per cent. The last recorded transaction (August 1908) gives 11s. as the then value of a Witfontein claim, even if the value has only dropped another shilling in the course of the last five years, it would mean that if Brown had succeeded in obtaining everyone of his 1,200 claims, they would not now be worth one-fiftieth part of the 30,000l. he is said to have spent on them. His Majesty's Government are prepared to concede that if an award of compensation were made, the proper sum per claim would be the amount which the High Court of the Transvaal would have awarded if Brown had taken out a summons and continued his proceedings for the assessment of the damages, but they are not prepared to admit that the number of claims in respect of which compensation would have been payable was 1,200. They also desire to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the claim for interest. Under Rule 4 of the Terms of Submission interest may be awarded by the Tribunal from the date when the claim was first brought to the notice of the other party till the confirmation of the Schedule in which the claim is contained. The claim is based upon a denial of justice in the Courts of the South African Republic on the 2nd March, 1898. Interest is claimed from the 19th July, 1895, two and three-quarter years before the clain arose. SUMMARY. His Majesty's Government submit that upon the merits the claim on behalf of Brown's representatives should be dismissed for the following reasons: 1. The order of the High Court of the South African Republic did not constitute a denial of justice. 2. Brown had no adequate reason for not taking out a fresh summons pursuant to the order of the Court, so as to obtain from the Court such damages as he was entitled to. 3. The persons who acted on Brown's behalf in 1902 and asserted a title to the claims made no attempt to use the legal remedies open to them at that time. His Majesty's Government also submit that there is every reason to believe that a substantial proportion of the interests in the claim are not American and cannot be the subject of diplomatic support by the Government of the United States. Annexes. CONTENTS. Page 1. Extract from the Debates of the Canadian House of Commons, 2. Correspondence between the Foreign Office and Messrs. Cam- 3. Minute of the Union Government, June 24, 1913 4. Particulars of the Powers of Attorney lodged by Brown with 5. Correspondence between T. P. Galt and the Registrar of Mining Titles, Johannesburg, 1902 6. Judgment of the High Court of the South African Republic 7. Judgment of the Iligh Court of the South African Republic 279 9. "Raad v. Bench." Article from the Cape Law Journal 10. Translation of Law No. 1 of 1897, with original Dutch text 312 11. Notes of the Interview between Sir H. de Villiers and Presi- 13. Translation of the Counterfoil forming Annex 14 14. Counterfoil of the Provisional Licence issued to Brown on 18. Memorandum of Argument re R. E. Brown's Claim (Enclosure 2 in Exhibit 18 in the United States Memorial) 19. Memorandum of Reply to the Reasons contained in the 20 Right Honourable. J. Chamberlain to his Excellency Lord ANNEX 1. Extract from the Debates of the Canadian House of Supply-Rights of Canadians in South Africa. Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply. Mr. A. C. Macdonnell (South Toronto).-Mr. Speaker, before the House goes into Committee of Supply, I desire very briefly at this late stage of the session, to call the attention of the government to a matter of considerable importance to certain Canadian citizens who have been deprived of their rights in connection with large mining interests in South Africa. The facts as represented to me are shortly these: prior to the year 1897, a gentleman named R. E. Brown, an American citizen, secured for himself and certain other persons associated with him (some of them being Canadians) some 1,200 valuable mining claims on what is known as the farin Witfontein in the district of Potchefstroom in the South African Republic. These claims were pegged out and rightfully owned by Mr. Brown, but the president of that republic, Mr. Kruger, denied the right of Mr. Brown and his associates to these claims and refused to issue licenses or leases. Mr. Brown, representing himself and his associates, applied to the courts of the South African Republic and on their behalf brought an action against Dr. Leyds the secretary of the executive of Mr. Kruger; and also against the clerk of the district in which these mining lands were situated asking for licenses to issue to him in accordance with the law. In that action Mr. Brown recovered a judgment as prayed for by him. The full court determined that he was entitled to have issued to him licenses for these lands, and in default he was awarded damages commensurate with the estimated value of the claims. These damages were estimated at £720,400 so that it will be seen that the amount involved is very large. That judgment was rendered by the High Court of the Republic of South Africa on the 22nd of January, 1897. Immediately after this judgment, Mr. Kruger sought to thwart its execution in order to deprive Mr. Brown and his associates (some of whom were Canadians) of the benefits thereof. Mr. Kruger having previously endeavoured to |