The Times of Tuesday quotes from the Johannesburg Star the
text of a despatch by Mr. Chamberlain, and the answer by Mr. Reitz, the Transvaal State Secretary,—the subject in dis- pute being the dynamite monopoly. Mr. Chamberlain asserts that the existing dynamite monopoly is a breach of Article XIV. of the London Convention, because it prevents British manufacturers trading in the Transvaal,—a right accorded to them by the Convention. Apparently Mr. Chamberlain does not allege that the creation of a monopoly would be a breach of the Convention if it were " intended in good faith to benefit the State generally, and not simply to favour the concessionaire." The present monopoly is, in fact, declared not to be a bond-fide State monopoly, but in reality a device for giving a trade preference to certain persons. Mr. Reitz replies to Mr. Chamberlain by asserting that there can have been no breach of the Convention because the monopoly does benefit the State, and because British merchants have the same trading facilities that the burghers have. The legal problem is a very complicated one, and we shall not attempt to say where the balance of argument lies, but, considering matters as a whole, we think that all efforts should be con- centrated on the franchise question, and that as regards other things the Republic should be dealt with as gently and as liberally as possible. The best hope, perhaps the only hope, for permanent peace lies in a wise and liberal extension of the franchise.
Previous page
