R
PUBLIC
RECORD OFFICE
!। ༴| ཟ། · ཏ།
Reference :-
C.O. 885
2
That the draft of an Order in Council had accordingly been prepared in your Department which, should we see no objection, would be submitted to His Majesty in Council at an early date. That this Order in Council had been based upon the provisions of the Gold Coast Order in Council of the 26th September, 1901, pro- viding for the exercise of His Majesty's jurisdiction in the Northern Territories of the Gold Coast. That it would be within our recollection that the Order' in Council referred to was approved by us before submission to His Majesty in Council; but that in view of the probability of Swaziland being annexed to the Transvaal at an early date, some slight modifications had been made with a view of leaving to the Governor of the Transvaal more discretion than is given in the Gold Coast Order.
That he was to request us to take these matters into our consideration and to advise you :--
(1) Whether the Government of the late South African Republic possessed by usage and sufferance within the meaning of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, jurisdiction in Swaziland?
(2) Whether upon the conquest
and annexation of the South African Republic
these rights passed to, and are now vested in, His Majesty?
(3) Whether His Majesty can by Order in Council made under the provisions of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, provide for the administration of Swazi- land?
(4) If so, whether the provisions of the draft Order are sufficient and proper for the purposes intended?
(5) Generally.
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and in obedience to your commands have the honour to
Report-
That (1, 2 and 3) we are of opinion that His Majesty's Government as successors of the Government of the South African Republic, have power by an Order in Council to provide for the administration of Swaziland.
(4) Yes.
23290
SIR,
No. 191.
(SOUTH AFRICAN RAILWAYS.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
[Claims against the Netherlands South African Railway Company.]
Royal Courts of Justice,
June 23, 1903.
We were honoured with your commands signified to us by Mr. Bertram Cox in his letter of the 18th instant, stating that, with reference to our report of the 29th May last,* relating to certain claims against the Netherlands South African Railway Company, he was directed by you to transmit to us the draft of a despatch on the subject, which you proposed to address to the High Commissioner for South Africa, in reply to his despatch, No. 319, of the 30th March.
That he was to enquire whether we concurred in the terms of the draft despatch. We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to
Report-
That we concur in the terms of the draft despatch as altered in red and initialled by us.
We have, &c.,
The Right Honourable
Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.,
&c.,
&c.,
&c.
R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.
We have, &c.,
R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.
(Draft.)
MY LORD,
The Right
Honourable Chamberlain, M.P.,
&c.,
&c.,
&c.
• Sre No. 100.
15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
(South Africa. No. .)
Downing Street, June
1903.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch, No. 319, of the 30th of March, submitting, for my consideration, certain questions with regard to claims against the Nederlandsche Zuid Afrikaansche Spoorweg Maatschappij, and in particular the claim of Messrs. R. and J. Fleming to exercise rights acquired by them under a contract with the company of September, 1899, over a piece of ground at Johannesburg.
2. I have submitted the correspondence relating to these questions to the Law Officers of the Crown, who advise that the Government cannot be held to be generally liable for claims against the company, on account of goods consigned by the company before the war which never reached their destination, or for claims by the Cape and Natal Governments for amounts due to them from the company on account of division of receipts between the two Administrations prior to the out- break of war, or for claims for goods supplied to the company before the outbreak of war or during the war or for claims for arrears of salary due to the employés of the company and for salary due to them in lieu of notice.
3. The company still continues to exist, and to hold various assets, and in all these cases the remedy of the creditors is the creditors have a remedy in damages against the company. The case of Messrs. Fleming, however, appears to the Law Officers to stand upon a different footing. In this case if the company gave to the claimants before the war an interest in the land and their remedy for breach of the contract would be by proceedings against the company for specific performance. Such an action would now be useless, because any interest in the lands which remained in the company was transferred by the Order in Council of 15th September, 1902, to the Government. In this case the lands must be held to have been transferred
• No. 187.
25 Wt 664 703 D & B 5 16035