CO885-(15-16) — Page 282

*

2

a will, under which his father was the executor, and that it was apparently this Mr. Brown who now was pressing his claim through the United States Government.

That it appeared to you that the claim of Mr. Brown should be resisted on the ground that he had not exhausted his legal remedy in the Transvaal Courts. That in the first place the Transvaal Court gave him permission to take fresh proceedings and that this he had never done, That, in the second place, assuming that the claims allotted to Mr. Brown had passed into the possession of other persons, it was Mr. Brown's duty to take proceedings against these persons as trespassers, and that unless and until he had taken such proceedings he could not be said to have ex- hausted his legal remedies. That it would be noticed that the opinion of Mr. J. W. Leonard, of the 7th August, 1902, though it was to the effect that the Courts of the Transvaal could not give Mr. Brown relief, did not state any grounds for this assertion. That it was of the greatest importance that Mr. Brown's claim should be resisted, as the admission of it would undoubtedly lead to the presentation of numerous claims by persons who suffered or who might allege themselves to have suffered injustice at the hands of the late Government of the South African Republic. That he was accordingly to request us to take these matters into our considera- tion and to advise you:-

(1) Whether Mr. Brown has any claim under international law against the Government of the Transvaal as successor to the Government of the South African Republic for the action taken by the late Government in the matter of his claims?

(2) Should the claim put forward on behalf of Mr. Brown be resisted, and, if so, on what grounds?

(3) What answer should be returned to the note of the United States Ambassador?

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

Report-

That, in our opinion, Mr. Brown has no claim under international law against the Government of the Transvaal as successors to the Government of the South African Republic.

The claim appears to be vested in the first instance on an alleged liability of the late Government of the Transvaal in damages for not granting Mr. Brown a con- cession. The Courts of the late Government refused redress, and Mr. Brown's claim seems in the second instance to be vested on an alleged wrong by reason of the corrupt or illegal action of the Courts at the dictation of the Executive.

As regards the first ground, it has never been admitted that a conquering State takes over liabilities of this nature, which are not for debts, but for unliquidated damages, and it appears very doubtful whether Mr. Brown's claim could be sub- stantiated at all or in any case for any substantial amount. It does not appear to be a claim which His Majesty's Government can properly recognise.

this view.

As regards the second ground, we have already advised in our report of the 21st December, 1900* (41843), that "it has never been laid down that the conquering State takes over liability for wrongs which have been committed by the Government of the conquered country, and any such contention appears to us to be unsound in principle," and we think the second ground of claim in the present case comes within

We think the claim should be resisted on the grounds stated in No. 1. (3) It may possibly be considered expedient as a matter of policy to offer some compensation to Mr. Brown, but, if so, any such offer should be made as a matter of grace and without any admission of liability. If it is determined not to make such an offer we think Mr. Choate's note should be answered upon the lines indicated in No. 1.

We have, &c.,

R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.

29386

SIR,

No. 194A.

(GENERAL.)

BOARD OF TRADE to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Reservation of the Carrying Trade between different parts of the Empire.]

Board of Trade (Commercial Department),

7, Whitehall Gardens, London, S.W,. August 7, 1903. ADVERTING to the letter addressed to you from this Department on April 2nd last, on the subject of the reservation of the carrying trade between the different parts of the British Empire, I am directed by the Board of Trade to inform you that they have submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown the question whether His Majesty has power by Order in Council made under Sections 324 to 326 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1853, to impose the necessary prohibitions or restrictions upon shipping belonging to countries which do not give reciprocity in this matter, and in accordance with the request conveyed in your letter of April 17th, I am now to transmit to you herewith, for the information of Mr. Chamberlain, copy of the Opinion which has been received from the Law Officers.

I have, &c.,

We are of opinion that:-

INTER-IMPERIAL COASTING Trade.

Opinion.

A. E. BATEMAN.

THE power conferred on His Majesty by Sections 324 and 325, of 16 and 17 Vict., C. 107, have no reference to the coasting trade of the United Kingdom. Subject to this limitation His Majesty's Government has, upon the contingencies mentioned in and in the manner provided by the said Sections, power to restrict the trade between the United Kingdom and the Colonies and Inter-Colonial trade with- out fresh legislation.

Royal Courts of Justice, July 17, 1903.

R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON. HENRY SUTTON.

The Right Honourable

Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.,

&c., &c.,

&c.

• No 63.

23 W1 661

[45 3

15/11

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :---

C.O. 885

15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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