• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Front Matter
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Grossbirtannien und die Sudafrikanische...
 Verdhandlungen zwischen Grossbritannien...
 Bundnisse, Vertrage, Konventionen,...
 Back Matter
 Back Cover














Group Title: Staatsarchiv
Title: Das Staatsarchiv
ALL VOLUMES CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098568/00028
 Material Information
Title: Das Staatsarchiv
Physical Description: v. : ; 24-25 cm.
Language: German
Creator: Institut für Auswärtige Politik (Germany)
Institut für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (Germany)
Germany -- Auswärtiges Amt
Publisher: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft etc.
Place of Publication: Leipzig etc
Leipzig etc
 Subjects
Subject: History, Modern -- Sources -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Genre: periodical   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Additional Physical Form: Also issued online.
Dates or Sequential Designation: 1.-86. Bd., Juli 1861-1919; n.F., 1.- Bd., 1928-
Numbering Peculiarities: Publication suspended 1920-1927.
General Note: "Sammlung der offiziellen Aktenstücke zur Aussenpolitik der Gegenwart."
General Note: "In Verbindung mit dem Institut für Auswärtige Politik, Hamburg, und dem Institut für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, Berlin, und mit Unterstützung des Auswärtigen Amtes herausgegeben von Friedrich Thimme.
General Note: Has occasional supplements.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098568
Volume ID: VID00028
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 01766397

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 24 MBs ) ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Front Matter
        Front Matter 1
        Front Matter 2
        Front Matter 3
        Front Matter 4
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
        Page vi
    Grossbirtannien und die Sudafrikanische Republik 1896
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
    Verdhandlungen zwischen Grossbritannien und den Vereinigten Staaten etc.
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
    Bundnisse, Vertrage, Konventionen, Protokolle, etc.
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
        Page 201
        Page 202
        Page 203
        Page 204
        Page 205
        Page 206
        Page 207
        Page 208
        Page 209
        Page 210
        Page 211
        Page 212
        Page 213
        Page 214
        Page 215
        Page 216
        Page 217
        Page 218
        Page 219
        Page 220
        Page 221
        Page 222
        Page 223
        Page 224
        Page 225
        Page 226
        Page 227
        Page 228
        Page 229
        Page 230
        Page 231
        Page 232
        Page 233
        Page 234
        Page 235
        Page 236
        Page 237
        Page 238
        Page 239
        Page 240
        Page 241
        Page 242
        Page 243
        Page 244
        Page 245
        Page 246
        Page 247
        Page 248
        Page 249
        Page 250
        Page 251
        Page 252
        Page 253
        Page 254
        Page 255
        Page 256
        Page 257
        Page 258
        Page 259
        Page 260
        Page 261
        Page 262
        Page 263
        Page 264
        Page 265
        Page 266
        Page 267
        Page 268
        Page 269
        Page 270
        Page 271
        Page 272
        Page 273
        Page 274
        Page 275
        Page 276
        Page 277
        Page 278
        Page 279
        Page 280
        Page 281
        Page 282
        Page 283
        Page 284
        Page 285
        Page 286
        Page 287
        Page 288
        Page 289
        Page 290
        Page 291
        Page 292
        Page 293
        Page 294
        Page 295
        Page 296
        Page 297
        Page 298
        Page 299
        Page 300
        Page 301
        Page 302
        Page 303
        Page 304
        Page 305
        Page 306
        Page 307
        Page 308
        Page 309
        Page 310
        Page 311
        Page 312
        Page 313
        Page 314
        Page 315
        Page 316
        Page 317
        Page 318
        Page 319
        Page 320
        Page 321
        Page 322
        Page 323
        Page 324
        Page 325
        Page 326
        Page 327
        Page 328
        Page 329
        Page 330
        Page 331
        Page 332
        Page 333
        Page 334
        Page 335
        Page 336
        Page 337
        Page 338
        Page 339
        Page 340
        Page 341
        Page 342
        Page 343
        Page 344
        Page 345
        Page 346
        Page 347
        Page 348
        Page 349
        Page 350
        Page 351
        Page 352
        Page 353
        Page 354
        Page 355
        Page 356
        Page 357
    Back Matter
        Page 358
        Page 359
        Page 360
        Page 361
        Page 362
    Back Cover
        Page 363
        Page 364
Full Text












B"g . . .i-^iy ^i! .



















ii iS iiiiiiii









EXTRACT FRONT THE THIRTEENTH OF THE RULES POR TUE
LIBRARY AND READING ROOMI OF THE BOSTON ATHEN UM.

SIf any book s]iall be lost or injured, or if an"
notes. comments, or other matter shall be written. or
in any manner inserted therein, the person to whorn it
stands charged shall replace it by a new volume, or
set, if it belongs to a set."


[io,ooo Apr. '93]


77 Q V 9.41.l ~ u~ 7 1








Das Staatsarchiv.



Sammlung

der officiellen Actensticke
zur
Geschichte der Gegenwart.


Begrindet
von
Aegidi una Klanhold.

Herausgegeben

C-r la t M7 oloff.



Sechzigster Bland.











Verlag von Duncker & IHumblot.
1898.
1V


















Inhaltsverzeichnis.



Biinduisse, Vertriige, Konventionel, Protokoll' etc.
18 85. Dezbr. 28. Italien und Argentinien, Konsularvertrag . . . 11511.
1887. Juni 25. sterreich-Ungarn und.Uruguay, Auslieferungsvertrag 11481.
1893. April 21. Grossbritannien und Osterreich-Ungarn, Abkommen zum
Schutze von Werken der Litteratur und Kunst . 11482.
1894. Mai 19. Niederlande und Portugal, Auslieferungsvertrag . .. 11483.
Juni 1. Italien und Argentinien. Handelsvertrag . . .. 11510.
1895. Febr. 2. Niederlande und Liberia. Auslieferungsvertrag . . 11484.
Mrz 2. Russland und Dnemark. Handels- und Schiffahrtsvertrag 11485.
20: Japan und Peru, Handels- und Schiffabrtsvertrag . . 11486.
Mai 16. Grossbritannien und Niederlande. Grenzregulierung auf Neu-
Guinea . . . . . . . . 11477.
16. Deutsches Reich und Niederlande. Abkommen ber die Re-
gulierung der unteren Niers . . . . .. 11480.
Juni 25. Frankreich und China, Zusatz zu dem Vertrag ber die
Grenzregulierung zwischen China und Tonkin am 26. Juni
1887 . . . . . . . . .. 11469.
25. Frankreich und China, Zusatz zu deml audelsvertrage zwischen
Frankreich und China vom 26. Juni 1887 . .. 11470.
Juli 9. Grossbritannien und Frankreich. Ergnzungsvertrag ber
Postwaarenverkehr . . . . . 11t78.
10. Vertragsstaaten. Zusatzvereinbarung zum internationalen
Ubereinkommen ber den Eisenbahn-Frachtverkelr vom
14. Oktober 1890. (Vgl. Nr. 10356. Bd. 54). . .. 11487.
Novbr. 1. Grossbritannien und Nicaragua. Regelung einiger Streitig-
keiten . . . . . . . . . 11488.
5. Japan und Brasilien. Handels- und Schiffahrtsvertrag. . 11514.
20. Italien und San Marineo. Postvertrag . . . .. 11489.
S 21. Grossbritannien und gypten. Vertrag zur Unterdrckung
der Sklaverei und des Sklavenhandels . . .. 11475.
1896. Jan. 15. Grossbritannien und Frankreich. Erklrung ber Siam und
den Oberen Mekong .......... . 11473.
15. Erklrung ber die Abgrenzung ihrer Interessensphre
in Siam . . . . . . . . 11513.
Febr. 4. Deutsches Reich und Nicaragua. Freundschafts-, Handels-,
Schiffahrts- und Konsularvertrag . . . .. 11476.
8. Grossbritannien undVereinigte Staaten von Amerika, Schieds-
gerichtsvertrag ber die Fischerei im Behringsmeere 11490.
Mrz 11. Niederlande und Serbien, Auslieferungsvertrag . 11491.
Mai 2. Japan, Schweden und Norwegen. Handels- und Schiffahrts-
vertrag . . . . . . . . 11472.






IV Sachregister: Binduisse, rtrge, Konventionen etc. Grossbritanin.

1896. Mai 4. Vertragsstaaten, Zusatzakte zur Berner bereinkunft betr.
Mdie Bildung eines internationalen Verbandes zum Schutze
von Werken der Litteratur und Kiunst (%1vgl. 11468) 11467.
Juni 22. Belgien und Japan, Handels- und Schid'ahrtsvertrag 11471.
23. Grossbritannien und Japan. Postvertrag . . . 11492.
25. Osterreich-Ungarn und Italien, Abkommen Ober gegenseitige
Untersttzung von hilfsbedrftigen Kranken . . 11493.
Juli 1./11. Deutsches Reich und Schweden. Postertrag. .......11
11. Grossbritannien und Italien, Postvertrag . . . 11494.
21. Japan und China. Handels- und Schiffabrtsvortrag. . 11415.
31. Grossbritannien und Columbia, Schiedsgerichtsvertrag ber
Eisenbahnfragen . . . . . . . 11495.
Septbr. 8. Niederlande und Japan. Revision der zwischen beiden Staaten
bestehenden V ertrge . . . . . . 11496.
28. Italien und Tunis. Handels- und Schiffahrsvertrag . 11505.
28. - Konsularvertrag . . .. . . 11507.
28. - Auslieferungsvertrag. . . . . .11506.
Oktbr. 16. Deutsches Reich und Niederlande. Vertrag ber die Er-
haltung des Seeufers von Borkum, Beleuchtung der
Unterems etc . . .... . . . . .11503.
Novbr. 10. Japan und Schweiz. Freundschafts- und Handelsvertrag 11516.
12. Italien und Dnemark, Schiffahrtsabkommen . . . 11512.
16. sterreich-Ungarn und die Schweiz, Auslieferungsvertrag 11474.
Dezbr. 5. Deutsches Reich und Schweiz. Vertrag betr. die Einrichtung
schweizerischer Nebenzollmter bei den auf badischein
Gebiet belegenen Stationen Altenbarg, Justetten und
Lotstetten der schweizerischen Eisenbahnlinie Eglisau--
Schaffhausen und die'schweizerische Zollabfertigung am
Grenzacherhorn, vom 5. Dezember 1896 . . 11501.
19. Italien und Monaco, Vertrag ber Erleichterung der Zeug-
nisablegung bei den gegenseitigen Gerichtshfen . 11497.
22. Japan und Belgien. Konsularvertrag vom 22. Dezbr. 18096. 11479.
22. Grossbritannien und Schweden. Postvertrag . .. .. 11498.
1897. Jan. 2. Japan und Spanien. Revision des zwischen beiden Staaten
bestehenden Handelsvertrages . . . . . 11517.
1 11. Italien und Spanien, Erklrung ber die gegenseitige Unter-
sttzung Bedrftiger . . . . . 11509.
April 18. Trkei und Rumnien, IIandelsvertrag . . . . 11499.
S23. Italien und Rumnien. Abkommen ber den Depeschendienst 11500.
1 Mai 4. Deutsches Reich. Denkschrift, dem deutschen Reichstage bei
Einbringung des Vertrages vom 4. Mai 1896 (Nr. 11467)
vorgelegt . . . .. 11468.
l Juni 28. Italien und San Marino, Freundschafts-Vertrag . . 11508.
Septbr. 21. Deutsches Reich und Niederlande. Zusatz zu dem Aus-
lieferungsvertrage vom 31. Dez. 1896. Vergl. Nr. 11427 11502.

Grossbritannien und die Sdafrikanische Zepublik.
Verhandlungen ber den Besuch des Prsidenten Krger in London.
1896. Jan. 21. Grossbritannien. Die Minister der Kapkolonie an den Gouver-
neur. Schlagen eine Zusammenkunft zwischen Krger
und Chamberlain vor .... . . 11434.
,, 11 23. Der Kolonialminister an den Gouverneur in Kapstadt. Er
ist einer Einladung Krgers nach London geneigt . 11431.
27. Derselbe an Denselben. Soll den Prsidenten Krger zu
einer Reise nach England einladen . . . . 11432.






Sachregister: Grossbritannien und die Sdafrikan. Republik. V

1896. Jan. 28. Grossbritannien. Der Gouverneur in Kapstadt an den Prsi-
denten der Sdafrikanischen Republik. Ladet ihn zu einer
Reise nach London ein . . . . . .. 114309.
Febr. 6. Derselbe an Denselben. Soll mit Krger ber die Lage
der Auslnder in der Sdafrikanischen Republik unter-
handeln . . . . . . .. 11433.
10. Der Gouverneur in Kapstadt an den Kolonialminister.
Kriiger fordert vor der Reise nach England Einigung
ber die Verhandlungsgegenstnde . . . . 11435.
13. Derselbe an Denselben. Die Sdafrikanische Republik
protestiert gegen die Verffentlichung von Nr. 11433 11436.
15. Der Kolonialminister an den Gouverneur in Kapstadt.
Antwort auf (las Vorige. Motivirt die Publikation . 11437. -
16. Der Gouverneur in Kapstadt an den Kolonialminister.
Prsident Krger scheint geneigt zur Reise nach London 11438.
23. Sdafrikanische Republik. Prsident Krger an den eng-
lischen Gouverneur in Kapstadt. Formulirt seine Be-
dingungen, von denen er die Annahme der Einladung
abbngig macht . . . . . . 11143.
29. Grossbritannien. Der Gouverneur in Kapstadt an den Pr-
sidenten der Sdafrikanischen Republik. Will Krger
eine besondere Sitzung des Volksrats zur nusserung
ber die Einladung berufen? . . . . . 11444.
Mrz 1. Der Gouverneur in Kapstadt an den Kolonialminister.
Prsident Krger setzt die Bedingungen zur Annahme
der Einladung auseinander 11440.
3. Sdafrikanische Republik. Prsident Krger an den englischen
Gouverneur in Kapstadt. Antwort auf das Vorige . 11445.
5. Grossbritannien. Der Kolonialminister an den Gonverneur
in Kapstadt. Antwort auf das Vorige . . . 11441.
S17. Sdafrikanische Republik, Der Prsident an den englischen
Gouverneur in Kapstadt. Krger lehnt die sofortige
Berufung eines Volksrats ab . . . . . 11450.
21. Grossbritannien. Der Gouverneur in Kapstadt an den Kolonial-
minister. Krger will den Volksrat erst im Mai ber
die Einladung befragen . ... . . 11442.
S 26. Der Kolonialminister an den Gouverneur in Kapstadt.
Gerchte iiber kriegerische Vorbereitungen in der Sd-
afrikanischen Republik . . . . . . 11446.
S26. Derselbe an Denselben. Antwort auf Nr. 11442, 43.
Krger soll die Einladung sobald als mglich dem Volks-
rat unterbreiten, widrigenfalls wird sie zurckgezogen 11447.
S27. Der Gouverneur in Kapstadt au den Kolonialminister.
Keine offensiven Rstungen in der Sdafrikanischen Re-
publik und dem Oranje-Freistaat . . . . 11448.
S 27. Sdafrikanische Republik. Die Regierung an den General-
konsul in London. Betrachtungen iiber die politische
Lage . . . . . . . . 11449.
April 25. Grossbritannien, Der Gouverneur in Kapstadt an den Kolonial-
minister. Krger lehnt den Besuch in England fr jetzt ab 11451.
. 27. Der Kolonialminister an den Gouverneur in Kapstadt.
Antwort auf das Vorige . . . . . . 11452.

Zum Angriffe Jamesons auf die Sdafrikanische Republik, (Vgl. Bd. 58.)

1896. Mai 1. Grossbritannien. Der englische Agent bei der Sdafrikanischen
Republik an den Kolonialminister. Berichtet ber seine
Haltung whrend des Jamesonschen Einfalls . . 11453.






llVI Sachlregister Veirhandlungen z wis n Guosiri ien u d St itc.

Ylerhandlungeu zwischen Grlossbritalien 1 eii d Tereiniel
Staaten ber den Grenzstreit mit Venezuela und die Beril
eines Schiedsgerichts 18I96.
189i;. Febr. 27. Vereinigte Staaten. Der Botschafter in London an den
SMinister des Auswrtigen. Die Vereinigten Staaten
| wnschen ein Schiedsgericht in der Veiezielafrage 11454.
27. Grossbritannien, Der Minister des Auswrtigen an den
Botschafter in Washington. Wnscht eine gemischte
Kommission zum Schiedsgerht . . . 1145.
IMrz 1. Der Botschafter in Washington an den Minister des
Auswrtigen. Antwort auf das Vorige. Gegenorschlag
|der Vereinigten Staaten . .. . . . . 1145.
1. Derselbe an Denselben. Dasselbe . . . . 11457.
3. Der Minister des Auswrtigen an den Botschafter der
Vereinigten Staaten. England stimmt dr Verandlung
iiber die Venezuelafrage in Washington zu . . .1158.
5. Der Minister des Auswrtigen an den Botschafter in
Washington. Schlgt einen allgemeinen Vertrag zwischen
England und den Vereinigten Staten auf Einsetzung
eines Schiedsgerichts fr gewisse Flle vor . . 11459.
April 11. Vereinigte Staaten, Der Staatssehkretr de Auswartigen an
den englischen Botschafter. Fordert nderungen an
Salisburys Vorschlag eines allgemeinen Schiedsgerichts 1140.
1Mai 18. Grossbritannien. Der Minister des Auswrtigen an den Bot-
schafter in Washington. Antwort auf Olneys Gegenvor-
schlige zum allgemeinen Schiedsgericht. Verbindung
1mit der Venezuelafrage .. . . .. 11401.
22. Derselbe an Denselben. Schlgt die Grundlage eines Vor-
trages in der Venezuelafrage vor . . . .1146.
Juni 2. Der Botschafter in Washington an den Minister des
Auswrtigen. Olney ist dem Schiedsgericht geneigter 11463.
S5. Der Minister des Answrtigen an den Botschafter in
Washington. England acceptirt Olneys nderungen am
Artikel IV . . . . . . 11 4.
12. Vereinigte Staaten. Der Staatssekretr des Auswrtigen an
den englischen Botschafter in Washington. Antwort anf
Nr. 11463 .... . . . . ,1465.
22. -- I)er Staatssekretr des Ausirtigen an den englischen
Botschafter in Washington. Antwort auf Nr. 11461 11466.

















Grossbritaimiiieii und die Sdafrikanische
Republik 1896.

Verhandlungen ber den Besuch des Prsidenten Krger in London.

Nr. 11431. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Kolonialminister an den
Gouverneur in Kapstadt. Er ist einer Einladung
Krgers nach London gen.eigt.
Sent 3.45 p. m., January 23, 189(.
Telegram. 11 A suggestion has been privately made to me that President Nr. 11431.
Kriiger and others should be invited to London for the purpose of discussing riti
ponding questions. I am favourably disposed towards-the idea if it is certain 23.Jan.1896.
that the President would aeeept the invitation on conditionu that Artiele IV. of
the London Convention is excluded from diseussion. j| In this ease it would be
desirable that you should come to England to take part in the diseussion.


Nr. 11432. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Derselbe an Denselben. Soll
den Prsidenten Krger zu einer Reise nach Eng-
land einladen.
Sent 1.30 p. m., January 27, 1896.
Telegram. [1 I have now reeeived a positive assurauce that President Krger Nr. 11432.
will acceeept an invitation to visit this country. Unless you see strong objections dtoan.
you should therefore give him, in the name of Her Majesty's Governmnent, 27.Jan.1s96.
a cordial invitation to come to England for the purpose of discussing all
questions relating to the security of the South African Republic and the
general welfare of South Africa. |1 You shlould, in order to prevent the possi-
bility of any mistake, repeat the statements made in previous telegram, that
we eannot consent to modify the terms of Artiele IV. of the London Con-
vention, but other matters are open to friendly diseussion. |1 It is hoped that
the President will comne here as the guest of the British Government, who will
make suitable arrangements for his entertainiment. They will also arrange

k) Die folgenden Aktenstcke bis Nr. 11452 entstammen dem Blaubuche Affairs in
the South Africani epublik 1890. (8063.)
Staatsarchiv LX. 1






SGrossritanIien u die Sdafrikpblik .

r. ii. tliat one of Her 3Majesty's vessils shall coey hi to Engand el
ries" Bay or any other port that li may pr1for. ( 11 e ay probably desire t
7, Jmon.s.onc or more of his Council should acompany him; if so thoy are inclu
in the invitation.

Nr. 11433. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Derselbe an Denselbon. Soll
mit Krger fiber die Lage der Auslnder in der
Sdafrikanischen Republik unterhandeln.
Sent 10.12 p. m., February 8, 1S0].
Nr. 11433. Telegram. 1 6th February. No. 3. Am sending yo lng e tch y
Gross- next mail ol1 subjecct of recent occurrences in South African Republic. From
britannien.
6. Feir. is96. considerations of policy I consider it necessary to publish this despatch in
"London Gazette" of 7th February. Following are main points:
First 29 paragraphs arc historical, dealing with rise of Uitlander ele-
ment, their agitation for reforms, movement of Jameson, reasons why it could
not have been anticipated by Her Majesty's Government, steps taken by you
and Her Majesty's Government to stop him, your proceedings at Pretoria,
action of Government of South African elpublic towards Johannesburg and
arrests at that place. Next I indicate position which Her lajesty's Govern-
nient claim to hold towards the South African Republic as regards, first, its
external, second, its internal relations. I go an to refer to principal grie-
vances of Uitlanders: naturalization, electoral francise, public instrutin,
finance, right of public meeting, Government monopolies, labour questions,
police force, &c. As regards naturalization and electoral franchise I adopt
3rd to 9th paragraphs of my predecessor's despatch "B," 19th October 1814,
which paragraphs I am with bis consent about to publish. I express hope
that concessions will be made on these points which will remove just causcs
of discontent and disarm agitation. I proceed to suggest for President's con-
siderations as a possible solution of the matter a plan by whieh it might
be possible to meet complaints of Ultlanders without endangering stability
of Republic. Principal features are as follows: whole of Rand distriet to
have a modified local autonomy with powers of legislation on purely local
matters subject to veto of Govermiiient of South African Republic, and self-
taxation subject to annual payment of fixed contribution to Gove ranent. Thiere
to be a separate superior Court of Law, as in Eastern Province and at Kimber-
ley, for the distriet, which should also control its civil police force, p blic
instruction, management of mines, and other -internal economy. Government
of South African Republic would be entitled to maintain reasonable safeguards
against revolutionary intrigues or storage of arms for treasonable purposes in
distriet. Inhabitahts of the autonomous distriet not to avre voice in general
legislature or Executive or Presidential election. I mention that, if possible

) Nr. 10913.






rossbrit und die dafriLkanische Repblik 189. 3

Sagreeble to the President, I should be glad to discuss various questions Nr. 1-243.
w him in person, bht if not rely 011 you to carry ou negotiations. I con- nrn.o
clude by saying that it would be improper for me to express an opinion o011 Feb. 1o 6.
Jareson's action, the matter being sub judice. (Sunnmary of despaltch ends.)
Explain to President of South African Republic that I feel it necessary to
make public this despatch before its receipt by you, and urge himr to keep
an opcu mind on the subject until the full text is before him. It is important
to guard against unauthorized and incomplete versions which may be sent to
Soutt Africa. 1 am more than ever convinced that a personal interchange
of views with the President would result in a settlement satisfactory to all.

N'. 11434. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Die Minister der Kapkolonie
an den Gouverneur. Schlagen eine Zusammenkunft
zwischen Krger und Chamberlain vor.*)
In addressing bis Excellency the Governor upon the subject referred to Nr. 11434.
in this minute, Ministers desire to assure his Excellency that they have not tGros-
the slightest intention of trespassing in any degree upon the functions of the 21.Jan.s896.
High Commissioner, and it is only on account of the very serious state of
affairs prevailing in this Colony, as well as the rest of South Africa, conse-
quent upon receut occurrences in the South African Republic, that they venture
to submit the following proposal for his Excellcncy's consideration. || Ministers
are of opinion that a material advance would be made towards the restoration
of harmonious action between the Colony and the neighbouring Republies, and
towards the settlement of weighty matters affeeting the relationship of Great
Britain and the South African Republic, if a meeting could be arranged bet-
ween the Right Ilonourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies and bis
I onor the President of the South African Republic. [I Ministers would there-
fore suggest that his Excellency communicate this proposal to Mr. Chamberlain,
and advise that he invite the President of the South African Republic, accom-
panied by the Chief Justice of that State, to visit England, for the purpose
indicatcd, as Ministers are in possession of information which leads them to
believe that such an invitation would be cordially accepted.
January 21. 1896. J. Gordon Sprigg.

Nr. 11435. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Gouverneur in Kapstadt
an den Kolonialminister. Krger fordert vor der
Reise nach England Einigung ber die Verhandlungs-
gegenstnde.
Received 10.5 p. m., February 10, 1896.
Telegram. || lOth February. No. 3. I have received a telegram in Dutch Nr. 11435.
from President of South African Republic in reply to your invitation to Eng- bri n.
10. Feb. 1856.
) Dieses Schreiben erhielt Chamberlain durch Robinson am 10. Februar. Red.
1*






4 Grossbritannien und die Sdafrik Rpblik 1

Nr. 1145. land, of which tlihe following is a translation: |Bel isi: Fbruary have
r e-l rueoived the friendly invitation of Hlier Majesty's Goverminent tliroi your

In order to give me- confidence to consult the iHonourable First Volksrad
whether permission and instruction will be given inc to leave the eountry,
understanding must naturally first be arrived at as to which points will not
then be discussed [sie:], so that I can lay these before the Volksraad
for consideration and decision. 1 trust Her Majesty's Goveriment will show
itself disposed to discuss at the same time the point on which they
say no modification can be made, after consideration of my letter, ihich
by an exposition of matters will show the tendency of this telegram, and will
follow as soon as possible."-Ends. The telegram is not very clear, but 1
gather from it that a letter is to follow, urging a reconsideration of the
decision to exclude from discussion Article IV. of the London Convention
of 1884.


Nr. 11436. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Derselbc an Denselben. Die
Sdafrikanische Republik protestirt gegen die Ver-
ffentlichung von Nr. 11433.
Received 3.30 p. m., February 13, 1896.
Nr. 11436. Tclegram. 13 th February. No. 1. Referring to your telegram of
britaniesn 6th February No. 3, 1 have recei.ved. following from British Agent ini the
13. Feb.189. South African Republic: Begins. "2tl February. I have received Go V -
ment reply to summary of Seeretary of State for the Colonies' Despateh, and,
as this reply will probably be published in to-day's 'Staats Courant,' I deCm
it advisable to wire the full text in Dutch and lose no tiime by traslating it
lost the newspapers publish a summary in Capetown before the information
reaches your Excellency."-- Ends.
Here begins Dutch reply, whicb I have had translated, and reads as
follows: I1 Translation begins: "Honourable Sir,-I am instructed to acknowledge
receipt of your letter, dated 8th] February, enclsing copy of a telegram
received by you from High Commnissioner, transmitting copy of a telegram from
Secretary of State for the Colonies to his Excellency. This telegram con-
tains the brief summary -of a Despatch from Secretary of State for the Co-
lonies to bis Excellency High Commissioner withli reference to the occurreces
which recently took place in Soutli African Republic. In the said telegramn
the hope is expressed by Secretary of State for the Colonies that, although
the Despatch has been published in the London 'Staats Courant,' President of
the South African Republic will keep an open opinion on this sibject until
Despatch is delivered to hirn. However much President of the South African
Republic might be disposed to comply with this request, it has by anticipation
become impossible for himrn through the prior publication of the said De satch






Grossbri ion nd die dfrianiscle Republik 18. 5

in London. The Gvierienit, thoug awaiting arrival of that Despatch from Nr. 11436.
Her Majesty's Government, fels itself now already bohand to remnark that it Gross-
britannion.
considers it undesirable and inadvisable to give publicity beforehand to thea3.Feb.i896.
position which the British Cabinet intends to be able to take up, in manner
such as has now taken place. The position of affairs has, in opinion of the
Governmrent, been greatly complieated thereby, and the Government is com-
pelled not only to remark that it cannot tolerate any interference or meddling,
however [?] well meant, in internal affairs of which mention is made in the
said telegram and Despatch from Secretary of State but it is also further
comnpelled to make this letter public through medium of 'Staats Courant.'
The endeavours thus far used by the Government to obtain in a just and
peaefiul manler the ultimate settlement of a good understanding between South
African Republie and England will, in its opinion, be made mnuch more diffi-
cult, to the great danger of the rest and peace not only of Republic but of
the whole of South Africa, by arousing afresh and ineiting to disturbance the
minds of the inhabitants. (Signed) Van Boeschoten, Acting State Seeretary."-
Translation Ends.


