory Powers or the Permanent Court to take any step with a view to arbitration under the circumstances existing in the case of the war with the late South African Republics (now the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies).
Article XXVI has no application unless the belligerents agree to have recourse to the Permanent Court, and Article XXVII only applies to disputes between any of the Signatories, and, even in that case, is not relevant once hostilities have broken out.
We have, &c.
307 (76)
R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
C.O.
Reference :-
885
15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO