CO885-(15-16) — Page 564

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference:-

C.O.885

16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

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

Report-

(a) and (b). That in our opinion the grant of additional allowances on abolition of office cannot be claimed as of right, and that, the grant being entirely within the discretion of the Government of the Orange River Colony, enquiry cannot be made into the sufficiency of their reasons for refusing to grant such allowances.

(c) We have nothing to add.

The Right Honourable

The Earl of Crewe, K.G.,

&c.,

&c.,

&c.

We have, &c.,

W. S. ROBSON. S. T. EVANS.

18439

No. 118.

(TRINIDAD.)

LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.

[Questions connected with the imposition of import duty by Venezuela on goods entering that country viâ Trinidad.]

SIR,

Royal Courts of Justice,

28th May, 1909. We were honoured with your commands signified to us in Sir F. A. Campbell's letters of the 28th and 30th April last, transmitting papers with reference to the surtax of thirty per cent. imposed by the Venezuelan Government in 1882 on imports from foreign colonies, and requesting us to favour you with our opinion as to:-

1. Whether goods the produce of Trinidad were entitled under the Treaty of 1825 to enter Venezuela at the lowest rate of duty applied to any other non- Venezuelan goods, and without the imposition of the surtax?

2. Whether other British goods transhipped at Trinidad were entitled to

similar treatment.

3. Whether goods-neither British nor Venezuelan nor enjoying any right under Treaty between Venezuela and some other foreign State-were entitled by the mere fact of transhipment at Trinidad to similar treatment.

4.

Whether a Commercial Treaty, such as that of 1825, which contained pro- vision neither for termination nor modification could be held to be for ever binding in spite of the expressed wish of one of the parties to denounce it or to negotiate an alteration in its terms.

5. Whether the position of His Majesty's Government under the Anglo- Colombian Treaty of 1825 in regard to the differential duties imposed by the Venezuelan Government was a sufficiently strong one to offer a good prospect, if recourse be had to arbitration, of a decision being given in their favour.

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

Report-

(1 and. 2.) That in our opinion goods which are the produce of Trinidad, or which are of the growth, produce, or manufacture of His Britannic Majesty's dominions ought under the Treaty of 1825 to be admitted into Venezuela at the lowest rate of duty applied to any other non-Venezuelan goods and without the imposition of a surtax.

(3.) We think that similar treatment cannot be claimed in respect of the goods mentioned in this question, as the provisions of the Treaty apply only to articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of His Majesty's dominions.

(4.) The question is not free from difficulty, as some of the provisions of the Treaty appear to be of a permanent character, while others, namely those dealing with the commercial relations of the two countries, cannot be so regarded. On the whole, we think that the main object of the Treaty is commercial, and that it would be held to be temporary in character and terminable by the withdrawal of either party on reasonable notice. It appears from the papers before us, particularly from the Protocol and Notes of 1903, that the Treaty has been regarded by both parties as being in force up to the present, and we think that the Venezuelan Government cannot be said to have withdrawn from or denounced the Treaty by reason only of their contention that it is terminable, or of their expression of a desire to determine (5.) We presume that the question which His Majesty's Government would desire to submit to arbitration would be whether the imposition and maintenance of the surtax by the Venezuelan Government amounts to an infraction of Article 14 of the Treaty. On this question, which depends on the construction of the Treaty, we think that His Majesty's Government would probably obtain a declaration in their favour from an impartial tribunal in spite of the imposition without protest of similar duties during the currency of the Treaty with Colombia, and of the subse- quent conduct of this country, if indeed such conduct be material. But the question

it.

(18520-2.) Wt. 96-332. 25. 7,09. D 8.

2