CO885-(15-16) — Page 475

R

3627

No. 60.

(TRANSVAAL.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Customs duty on certain matches imported into the South African Republic in 1900 and commandeered by the military authorities, who desire to sell them locally.]

MY LORD,

Royal Courts of Justice,

January 29, 1907. We were honoured by Your Lordship's commands, signified to us by Mr. Just in his letter of the 22nd instant, stating that he was directed by Your Lordship to request the favour of our report upon a question which had arisen in the Trans- vaal as to whether or not Customs duty was payable upon certain cases of matches imported into the South African Republic in July, 1900.

That it would appear that under the Customs Law of the Republic these matches, which were imported with other stores by a trader named Michaelson, would, under the Customs Law No. 4 of 1894, have been liable to duty. But that by an Extraordinary Resolution of the Volksraad, No. 1416, of 28th September, 1889, the Government of the Republic was empowered, having regard to the circumstances in which the Republic was placed owing to the impending war, to take resolutions and give instructions which might be found necessary in the interests of the country. That in pursuance of the powers so purporting to be conferred the Secretary of State, Mr. Reitz, on the 25th May, 1900, gave instructions that the goods (includ- ing the matches) imported by Mr. Michaelson should be free of Customs duty.

That the matches were subsequently commandeered by His Majesty's troops, and that it was now desired to dispose of them, but that the Transvaal Government claimed that before this could be done duty must be paid.

That it would be observed that the Secretary to the Transvaal Law Depart- ment in his report of 1st October last, relied for his opinion that the duty was payable, and that the instructions given by the State Secretary in pursuance of the Volksraad resolution could not override the Customs Law, on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case cf Crow v. Aronson.

That it appeared to Your Lordship to be doubtful whether the judgment of. the Court in that case could be pressed to that extent. That in that case it was argued unsuccessfully that the Resolution of the Volksraad was sufficient to allow of the passing of a proclamation to alter the contractual relations between landlord and tenant, and that to this extent it might have been ineffective, but that in the present case all that had been done under cover of the Resolution had been to permit the Government to remit certain duties of Customs payable to the State.

That the consignment of goods in question, which it would be seen included a quantity of food-stuffs, appeared to have been imported during the ten days before May, 1900, that is while the British forces were cccupying the southern part of the Transvaal, and shortly before the occupation of Pretoria itself, which occurred on 5th June, 1900.

That he was to request us to take these matters into our consideration and to report :-

(1) Whether under all the circumstances the remission of Customs dues was

legal and valid?

(2) Whether duty was payable on the matches?

We have taken the matter into cur consideration and, in obedience to Your Lordship's commands, have the honour to

Report-

That we are of opinion that the decision in the case of Crow v. Aronson does not conclude the present case, and that the resolution of the Volksraad of the 28th September, 1899, has rendered the remission of Customs dues on the matches in question legal and valid.

The Right Honourable

The Earl of Elgin, K.G..

&c..

&c.

We have, &c.,

JOHN L. WALTON. W. S. ROBSON.

&c.,

25 Wt 1645 807 D&S

5 27311

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TLC.O.885

16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

ܐ.

سلام

: