ANNEX 18. (Enclosure 2 in Mr. Galt's letter to Rt. Hon. Memorandum of Argument re R. E. Brown's Claim. IT may be suggested that there is a difficulty in the way of granting Brown the licenses for the 1200 claims to which he is entitled under the judgment of the 22nd of January 1897, from the fact that prior to the date of such judgment and after suit was instituted, namely: on the 30th of August 1895 the late Government allotted these claims amongst a number of persons some of whom have paid license fees to the late Government in respect thereof, and it may be claimed that as their licenses were issued by the late Government it would be an interference with existing rights or titles to refuse to renew such licenses. A complete answer to such a suggestion lies in the fact that there is no existing title to these claims for the reason that under the terms of the judgment all the lottery claims were held to be invalid; any certificates of licenses, therefore, outstanding, are simply worthless paper and of no more validity than a deed or mortgage which has been declared invalid and set aside by the Court. The present license holders acquired their licenses under the lottery held 30th August 1895. (It will be remembered that resolutions authorizing the disposal of claims by lottery were passed by the Volksraad subsequent to the bringing of Brown's action and for the purpose of defeating him in the recovery of his rights). At the trial of the Brown suit the Government put in evidence the lottery plan and disposition of lands thereunder and relied upon the resolutions as an an answer to Brown's claims. The Court held that Brown was entitled to the claims and declared in effect that the lottery proceedings were invalid and that no title whatever passed to the lottery holders. This judgment of the High Court of the late Republic is absolutely binding upon the Government of the late Republic and all those claiming through or under them and no appeal lies therefrom, so we may take it as a fact too clear for argument that under the laws of the late Republic the present license holders have no title whatever to the claims. Upon application being made by Brown's representative to the Responsible Clerk for the license pursuant to the terms of the judgment, that official, acting no doubt under instructions from Pretoria, issued to Brown a license for the claims in question, but containing an endorsement to the effect that as such claims encroached upon the vergunning claims, it would not be renewed, and notwithstanding all Brown's efforts to obtain a renewal of the license, he was unable to do so. The excuse given for issuing a non-renewable and therefore worthless license was palpably invented for the purpose of depriving Brown of his rights, because even if vergunning claims existed that would be no reason why Brown should not receive a renewal of his license in respect of those claims upon which it could not be pretended that the vergunning encroached. Let us consider, however, the question of those vergunning claims which may throw some light upon the conduct of the President of the late Republic in connexion with the matter. The total number of vergunning claims allowed by law was 60, whilst the number actually marked down. upon the lottery plan was about 600. It may be noted that most of these claims were allotted to the friends or relatives of the late President or Members of his Executive. This attempt to reserve some hundreds of claims in excess of the number allowed by statute was of course entirely illegal. There can be little doubt, however, that none of the vergunning claims were valid for the following reasons: The plan filed prior to the original pegging by Brown on the 19th of July 1895 was withdrawn by the Government at the trial, and that on which they relied was the lottery plan. It must be clear that no reservation or pegging pursuant to such subsequent plan (lottery plan) would affect Brown's rights to his claims which had been staked long prior to the existence of the plan referred to. Furthermore, the defence set up at the trial was based upon the resolution of the Volksraad passed for the express purpose of depriving Brown of his rights, and no defence was set up by the Government on the ground that any of Brown's claims were included in vergunning claims. The judgment, therefore, appears to dispose of the matter entirely in Brown's favour. If anything further was required it may be stated that on the 22nd of January 1897, namely at the time judgment was delivered, a search was made as to the vergunning claims, when it was found ANNEX 18. (Enclosure 2 in Mr. Galt's letter to Rt. Hon. Memorandum of Argument re R. E. Brown's Claim. It may be suggested that there is a difficulty in the way of granting Brown the licenses for the 1200 claims to which he is entitled under the judgment of the 22nd of January 1897, from the fact that prior to the date of such judgment and after suit was instituted, namely: on the 30th of August 1895 the late Government allotted these claims amongst a number of persons some of whom have paid license fees to the late Government in respect thereof, and it may be claimed that as their licenses were issued by the late Government it would be an interference with existing rights or titles to refuse to renew such licenses. A complete answer to such a suggestion lies in the fact that there is no existing title to these claims for the reason that under the terms of the judgment all the lottery claims were held to be invalid; any certificates of licenses, therefore, outstanding, are simply worthless paper and of no more validity than a deed or mortgage which has been declared invalid and set aside by the Court. The present