CO885-(13-15) — Page 445

1941.

SIR,

¡No. 100.

(SOUTH AFRICA.)

TREASURY SOLICITOR to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Treasury, Whitehall, S.W., January 25, 1896.

I HAVE this morning received, and forward herewith in original, the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown and Mr. Sutton as to the charges which should be pre- ferred against Dr. Jameson and others in connection with the recent expedition led by him into the Transvaal.

I should be obliged if you would let me have a copy of the opinion.

&c.

I am,

H. CUFFE

TRANSVAAL PRISONERS.

Opinion.

Speaking of the prisoners charged as a whole, and not dealing specially with the case of Dr. Jameson, and any others in public posts, we are of opinion that the only charge which can properly be brought and prosecuted against them is for offences against "The Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870." No doubt they might be tried here for murder or manslaughter, but we are clearly of opinion, upon the materials now before us, that it would not be wise to try them upon such charges. The acts done would also support a charge of conspiracy to bring about war with a friendly nation, but, as all the acts took place in Africa, such a charge could probably not be tried apart from Statute in the United Kingdom.

As regards Dr. Jameson, and many others holding public posts, we think a charge might be preferred against them for crimes committed as Administrator or officials of the Chartered Company's territory, and this charge could be tried in England under the provisions of the Act 42 Geo. III. cap. 85, but there might be some difficulty in proving that the acts were done by them in their official capacities.

Turning now to the question of proceedings for offences under the Foreign Enlist- ment Act (which we understand was proclaimed at the Cape on its passing), we think that the contention which has been suggested, namely, that the Act only applies where two foreign States are at war, because of the language of the title and preamble, cannot be successfully maintained. If the language of a Statute be doubtful, the title and preamble may no doubt be taken into consideration for the purpose of ascertaining the true meaning of the enactment; but in this case, in our opinion, the language of section 11 is so distinct that no difficulty arises which would justify any limit being put on its terms by reference to the title and preamble; and it is to be noted that this was the view upon which the case of Regina v. Sandoval (56 L.T. 526, 3 "Times" L.R. 136, 411, 198) proceeded, and the view taken by the Law Officers in their Report of the 7th June 1889, with reference to the proposed expedition to Damaraland.*

It will probably be suggested in defence that the expedition was not fitted out against a friendly State, but was with the view of preventing damage to life and property from civil disturbancos within the Transvaal. Upon the materials at present before us, we think such a contention could not be supported, but a strong appeal may possibly be made to the feelings of the jury on this ground, and no definite opinion can be formed until all the facts have been ascertained.

L.O. Reports, 152a in Vol. IV.

90536.-9. 25.-2/06.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TELEC.O. ɛ

lului

885

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO