CO885-(13-15) — Page 477

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

LICO. 885

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO

2

of the general question was not involved in the case then submitted to the Law Officers which turned upon the question whether the Municipal Law of Switzerland had been observed.

The passages in Wharton's Digest referred to in the fourth paragraph of the Despatch relate to the importance of the right of excluding foreigners who are dangerous to the public peace, but not to the construction of any particular treaty, or method of exercising such right.

We have, &c.

The Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.,

&c.

&c.

&c.

*

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.

25323.

SIR,

No. 122.

(SOUTH AFRICA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Royal Courts of Justice, December 9, 1896. We were honoured with your commands, signified in Mr. Wingfield's letter of the 30th ultimo, stating that, with reference to his letter of the 30th ultimo on the subject of the law passed by the Volksraad of the South African Republic relating to the expulsion of aliens, he was directed by you to transmit to us a copy of a telegram from the High Commissioner for South Africa giving the text of a further bill introduced by the Government of the South African Republic, and passed without amendment, which purports to regulate the admission of aliens to the Republic.

That Mr. Wingfield was to enclose a translation of an extract from a law passed by the Volksraad in 1885, to which you thought that section seven of the new law must refer, and which hitherto, according to statements in the South African Press, had not been generally enforced.

That you would be glad to be favoured with our opinion whether the new law constitutes a violation of Article XIV. of the London Convention; and, if so, what steps should be taken by Her Majesty'a Government.

That with reference to the requirements of passports in connexion with treaty obligations, Mr. Wingfield was to draw our attention to the Lewisohn case (L.O. to F.O., 1881 and 1882).

We

were also honoured with a further letter, dated the 4th instant, from Mr. Wingfield enclosing a translation of the new law.

We have given the matter our careful consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to

Report-

That, in our opinion, this new law constitutes a violation of Article XIV. of the London Convention.

That article stipulates that all persons other than natives conforming themselves to the law of the South African Republic shall have full liberty to enter, travel, or reside in any part of the South African Republic.

The new law provides that such persons shall not be at liberty to enter or reside in the Republic unless they can show affirmatively that they have the means or ability to support themselves. The only condition imposed by the Article is that they should conform to the laws of the Republic. The new law imposes a further condition of a burthensome nature which it might be difficult for many of the poorer, though perfectly respectable, immigrants to satisfy.

The condition is to be fulfilled by, production of a passport, certifying means or ability granted by the Government of the immigrant, and viséd by a Consular Official of the Republic, for by proof to the satisfaction of the field cornet, or other official, that the immigrant is possessed of such means, or is able to support himself.

We are unable to regard this law otherwise than as imposing a new and important modification upon Article XIV. of the Convention.

Before, however, any remonstrance is addressed to the Transvaal Government upon the subject of this law, we think that there ought to be consultation with the Foreign Office, inasmuch as there are provisions similar in their character to this Article in some treaties concluded by England with foreign Powers; for instance, Article XI. of the treaty with Russia of 12th January 1859, and Article I. of the treaty with Switzerland of 6th September 1855.

It may be necessary to consider whether the considerations governing the construc- tion of such an Article in the case of a treaty between two independent powers, providing for the mutual admission of their subjects respectively, are the same as those which apply in the case of a convention like the present defining the terms upon which a qualified independence had been granted to what was previously British territory, and providing for the free admission into the Transvaal of all aliens other than natives.

• 90536.-95. 25.-1/97.