license holders acquired their licenses under the lottery held 30th August 1895. (It will be remembered that resolutions authorizing the disposal of claims by lottery were passed by the Volksraad subsequent to the bringing of Brown's action and for the purpose of defeating him in the recovery of his rights). At the trial of the Brown suit the Government put in evidence the lottery plan and disposition of lands thereunder and relied upon the resolutions as an answer to Brown's claims. The Court held that Brown was entitled to the claims and declared in effect that the lottery proceedings were invalid and that no title whatever passed to the lottery holders. This judgment of the High Court of the late Republic is absolutely binding upon the Government of the late Republic and all those claiming through or under them and no appeal lies therefrom, so we may take it as a fact too clear for argument that under the laws of the late Republic the present license holders have no title whatever to the claims. Upon application being made by Brown's representative to the Responsible Clerk for the license pursuant to the terms of the judgment, that official, acting no doubt under instructions from Pretoria, issued to Brown a license for the claims in question, but containing an endorsement to the effect that as such claims encroached upon the vergunning claims, it would not be renewed, and notwithstanding all Brown's efforts to obtain a renewal of the license, he was unable to do so. The excuse given for issuing a non-renewable and therefore worthless license was palpably invented for the purpose of depriving Brown of his rights, because even if vergunning claims existed that would be no reason why Brown should not receive a renewal of his license in respect of those claims upon which it could not be pretended that the vergunning encroached. Let us consider, however, the question of those vergunning claims which may throw some light upon the conduct of the President of the late Republic in connexion with the matter. The total number of vergunning claims allowed by law was 60, whilst the number actually marked down upon the lottery plan was about 600. It may be noted that most of these claims were allotted to the friends or relatives of the late President or Members of his Executive. This attempt to reserve some hundreds of claims in excess of the number allowed by statute was of course entirely illegal. There can be little doubt, however, that none of the vergunning claims were valid for the following reasons: The plan filed prior to the original pegging by Brown on the 19th of July 1895 was withdrawn by the Government at the trial, and that on which they relied was the lottery plan. It must be clear that no reservation or pegging pursuant to such subsequent plan (lottery plan) would affect Brown's rights to his claims which had been staked long prior to the existence of the plan referred to. Furthermore, the defence set up at the trial was based upon the resolution of the Volksraad passed for the express purpose of depriving Brown of his rights, and no defence was set up by the Government on the ground that any of Brown's claims were included in vergunning claims. The judgment, therefore, appears to dispose of the matter entirely in Brown's favour. If anything further was required it may be stated that on the 22nd of January 1897, namely at the time judgment was delivered, a search was made as to the vergunning claims, when it was found therefore, in regard to vergunning claims amounts to this: Under the law 60 claims was the limit; of these 60 claims there can be no reasonable doubt that all were invalid. It may be mentioned that prior to the delivery of the judgment the President of the late Republic was seeking to coerce Chief Justice Kotze into deciding the case in favour of the Government, but the Chief Justice was proof against the President's threats. Immediately, however, after the judgment was delivered the President of the late Republic commenced his attack upon the independence of the Bench which shortly thereafter resulted in the dismissal of the Chief Justice and the enforced resignation of Mr. Justice Ameshoff, and in their places were appointed judges entirely subservient to President Kruger and his Executive. Brown made a vain attempt to obtain justice from this biassed tribunal, but was finally advised by his Counsel that any further effort to prosecute his action before the High Court of the Republic was simply a waste of time and money, and he thereupon presented a memorial to Her late Majesty and subsequently to the Government of the United States in response to the Right Honourable Mr. Chamberlain's letter. From the above, and the facts set forth more fully in the memorial, it is apparently clear : 1. That Brown was legally entitled to the claims. 2. That Brown was unable to obtain satisfaction of his judgment owing to the unjust and tyrannical conduct of the President of the late Republic and Dr. Leyds. 3. That the present license holders have no title whatever to the claims as their rights were declared invalid by the judgment of the High Court which was and is absolutely binding; this fact is apparent upon the face of the judgment. The facts firstly and secondly mentioned are too thoroughly understood to admit of contradiction; they have been accepted as true by practically the entire British Public, as well as whole Uitlander population of the Transvaal including the Members of the Johannesburg Bar, irrespective of political leaning. Brown's case has been referred to in all the leading English books and publications upon the subject of the war, and is cited as one of the most glaring instances of the late President's folly and injustice. |