Nr. 11437. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Kolonialminister an den
Gouverneur in Kapstadt. Antwort auf das Vorige.
Motivirt die Publikation.
Sent 1 a. m., February 15, 1896.
Telegram. || 14th February. No. 3. Referring to your telegram of Nr. 11437.
13tlh February, No. 1,*) communicate withl President of South African Republic Gross-
'britannien.
in the sense of what follows. || Express my regret that he should have been 15Fe..iS1.
annoyed by publication of my Despatch. My object was to place House of
Commons in possession of facts and of policy of Her Majesty's Government.
1 did not suppose that he would object, as it contains nothing new to hirn
except suggestion as to local autonomy. As to this point, we have to deal
with demand of majority of population for franchise and for a fair proportion
of political power, neither of which they possess at present. One answer
hitlierto given by supporters of Government of the South African Republic
is that it would be suicidal to grant these, as the first use which the majority
would make of the franchise would be to overturn the existing Government
and to set up another of their own making. I thought that there was some
force in this objection, and therefore proposed in my Despatch an alternative
suggestion which would at any rate meet that difficulty. I do not, however,
attach any importance to the proposal, which was put forward tentatively
to meet a particular object, and, if it is not well reeeived by either Uitlanders
or President of the Sonth African Republic, Her Majesty's Government liave
not the slightest intention to press it. All they ask in that rase would be

) Nr. 13436.







SGrossitanien nd dio Sdfrik Republik 1896.

l, 1147. that President will himself suggest some alternative. Turning to noter si-
Go ject, wis to remove some Troos impesio Mrg hodes
I i85. to Colonial Office which have found expresion here, because such matter are
often telegraphed to South African Republie and made use of by persons
are friends neither to this country nor to South Afric gnerally. It a
been suggested that my Despatch was in some way iflueneed by what pas
between me and jMr. Rhodes. The fact is tbat it was finished and signed
before I saw himrn. did not show it to him. He was not aware of it till
after publication. No alteration was made in it in consequenee of his visit.
T am alone responsible for it. Another point is that neither nor er
Majesty's Government had anything to d .o with decision of Mr. Rhodes to
return to South Africa. This was regarded by us as a matter entirely for
himrn, and 1 offered him no advice or opinion on it. Ile told me he intended
to return with sole objcct of developing Rhodesia. A few weeks ago he was
the most powerful man in South Africa, not only as. being Managing Director
of the British South Africa Company, hut as Prime Minister of the Cape and
as the British statesman who had been most conspicnously successful in
bringing together the two races and in securing a inited support from them
in his policy. Ile had, morcover, under his control all the forces and resources
of the British South Africa Company. Now he is no longer in offiee and
does not control a single disciplined policeman. Under these eircumstances
his return to South Africa cannot cause alarm, as, whatever the snspicions
of him entertained by the Government of the South African .1epnblic, it is
absolutely impossible for him to do mischief. 1 1 regret the terms of the
President's message forwardcd in your telegram, for I think that they are
due to a misapprehension. I have approached him in this matter as a friend
to hirn and the Republic. No trne friend will. ounsel a refusal to muet the
legitimate grievances of a majority of the population, and as a friend I have
counselled himrn to voluntarily concede something to their elaims. I do not
consider that the President should resent this, but, in any case, I shall con-
tinue to endeavour by every legitimate means to secure that justice which
hitherto has been denied. || As regards the President's visit, 1 ave conveyed
a cordial invitation to him, and if he is pleased to accept it he will be re-
ceived not only by Her Majesty's Government but hy all parties in this
country with the respect due to bis position and character. If he should
come, I believe personal negotiation would clear away misunderstanding and
pave way to a settlement of the difficult questions that still remain the sub-
ject of negotiation. The foregoing is the substnce of what I said on these
topics in the House of Commons in the evening of 13th February, with
general appiroval.






o it undo u di S(Udafrikanische Republik 1839. 7

Nr. 11438. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Gouverneur in Kapstadt
an den Kolonialminister. Prsident Krger, scheint
geneigt zur Reise nach London.
Received 10.55 a. m., Febrnary 16, 1896.
Telegram. 16 th February. No. 2. Your telegram of 14th February, Nr. 11438
N 3, received and sent on to British Agent in the South African Republic oirin.
to be ianded to President of South African Republic. |1 I have a private aind l.Feb.1896.
very friendly letter from President of the South African Republic, written
since receipt by him of your message of 6th February, in which he writes
as if he had quite determined to visit England. I am told that the Hollanders
about him are averse to his acceptance of your invitation, but that he himself
strongly wishes to go, and will do so if the Volksraad give him leave.

Nr. 11439. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Gouverneur in Kapstadt
an den Prsidenten der Sdafrikanischen Republik.
Ladet ihn zu einer Reise nach London ein.
Government House,.Cape Town, January 28, 1896.
Sir 1 I am directed by Her Majesty's Government to tender to your HIo- Nr. 11439.
nour a cordial invitation to visit England, with a view of discussing with them Gross-
all those questions which relate to the security of the South African Republice28.an.i89.
and the general welfare of South Africa. 11 I am to add that, although Her
Majesty's Government cannot consent to modify Article 4 of the London Con-
vention, other matters are open to friendly discussion. jj Her Majesty's Govern-
ment hope that your Honour will come as the guest of the British Govern-
ment, who will make suitable arrangements for your entertainment, and will
also arrange for one of Her Majesty's ships to convey you to England from
Delagoa Bay or any other port preferred by you. 1 Your IHonour may pro-
bably desire to be accompanied by one or more of your Executive Council
(or other officials) and, if so, the invitation extends to them also. 1| It affords
nie much pleasure to be the medium of conveying this invitation to your
IHonour, and I trust that, should you see your way to accept it, the result of
your visit may prove beneficial to the whole of South Africa.
I have, &c.
Hercules Robinson, High Commissioner.

