The Transvaal from Within Part 19

The High Court crisis arose out of the case of Brown v. The State, already referred to.{46} Brown had acted within his legal rights according to the terms of a proclamation. That proclamation had been illegally withdrawn, and the Government realizing that they would have to stand the consequences of their action in the courts of the country, introduced a law which was immediately pa.s.sed by the Volksraad, absolving them from all liability, and practically non-suiting all claimants. Mr. Kotze in his judgment declared this law to be improper and in conflict with the Const.i.tution, and gave judgment in favour of Brown, but left the amount of damages to be determined later after hearing further evidence.{47}

The first Volksraad was then in special session, and the President promptly introduced a law known as Law 1 of 1897, which empowered him to exact a.s.surances from the judges that they would respect all resolutions of the Volksraad as having the force of law and declare themselves not ent.i.tled to test the validity of a law by its agreement or conflict with the Const.i.tution; and it further empowered the President in the event of his not being satisfied with the character of the replies to summarily dismiss the judges. The judges protested in a body that they would not submit to such treatment. The High Court was adjourned and all legal business was stopped. Particularly emphatic was Mr. Justice Gregorowski. He stated that no honourable man could possibly sit upon the Transvaal Bench as long as Law 1 of 1897 remained upon the Statute Book. At this juncture Sir Henry de Villiers, Chief Justice of Cape Colony, came to Pretoria for the purpose of effecting a compromise and averting a crisis. The compromise was practically an armistice. The judges promised not to exercise the testing right pending the speedy introduction of a measure safeguarding the independence of the courts. Mr. Kruger on his side promised to refrain from enforcing the provisions of Law 1 of 1897, and undertook to introduce as speedily as possible the required new law.

The position in which the President found himself was undoubtedly one of some difficulty, but he chose a very bad way out of it. High-handed arbitrary methods cannot effect a permanent and satisfactory solution of a question of that character, but Mr. Kruger was unwilling to go to the root of the evil and to admit what Mr. Kotze's judgment had brought home with perhaps too sudden force, namely, that the laws and system of Government were in a condition of complete chaos. The sequel can be told in a few words. In February, 1898, Mr. Kotze considered that ample time had been allowed by him for the fulfilment of President Kruger's promise. Sir Henry de Villiers thought it proper to allow more time. The point of difference between Mr. Kotze and Sir Henry de Villiers was the interpretation to be placed upon the expression 'this session,' which had been used in the previous February when the President had said that if he did not introduce the proposed measures this session, the judges might consider that he had failed to keep his promise. Mr. Kotze contended that as the Raad was then in session it meant that session, and that in any case that session and another had pa.s.sed, and a third was in progress and there was still no sign of the promised measures. Sir Henry de Villiers stated that in his opinion the reasonable construction would be that Mr. Kruger meant the following ordinary session, and that only ordinary sessions could be considered (for in each year there are one special and one ordinary session), so that the President might be ent.i.tled to claim the whole of the year 1898 within which to fulfil his promise, but that this would be the extreme limit of forbearance, after which failure could only be regarded as a breach of faith. Sir Henry de Villiers in fact defended Mr. Kruger. Mr. Kotze, however, held to his opinion; he wrote to the President reminding him of the undertaking, charged him with failure to keep his promise and withdrew the pledge which he had given. The President promptly exercised his right under Law 1 of 1897, and dismissed Mr. Kotze, who had served the country as judge and chief justice for over twenty years. Whatever the merits of the particular case may be it appeared to be a shocking exhibition of arbitrary power to dismiss without compensation, pension, or provision of any sort, a man no longer young, whose services had been given for nearly a quarter of a century, who in the extreme dilemma of the Raid had stood by the President, and who, from some points of view, must be admitted to have served him 'not wisely but too well.'

Mr. Kotze was not at that time popular among the Uitlanders on account of his action in the matter of the Reformers, and especially because he had acted on behalf of the Government in securing the services of Mr. Gregorowski for the Reform trial; but the circ.u.mstances of his dismissal and the fact that he was known to be dependent upon his salary as judge, taken in conjunction with the courageous stand which he had made against the President's arbitrary will, enlisted public sympathy on his behalf, and a purse amounting in all to about 6,000 was presented to him as a mark of appreciation for his past services. But then followed the 'most unkindest cut of all.' Mr. Gregorowski, who had resigned a judgeship in order to fill the post of State Attorney when Dr. Coster, in consequence of an insulting reference of the President's to his countrymen, relinquished it,-Mr. Gregorowski, who had been foremost to declare that no honourable man could possibly accept the position of judge while Law 1 of 1897 stood on the Statute Book, became Chief Justice vice Mr. Kotze dismissed. And by way of finally disposing of the subject, the President when questioned in the Raad as to the explanation of his apologist, denied that he had ever made any promise of any sort or description to Sir Henry de Villiers or anybody else!

Mr. Justice Ameshof, who with Mr. Kotze had made a stand against the President in this matter, was also obliged to relinquish his judgeship. Thus it will be seen that at one swoop Mr. Kruger disposed of three reputable intermediaries whom he had used to great advantage at one time or another. 'Something for nothing,' for Mr. Kruger! Whether Mr. Kotze acted in haste or whether Sir Henry de Villiers' plea for more time was justified are questions which it is no longer necessary to discuss, not alone because Mr. Kruger denied ever having made the promise out of which the disagreement arose, but because even up to the present time no measure safeguarding the High Court has been introduced or foreshadowed in the legislature. And Law 1 of 1897, which according to Mr. Gregorowski made it impossible for any honourable man to sit upon the Bench, is still upon the Statute Book and Mr. Gregorowski sits as Chief Justice subject to its provisions.

No one disputes that the position of the High Court as determined by Law 1 of 1897 is a very unsatisfactory one, but the apologists for President Kruger frequently say that there has been no actual case of hardship, and that the Uitlanders are crying out before they are hurt. They maintain that it was a measure pa.s.sed under great provocation for a particular purpose, and that the power granted under it, although very undesirable in principle, has never been used. This is incorrect; the power has been used, and injustice has been suffered. Two cases of actual hardship are those of Brown v. Government, the case out of which the whole matter arose, and the case of the Pretoria Waterworks Company. But there are other cases too which have never been brought into court having been either compromised or abandoned because of the hopelessness of the position, for it is obvious that there would be great reluctance on the part of business men to make a fight merely for the purpose of showing that they suffered under a disability when the result of such a fight would inevitably be to antagonize the only tribunal to which they could appeal.

The case of the Pretoria Waterworks Company is rather a bad one. The Government in 1889 gave a contract for the water supply of Pretoria. It was a permission, but not an exclusive right, to supply the town from springs on Government ground. The President, finding that the contractor was not in a position to undertake the work, requested certain business houses to form a company to acquire this right and to supply the town with water. After inquiry into the local conditions and the probable costs, these people represented that unless they received the exclusive right they would be unable to undertake the work, as the cost of importing pipes and machinery transported from Natal by bullock waggon and the then expensive conditions of working would make the work so costly that at a later period, after the introduction of railways, it would be possible for compet.i.tors, such for instance as the projected Munic.i.p.ality of Pretoria, to establish a system of water supply at probably half the cost of the first one and thus compete to their disadvantage. For these reasons the contractor and his friends declined to proceed with the formation of the company. The President, however, was very desirous of having a good water supply, and after some months of negotiations the original contract was supplemented by a grant from the Executive Council, who then held plenary powers from the Volksraad, giving the proposed company the exclusive right. Immediately after the receipt of this grant the company was formed, the capital subscribed and the machinery and other material purchased. In 1898, after nine years of work, during which shareholders had received dividends averaging 2-2/3 per cent. per annum, some differences occurred between the Company and the consumers, and the latter combined and subscribed the necessary funds to take action in the High Court, the object being to challenge the exclusive right and to enable the town through its Munic.i.p.ality to provide its own supply. At the same time the Government at the instance of the townspeople opened negotiations with the Company with a view to expropriation in accordance with the terms stipulated in the original contract. While matters were in this position, however, certain members of the Volksraad prominently concerned in the action against the Company, introduced a measure in the Volksraad cancelling the second or exclusive grant made by the Government nine years before and recommending that the Government should either buy out the Waterworks Company upon suitable terms or should give the necessary facilities to the Town Council to introduce another system of supply. The application of the Company to be allowed to state its case was ignored, and after a short discussion the resolution was pa.s.sed and the measure became law. By the action of the Volksraad the Company was deprived of that princ.i.p.al a.s.set upon the security of which the capital had been subscribed, and the Government were rescued from an awkward position. The Government took no steps to defend their action in granting the right or to protest against the action of the Volksraad, and became, therefore, parties to an act of piracy. The Company were thus placed entirely at the mercy of the Government, for under the provisions of Law 1 of 1897, the Volksraad resolution put them out of court both as to upholding their t.i.tle and claiming damages. All doubts as to the Government's complicity in this action were removed when upon negotiations being opened for the expropriation of the Company the Government refused to follow the procedure prescribed in the contract on the ground that as the Company had now lost the exclusive right they must accept a less sum in compensation, otherwise the Government would authorise the rival Munic.i.p.al scheme. Under these circ.u.mstances the shareholders having no other power to appeal to adopted the common-sense course of taking what they could get. The result can only be expressed in figures. The shares, which had been purchased at over 40s. at the time of the Volksraad's action were worth less than 28s. in liquidation. The inquiry into the Raid by the Select Committee of the House of Commons, early in 1897, was productive of a result which is not always traced to its real cause. The greatest dissatisfaction was expressed in the Transvaal and among all the Boers in South Africa with one feature of the Westminster inquiry, viz., the investigation of the causes which made the Raid possible. Mr. Kruger and his friends had enjoyed such a run of luck and so much indulgence, and had been so successful in presenting their side of the case only, that it seemed to them improper that anyone should wish to inquire into all the circ.u.mstances. It would even appear from what followed that the President had convinced himself that there were no grievances, that he was an entirely innocent party deeply injured by the Reformers and the British Government, and that the Westminster inquiry had been authorized and conducted for the sole purpose of exposing him and justifying the Reform movement.

As the months dragged on and no improvement in the conditions of the Uitlanders took place, as indeed the complaints grew louder and the state of affairs grew worse, the President again began to hear the voices calling for reform. Timid whispers they were, perhaps, and far between, for the great bulk of the Uitlanders were in a morose and sullen mood. Having tried and failed on stronger lines they were incapable as yet of returning with any heart to the old fruitless and already rejected const.i.tutional methods. The suggestions for reform, consequently, came princ.i.p.ally from those who were on friendly terms with the Boer party and believed themselves to carry some weight. They have by this time learned that n.o.body carries weight with President Kruger unless he has power to back his suggestions. Many years before, the late Mr. W.Y. Campbell as spokesman of a deputation from Johannesburg, addressing President Kruger, stated in the course of his remarks that the people of Johannesburg 'protested' against a certain measure. The President jumped up in one of his characteristic moods and said: 'Protest! Protest!! what is the good of protesting? You have not got the guns! I have.' And Mr. Campbell, in reporting this in Johannesburg, remarked: 'That man is sensible; he knows the position. I claim to be sensible also, and I know he is right: you can take my name off any other deputations, for we'll get nothing by asking.'

It is stated, and the statement comes from one who claims to have been the father of the suggestion, that the President was induced to appoint a commission of inquiry by the argument that if, as he believed, the wretched state of affairs in Johannesburg was due not to the action of the Government but to the greed, machinations, and mismanagement of the capitalists, nothing could suit the latter worse than to be taken at their word and to have a commission appointed to take evidence on oath and to publicly inquire into the state of affairs; in fact to copy the Westminster inquiry. It is conceivable that the resolute refusal to investigate matters or to listen to complaints or explanations which the President had throughout maintained may have been the means of preserving a blissful faith in the strength of his own case and the rottenness of the Uitlanders'; at any rate, it seems to be an undoubted fact that the Industrial Commission of Inquiry, which was appointed by the Executive at the request of the President, was appointed in the confident belief that it would shift the burden of responsibility from his shoulders to those of the capitalists. This construction of his motives may appear to be severe and perhaps even unfair, but it is entirely borne out by the manner in which he dealt with the report of the Industrial Commission, fighting against its acceptance, ignoring the recommendations of relief, and even imposing fresh burdens. There is, nevertheless, one thing to be deduced which is in a manner to Mr. Kruger's credit, and that is that he really must have believed that the case would-from his point of view-bear inquiring into.

The members of the Commission with power to vote were Messrs. Schalk W. Burger, Member of the Executive Council (Chairman); J.S. Smit, Government Railway Commissioner; Christiaan Joubert, Minister of Mines; Schmitz-Dumont, Acting State Mining Engineer; and J.F. de Beer, first special Judicial Commissioner, Johannesburg. Mr. Thos. Hugo, the General Manager of the National Bank, was appointed financial adviser, and certain advisory members were arbitrarily selected by the Government. The complete exclusion of all those who had had any direct or indirect a.s.sociation with the late Reform movement or with those in any way connected with it strengthened the conviction that the Government designed the Commission to be a whitewashing one; but whatever the design may have been it would be doing an injustice both to the Government officials and to the advisory members to have it supposed that they were parties to such an idea. They were not; they did their work admirably, and no inquiry could have been conducted in a better spirit. This, however, was not foreseen, and it was with the greatest difficulty that the Uitlanders were induced to view the thing seriously and to realize that, no matter how it had occurred, this was a supreme opportunity for proving to the world the soundness of their case. The report and proceedings are published by the Wit.w.a.tersrand Chamber of Mines in a volume containing over 700 pages of printed matter and a number of diagrams. The whole const.i.tutes a d.a.m.ning indictment of the Government, as the following extracts from the report of the Commission testify:-

Your Commission are pleased to state that at present there exist all the indications of an honest administration, and the State, as well as the Mining Industry, must be congratulated upon the fact that most of the mines are controlled and directed by financial and practical men who devote their time, energy, and knowledge to the mining industry, and who have not only introduced the most up-to-date machinery and mining appliances, but also the greatest perfection of method and process known to science. But for these a good many of the mines now producing gold would not have reached that stage....

To avoid such a calamity (viz., the closing down of the mines) your Commission are of opinion that it is the duty of the Government to co-operate with the mining industry, and to devise means in order to make it possible for lower-grade mines to work at a profit, and generally to lighten the burdens of the mining industry. This and the development and equipment of the new mines are a few examples among others where it is desirable that the Government shall take an active part, especially when the fact is taken into consideration that up till now the mining industry must be held as the financial basis, support, and mainstay of the State.

The question, therefore, becomes one of national economy, and it is inc.u.mbent upon the Government, considering the rapid growth and progress of the country, to so alter its fiscal laws and systems of administration as to meet the requirements of its princ.i.p.al industry....

Your Commission entirely disapprove of concessions, through which the industrial prosperity of the country is hampered. Such might have been expedient in the past, but the country has now arrived at a state of development that will only admit of free compet.i.tion according to republican principles. This applies more especially to the gold industry, which has to face its own economical problems without being further burdened with concessions that are irksome and injurious to the industry and will always remain a source of irritation and dissatisfaction.

As to white labour:-

Your Commission are of opinion that wages are not excessive, regard being had to the high cost of living at the mines. In fact, they are only sufficient to satisfy daily wants, and, consequently, it cannot be expected that white labourers will establish their permanent abode in this Republic unless conditions are made by which their position will be ameliorated....

Your Commission are of opinion that as long as the cost of living cannot be considerably reduced it will be almost impossible to reduce the wages of white labourers, and they would strongly recommend that, as far as possible, necessaries of life should be imported free of duty and conveyed to the mines as cheaply as possible.

As to the sale of liquor:-

It has been proved to your Commission that the Liquor Law is not carried out properly, and that the mining industry has real grievances in connection therewith, owing to the illicit sale of strong drink to the natives at the mines, and they wish especially and strongly to insist that the stipulations of article 16 of the law shall be strictly enforced. The evidence given on this point proves that a miserable state of affairs exists, and a much stronger application of the law is required.

Following this there is a long criticism with recommendations in detail.

As to import duties:-

With reference to this matter, your Commission can only recommend that, if possible, foodstuffs ought to be entirely free from taxation, as at the present moment it is impossible to supply the population of the Republic from the products of local agriculture and consequently importation is absolutely necessary.

As to explosives:-

Before entering on this subject, we wish to put on record our disappointment with the evidence tendered on behalf of the South African Explosives Company, Ltd. We expected, and we think not unreasonably, that they would be able to give reliable information for our guidance respecting the cost of importation, as well as of local manufacture, of the princ.i.p.al explosives used for mining purposes; but, though persistently questioned on these points, few facts were elicited and we regret to say that they entirely failed to satisfy us in this important respect....

That the princ.i.p.al explosives used here can be purchased in Europe, and delivered here at a price far below the present cost to the mines, has been proved to us by the evidence of many witnesses competent to speak on the subject, and when we bear in mind that the excess charge of 40s. to 45s. per case does not benefit the State, but serves to enrich individuals for the most part resident in Europe, the injustice of such a tax on the staple industry becomes more apparent and demands immediate removal.

After showing that the dynamite monopolists make a profit of 47s. 6d. per case on No. 1 dynamite, and 55s. on blasting gelatine, over and above the price at which the mines could buy explosives if there were no monopoly or protection, the report goes on:-

The Mining Industry has thus to bear a burden which does not enrich the State or bring any benefit in return, and this fact must always prove a source of irritation and annoyance to those who, while willing to contribute to just taxation for the general good, cannot acquiesce in an impost of the nature complained of....

Your Commission inspected the factory at Modderfontein, and it must be admitted that the construction of the works and general equipment are in many respects admirable, and it appears to us greatly to be regretted that so much money should have been invested in an undertaking for the manufacture of any article whereof the ingredients have to be imported at a great cost, four tons of raw material being required to produce one ton of the manufactured article.

It has been proved to our satisfaction that none of the raw material used is found in this country, or only in such small quant.i.ties as to make it practically valueless for the purpose required.... All these drawbacks, which make it almost impossible to establish a bona-fide industry, fall on the mines and render their task, especially that of the low-grade mines, extremely difficult and discouraging. Another point that has been brought to the notice of your Commission is the prejudicial effect exercised by this monopoly in practically excluding from the country all new inventions in connection with explosives, and, in view of the numerous dynamite accidents that have taken place from time to time, it is to be regretted that it is not possible to make satisfactory trials of other and less dangerous explosives for the working of the mines. These questions have received the careful consideration of your Commission, who are forced to the conclusion that the factory has not attained the object for which it was established, and that there is no reasonable prospect of it doing so. Further, that there are good grounds for believing that the contractors have failed to comply with the conditions of their contract.

For the aforesaid reasons, and in view of the opinion expressed by the Volksraad Dynamite Commission, that the legal position of the Government against the contractors is undoubtedly strong, your Commission desire to recommend that the case be placed in the hands of the legal advisers of the State, with a view to ascertaining whether the contract cannot be cancelled.

Meanwhile your Commission recommend that the Government avail itself forthwith of its right under Article 15 of the Regulations, to take away the agency of trading in gunpowder, dynamite, cartridges, and other explosives from the above-mentioned persons and at once take into its own hands the importation of dynamite and other explosives for the benefit of the mining industry, subject to a duty of not more than 20s. per case or such other less sum as may be determined from time to time.

This protective duty, while considerably increasing the revenue of the State, will at the same time offer ample protection to any industry of this description in the Republic. In the event of cancellation being advised to be possible, free trade in explosives to be at once established, subject to a duty of 20s. per case or such other less duty as may be determined upon from time to time, and manufacturing of other explosives in the Republic to be allowed, and also to be protected by the same import duty....

Your Commission desire further to observe that it is not clear to them, judging from the published accounts of the South African Explosives Company for 1895 and 1896, that the Government receives the proportion of surplus profit secured to it under the contract, viz., 20 per cent., and would strongly recommend, in accordance with Article 6 of the contract, an immediate investigation of the Company's accounts by qualified accountants, in conjunction with the financial adviser of the Commission, in order to find out what amount is still due to the Government under this head.

As to railways:-

Your Commission have followed with great attention and interest the evidence and statistics submitted on this point. From those it appears that not only are the tariffs charged by the Netherlands Railway Company such that by the reduction of the same the industry would be considerably benefited, but that such a reduction would necessitate that the neighbouring States and Colonies would also have to reduce their tariffs considerably.

