CO885-(13-15) — Page 493

7929.

could properly found, on the judgment of the High Court in the case of Brown v. Dr. Leyds, an argument that a particular law, or a resolution of the Volksraad was not a law of the South African Republic within the meaning of Article XIV.

We have taken the papers into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to-

Report-

*

1. That we are of opinion that Her Majesty's Government could not found any remonstrance to the Government of the South African Republic against any action of the kind suggested upon the third or any other Article of the Convention of 1881, as these Articles are superseded by those of the Convention of 1884.

2. We do not know any grounds on which the opinion attributed to the Chief Justice could be justified founded upon the Convention of 1881; nor is there any Article of the Convention of 1884 which can be said to apply directly to the case, but the constitution of the High Court cannot be altered except in accordance with the laws of the South African Republic; and if an alteration in the constitution of the Court were attempted other than in accordance with those laws, it might on general principles properly be made the subject for remonstrance on the ground that British subjects willing to conform to the laws of the Republic were deprived of the protection of a Court properly constituted according to law, and were thereby subjected to illegal action by the Government.

3. The information before us is not sufficient to enable us to form an independent opinion as to how far the judgment in Brown v. Leyds is correct, but assuming that the Grondwet, or Constitution, provides certain formalities before a law becomes legally operative, we concur in the view that unless the provisions prescribed by the Grondwet have been observed, a proclamation, or resolution, of the Volksraad is not a law of the Republic, and the attempt to enforce a resolution of the Volksraad as though it had been a law duly passed with the formalities required by the Grondwet may properly form a ground for remonstrance by Her Majesty's Government.

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

&c.

&c.

&c.

We have, &c.

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.

SIR,

No. 136.

(SOUTH AFRICA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Royal Courts of Justice, April 13, 1897.

We were honoured with your commands, signified in Mr. F. Graham's letter of the 9th instant, stating that he was directed by you to transmit to us the following documents relative to the dynamite monopoly in the South African Republic:--

(a.) Memorandum, prepared in the Colonial Office, in which a brief history of the

matter would be found at pages 58-62.

(b.) Report of the Law Officers, dated 23rd October 1893.*

(c.) Summary of Regulations made by the Volksraad in 1893, and translation of a contract entered into on the 25th October 1893 between the Government of the South African Republic and L. G. Vorstman.

(d.) Copy of a Despatch, dated 27th February 1897, with its enclosures, from the

Colonial Office to the High Commissioner for South Africa.

(e.) Translation of a Report, dated 19th February 1897, of a Commission appointed by

the Volksraad.

(f) Telegraphic correspondence, dated 2nd and 5th April, between the Colonial

Office and the High Commissioner.

(9.) Copy of the London Convention of 1884.

That it did not appear necessary to trouble us with the correspondence referred to in our predecessors' report, which related to a state of affairs previous to the grant of the Concession to Vorstman. That according to that Report the creation in good faith of a monopoly in favour of the State was not inconsistent with treaty obligations, though the monopoly could not be made the colourable means of preferring citizens of one country over other nationals; and that a concession might be granted to a foreign company for the exclusive importation or manufacture of explosives into or within the Republic, provided that it was in good faith intended to benefit the State generally and not simply to favour the concessionaires.

That it would be observed from the sub-enclosures to enclosure (d) that the Roburite Explosive Company, Limited, had renewed the protest made by them in 1892 and following years against the exclusion of their manufactures from the South African Republic by reason of this monopoly.

That you desired that we would take the papers into our consideration, and favour you with our opinion on the following points:-

(1.) Whether we concurred in the view taken by our predecessors above quoted.

(2.) Assuming the first question to be answered in the affirmative, whether, assuming the information contained in the High Commissioner's telegram of the 5th April to be correct, the monopoly could be said to have been made the colourable means of preferring Germans to other, and especially British, nationals.

(3.) Whether, having regard to the Report of the Volksraad Commission, and especially Part V., paragraphs 9 to 11, the concession could be said to have been in good faith intended to benefit the State generally, and not simply to favour the concessionaires.

(4.) Whether, on the grounds suggested in the last two questions, or on any other grounds, Her Majesty's Government could properly maintain that the monopoly in question was in contravention of Articles XIII. and XIV. of the London Convention, or either of them.

We have taken the papers into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to

Report-

(1.) That we concur in the view taken by the Law Officers in their Report of 23rd October 1893.*

(2.) That the monopoly appears to us to have been made a colourable means of preferring German to British and other nationals.

• No. 41.

$

0 95886.-16. 35.-4/97.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O.8

Reference :-

885

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

2