Nr. 11440. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Gouverneur in Kapstadt
an den Kolonialminister. Prsident Krger setzt
die Bedingungen zur Annahme der Einladung aus-
einander.
Received 10.50 p, m., March 1, 1896.
Telegram. i| 1st March. No. 1. Have received from President of South Nr. 11440.
African Repnblie the Despatch in reply to your invitation promised by his Gross
) hmbrin ielt eie Aschrift hiervo am G. F r. Red. britannien.
)i-1rielt eine Abshrift hiervon am 26. Febrnar. Red. 1. 1 1zS90 .






8 Grossbritannien ad die Sdafrikanische Republik 1896.

nr. n14o. telegram of Sth February forwarded in mine of 1 ebruary No. 3. 11 Presi-
Gross-
tnnien dent of South African 11epubic commenees by reciting bis telegram of 8th
1rz 1. February; and, before speifyg in detail the points w.ich he d.esires to dis-
cuss, observes that his object is to pave way far a friendly Liscussion, and
although ihe asks for no positive or direct assent to the desires expressed,
he nevertheless, to prevent misunderstanding, asks for an assurance that they
will be taken into the most mature cansideration, with flthie earnest desire to
comply with bis wishes. 1his assurance he considers reasonable, looking to
his advanced age and the public and personal inonvnienee attending his
absence, and without such assurance the olksraad in all probability wnould
not grant its eonsent. Further, the Despatch has in view a friendly expla-
nation of matters, and does not profess to be a formal summing-up of claims
or demands which Souti African Republic believes itself cntitled to make,
and therefore the letter is written withont prcjudice as regards an eventual
statement in detail of lawful rights, which the Gover ment will resort to if a
friendly discussion of matters should fail. Lastly, he states that your tele-
grain of 6th February, received after his Despatoh of Sth February, made hin
fear it would he impossible for him to visit England. The geneial tendency
of your telegram made hirn fear tbat an interferencc with internal matters was
intended, but since receipt of your reply to his telegram of 12ti Febriiuary
he observes with satisfaction that that fear was not justified, and hic again
declares himself prepared to accept invitation. Althougli the Goverment
could not tolerate interference with its internal relations, and te official dis-
cussion of affairs with the object of requiring changes therein will bave ta
be avoided, at the same time, private hints from statesmien of cxperience in
the true interests of the country and its independence i always bh warmly
appreeiated( from whliatever side they may come. 1 With thiese prefatory rem iart-ks
he proceeds to sum up the poiiints which, in bis opinion, should he briougiht
under discussion.
First, withdrawal of London C(onveniition of 1884, hccause in several
respects it has virtually ceased to exist, because in otber respets it has na
rmore eause for existence, because it is injurious to dignit y in [ii? of] independent
Ttepublic, because the continual arguments [? on] the question of suzeraioty,
which since the conclusion of London Gonvention of 1884 no longer exists,
are used as a pretext, especially by a libellous press, for ineiting wbite and
black against the Republic, and for bringing abot Inisunderstanding hetween
England and Southli African Repubic. Il. the discussion of itdrawal of
London Convention of 1884, Article Na. IV. slihould naturally ot, e kept bach.i
11c believes lritish Governmient have dec(,ided to make ntio alteration in this
Artiele on false representation tbhat Government of South African Republic
have sought proteetion of otlier Powers. He asserts there is nothing further
from his thoughts than the proteetion of any foreign Power, which he will
never seek. Neither ie nor bis people will tolerate an interference with their






Grossbritaninien und die Sdafrikanische Republik 1896. 9

internal relations from any Power whatever, and hlie is willing to give the Nr. 11440.
necessary assura ces for this in order that Her Majesty's Government need Gross-
britannien.
have no fear that Her Majesty's interests in South Africa will be injured. jj i.nrz 1t s.
Secondly, the substitution should be discussed of any treaties of peace,
friendship, and commerce in lieu of London Convention of 1884, by which
the existing privileges of England in the dominion of commerce and inter-
course and the interests of British subjects in South African Republie will be
guaranteed on the footing of the most favoured nation, and herein he would
be prepared to go to the utmost of what can reasonably be asked. || Thirdly,
will have to be discussed the required guarantees against a repetition of
violation of territory proceeding from territory of British South Africa Com-
pany or the Cape, and of disturbing military operations and unlawful military,
or police, or even private movements on border of South African Republic. ||
Fourthly, should be discussed compensation for direct and indirect injury to
be given, or cansed to' be given, by England for the recent raid. The amount
to be demanded will, if required, be given before his departure for England.
These are the four points on which President of South African Republic
considers discussion indispensable, but there are three others which he would
very much like to have discussed, in reference to which, however, le does
not insist on an assurance beforehand. They are:- jj. First, final settlement
of Swaziland question, with a view to its becoming part of South African
Republic. Secondly, in connection with Swazilad, a regulation favonrable to
South Afriean Republic as regards disposition of Zambaan's territory and
Umbegesa's. And, thirdly, revocation of charter of British South Africa
Company, which, if it does not take place, will continne a threatened danger
to the peace of South African Republic, and thereby also to whole of South
Africa. 1| The concluding four paragraphs of the Despatch contain expressions
of President of South African Republic's opinion that all bis desires put
forward are fair, and that when Her Majesty's Government take into con-
sideration the attitude which he and people of South African Republic have
taken up1) in connection with the recent raid, in spite of all the calumny and
false reports, they will comply with his wishes, in the interests of South
African Republic and also of England. Tliis will pave way for the making
of a firm bond of friendship which should exist if South Africa is to meet a
prosperons future. || He declares himself prepared for a voluntary and hearty
co-operation, and believes that in this he is interpreter of every true Afri-
kander. He will be pleased to receive the views of Her Mfajesty's Govern-
inent, in order that he may submit the matter for decision of his Volksraad. |1
The foregoing is a r6sume of a Despatch which extends over eleven type-
written pages, but I think no material point has been overlooked.