Your Commission have come to the conclusion that, taking into consideration the evidence submitted to them, and taking the gross revenue of traffic of goods at about 2,000,000 (as in 1896) it would be desirable to recommend so to regulate the tariff that the gross revenue for 1896 would have been reduced by 500,000, equivalent to an average reduction of 25 per cent. Further, your Commission deem it desirable that the Government shall make such arrangement as will secure to them in the future a voice in the fixing of the tariffs of the N.Z.A.S.M., and express their confidence that as soon as prosperous times will warrant such a course a further reduction in tariffs will be effected. Your Commission wish to recommend that the reduction will be chiefly applied to traffic of coal, timber, mining machinery, and foodstuffs, according to a scale to be agreed upon between the Government and the N.Z.A.S.M. Your Commission are of opinion that in this manner the industry will be met in a very fair way. Your Commission wish to express the opinion that it is absolutely necessary that the reduction in all local tariffs will be brought about as speedily as possible, while they express the hope that where the co-operation of the neighbouring States and Colonies is required, negotiations will be initiated and carried out so speedily that the reductions to be so initiated will come into force not later than 1st January next. Several witnesses and some of the Commission have urged the expropriation of the N.Z.A.S.M. by the Government. Your Commission, however, for several reasons known to them, and after same have been communicated to those members of the Commission who wished to urge the expropriation of the N.Z.A.S.M., do not at the present moment desire to urge expropriation provided by the other means terms can be secured from the Company so as to obtain the reduction at present urgently required on the basis as above set forth. Your Commission have been informed that the Company have proposed to adopt the dividends of the three years 1895, 1896, and 1897 as a basis for the expropriation price, and your Commission can agree to such proposal. The expropriation price being thus fixed, the Company will have all the more reason to co-operate towards the lowering of the tariffs. Further, it appears from the evidence of the managing director of the N.Z.A.S.M., that in consideration of the reduction of tariffs, he wished to have secured to the Company a certain period of existence. Your Commission cannot recommend this course, because they do not deem the same to be in the interests of the State, and it would be contrary to the wishes of the public.

As to gold thefts:-

According to the evidence submitted to your Commission, gold thefts are on the increase, and although the Volksraad has given the matter their favourable consideration, and have, at the instance of the Mining Industry, so amended the Gold Law as to provide for the punishment of the sale and being in possession of raw gold, still it has been stated to your Commission in evidence, that the gold thefts amount to about 10 per cent. of the output, equivalent to an amount of 750,000 per annum. It follows that the administration of the law must be faulty, because there are only very few instances where the crime has been detected and punished. If those figures are not exaggerated, and your Commission have no reason to suppose so, then this matter deserves the serious consideration of the Government. The suppression of this crime can be considered as a real saving to the industry, and this amount of three-quarters of a million would, especially in times of depression, exercise a large influence on the yield and financial position of the mines. The industry ask that the penal clauses regarding this matter shall be eliminated from the Gold Law, and that a separate law be pa.s.sed, more or less on the basis of the I.D.B. Law of Kimberley, Cape Colony, and that measures shall be taken by which the injured parties shall be enabled to exercise control, and have supervision over any department to be established for the detection and suppression of thefts of new gold. Your Commission are of opinion that the Government could grant this request without injuring their dignity, on the basis hereinafter mentioned. On the contrary, it would remove the blame from the present administration, viz., that these thefts can be practically carried on with impunity.

As to the Local Board:-

The evidence which has been laid before your Commission has contained suggestions to establish a Board on which Government nominees and representatives of the mining industry and of the commercial community of the Wit.w.a.tersrand should sit, so that the Government representatives should have the benefit of the experience of men whose daily occupation it is to look closely into all the affairs appertaining to the mines, &c. Your Commission is of opinion that it is advisable that these suggestions should be acted upon. The scope of this Board should consist of the supervision of the administration of the following laws, viz.:-

The Liquor Law as far as it concerns the proclaimed goldfields, the Pa.s.s Law, and the Law relating to Gold Thefts; and the Board will further have an advisory voice in the supply of natives to the mines, which your Commission has recommended your Government to take into its own hands. The area under the surveillance of the Board should include the Heidelberg, Wit.w.a.tersrand, and Klerksdorp districts, and other goldfields as may be found desirable hereafter. Your Commission suggests that the Board consists of the following: Five members to be appointed by the Government, and four delegates to be appointed by the following bodies, with the consent of the Government, viz., one delegate of the Chamber of Mines, one of the a.s.sociation of Mines (or in case of an amalgamation, two representatives of the new Chamber), a nominee of the Mine Managers' a.s.sociation, and a nominee of the commercial community of Johannesburg. Your Commission would advise that a separate detective force be placed under the department, whose duty it should be to detect any infringements of the above-mentioned laws, and to bring the offenders to justice in the ordinary course of law. It should also be in the sphere of the Board's work to report to the proper authorities any laxity on the part of the officials who have to administer the above-mentioned laws. The Board is to report to the Executive Council upon the working of the laws referred to, and to suggest alterations. It must be well understood that the power of this Board must in no way clash with the sphere of the Minister of the Mines department and the Licensing Board, but co-operate with the same. We should adduce as a reason the more for the creation of such a Board that Government could depute to them the right to receive deputations, hear their arguments, and report to the Government on the subject, whereby a great saving of time would be the result. We would recommend that the Commission be appointed at once, and that they shall frame their proposals for regulations and submit them at once to the Government.

The establishment of a local mining board has been strongly urged by witnesses. From an industrial and financial point of view this country must be considered as still in its infancy, and, without loss of dignity or prestige, the Government may accede to the above request. Experience in these matters can only be attained after the lapse of long years, and by coming in contact with experts from other countries the State will reap the benefit of the knowledge obtained in their country, where these problems have for decades exercised the minds of their leading citizens.

In conclusion, your Commission fervently hope that they have truly and faithfully interpreted the object of the inquiry, and that their suggestions and recommendations, if acted upon, will confer a lasting benefit on the country and people.

The evidence, as has been stated, was all given on oath, and some very interesting details came out. In one case Dr. Leyds's system of misrepresentation was exposed. Whilst the Commission was actually taking evidence the then State Secretary in an interview with the Paris Temps strongly supported the dynamite monopoly, and stated that the price charged, namely, 90s. per case, was the same at which the Chamber of Mines had offered to enter into a sixteen years' contract with n.o.bel's factory. A witness questioned on this point explained that this was quite true as regards price, but that Dr. Leyds had suppressed the essential fact that whereas out of the 90s. paid to the monopolists the Government only receive 5s. by way of duty, they would out of the 90s. which it was proposed to pay for n.o.bel's dynamite receive no less than 38s. per case as duty, and that if the contract proposed by the Chamber had been made the Government would have profited during the previous four years to the extent of 1,200,000 instead of 150,000. Upon another occasion light was thrown on dark places in a rather disconcerting fashion. Mr. Christiaan Joubert, Minister of Mines, took one of the witnesses in hand with the object of showing that the people of Johannesburg had only themselves to thank for the loss of confidence in this business. The following questions and answers are from the official report:-

Should not the Chamber of Mines co-operate with the Department of Mines to get a law protecting European shareholders from being defrauded by swindlers?-I don't know if such a law could be framed without interfering with what, in other countries, is considered to be personal liberty. You have to come to the point whether the man intended to swindle, and that can only be settled by the Court, as a matter of personal judgment. If a good law could be devised it would be beneficial.

Is there no possibility for the Chamber of Mines to work with the Department for the pa.s.sing of such a law?-I don't know if laws exist in France, Germany, England, or America, to that specific effect; but if so, I would be guided by the wisdom and immense experience of the law makers of those countries, otherwise we might be rushing in where angels fear to tread.

Is it then possible? Are you willing to discuss the matter with us?-Oh, yes; but I do not think that that is exactly what is wanted in order to restore confidence. Lots of things combine to shake the confidence of investors. For instance, to deal with some small and homely matters, I was told by a member of the Sanitary Board yesterday that an application for the underground rights of the Market Square, had been made by Mr. Jan Meyer, a leading member of the Volksraad. That does not help to restore confidence. The Sanitary Board applied for a portion of the Telephone Tower Park in order to erect a Town Hall. They were refused. Now, some one has made an application for the right to erect swimming baths. That does not restore confidence. I hope the mere publication of these things will prevent them from succeeding. The Sanitary Board applied for the Union Ground, also for public purposes, but it was granted to private applicants on the quiet. They have hawked it about and borrowed money on it. It was offered to many of the big capitalists here, but they would not touch it. The Sanitary Board are told that a building is to be put up, in which fifty rooms will be set aside for them, but they are not satisfied that the authorities should do good by stealth and blush to find it fame.

I cannot understand how mere applications can shake confidence?-Well, they do, because they are only made when there is a chance of their being granted. But, if you want facts, I will tell you what shook the investor's confidence as much as anything that has happened for years-that was the Ferreira claim-jumping raid, which it was sworn to in Court had been suggested by you yourself, Mr. Joubert.

Not 'suggested' by me-

The Chairman said the witness was straying away from the original question.