10 Grossbritannien uni die Sidafrikanische Republik

Nr. 1144 1. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Kolonialminister an den
Gouverneur in Kapstadt.. Antwort auf das orige.
Sent 9.5 p. inm, March 5,
Nr. n441. Telegram. jj 5th March. No. 5. Your telegram No. 1 of Ist instnt
1 Gross-
britannien. received. ]| Her 1\Majesty's Government reciprocate frieifdly assurane ofPresideut
5a. rz 196. of South African Republie, and believe that if he aceepts invittion to visit
England a satisfactory settlement of all pending questions will be possible.
At the same time, his Honour must not be allowed to undergo the fatigfe
and inconvenience of a journey to London without fully understanding the
views of Her Majesty's Government. | In the Despatch received from the
President of the South African Republie, of which you send me a telegraphic
summary, I observe that his Honour informs you that if he came to Enlad
he could not tolerate interference with the internal relations of the Republic,
and that official discussion of affairs internal to the South African Republie
with the object of requiring changes therein must be avoided. As, however,
no final and satisfactory settlement can be made which does not include a
remedy of admitted grievances, I hope that I may assume that his Honour
will himself offer proposals with this object, and that these proposals may be
the subject of friendly discussion. j On this supposition I shall proceed to
offer certain observations on the suggestions for discussion put forward by
his Honour. |i Her Majesty's Government have no objection to discuss the
provisions of a new convention or treaty for commercial and other purposes
more adapted to all the circumstances of the present moment than the Con-
vention of 1884, but his Honour must clearly uunderstand that Article IV. of
the existing convention must form a part of any such new convention or
treaty, and on this point Her Majesty's Government cannot depart from the
statements already made to the President on this subject. | I1 shall be willing,
as part of the general settlement, to give a complete guarantee on behalf of
IHer Majesty's Government to the South African Republic against any attackl
upon its independence either from within any part of British dominions or
from the territory of a foreign state.
With regard to the question of compensation for the recent raid, Iler
IMajesty's Government have in earlier telegrams stated that they will be pre-
pared to entertain any reasonable demands put forward by his Honour on
behalf of the South African Republic, but in formulating these demands I1
have no doubt that his Honour will give due weight to the fact, which must
be fresh in his recollection, that Her Majesty's Government have never
received any compensation for the serious expense to which they have on
several occasions been put by raids made by subjects of the South African
Republic. I refer to the incursions of freebooters into the Land of Goshen,
Stellaland, Zululand, &c., which were eertainly a breach of the Convention,
and required the repudiation of the Government from whose territories they







br t rossiriteai und die Sdiafrikanische Republik 1896. 11

proceeded as much as Dr. Jameson's recent raid. ji Her Majesty's Government Nr. 11441.
... .. .Gross-
will be ready to discuss the otler matters referred to, on the understanding britanien.
indieated in the President's letter that they are not asked beforehand to5.u mrzlj'.
assent to the c.anges indicated, but only to consider the President's opinious
with a view to eome to an agreement. On the other hand, IHer Majesty's
Government expect that his Honour will be ready to discuss witl them all
matters affecting the future security of the Republic and the general welfare
of South Africa, and they trust that the discussion will be carried on in a
spirit of reciprocal conciliation. They think it necessary to add that in the
President's letter he refers only to the concessions which he desires to obtain
from Her Majesty's Government, and that he offers nothing in returu except
what they already possess under the existing Convention of 1884, which was
intended to secure the benefits of most-favoured-nation treatment and to
exclude the possibility of such interference by a foreign Power as would be
involved in a Protectorate. 1 I feel sure that his Honour does not contemplate
negotiations on so one-sided a basis, and 1 trust that he will be prepared on
behalf of bis Government to meet us on the only possible basis of a satis-
factory settlement, namely, full discussion and mutual concessions.


Nr. 11442. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Gouverneur in Kapstadt
an den Kolonialminister. Krger will den Volksrat
erst im Mai ber die Einladung befragen.
Received 4,10 p. m., March 21, 1896.
Telegram. || 21st March. No. 1. I have received reply from President Nr. 1144e.
of the Soutl African Republic to your telegram of 5th March, No. 5. bitanion.
Ile states it grieves hirn more than he can express to declare that your 2.MssISzo.
message has caused him deep disappointment, and that by .reason of its
contents he cannot convene a special session of Volksraad of the South African
Republic at once to obtain permission to visit England. He is convinced that
people of South African Republic would disapprove of such an unusual step,
seeing that reply of Her Majesty's Government differs in so many respects
from what he has submitted. This difference consists mainly in the discussion
or treatment of the internal affairs of the South African Republic which IHer
Majesty's Government appears to desire, but to which he cannot give his
consent as head of an independent State. He would appreciate, as already
stated, the giving of private hints, in the interest and confirmation of the
independence of the country, but he cannot lend a helping hand to giving by
another way an opening to the discussion of internal affairs which would in-
volve the acknowledgment of the principle that the right exists. || There is
further a very important difference with reference to clause 4 of London
Convention of 1844 which Her Majesty's Government wish should form part
of a new convention or Treaty. 1He speaks of a substitution of the Convention






12 Grosshritanuien und die Sfdafrikanische Republik LSG.

Nr. 11442. by a treaty of peace, amity, and commerce, on the basis of the most-faured-
Gross-D
britnniaen. nation, while in the telegraphie CommuniCation under reply mention was niad
2lM.rzinSS. of a new convention or a treaty for commercial or other purposes. Pr
of the South African Republic refers to other minor differences, and remarks
that it is not clear to him what is meant by the giing of conessios from his
side. As to matter of compensation, he does not agree with comparison
made by you betweeni Jameson's raid and the part taken by subjeets of South
African Republic in former days in Goshen, Stellaland, and Zululand
questions. | The main question nw is, what steps can still be taken to make
an amicable discussion of affairs in England possible. Altliough he annot
convene a speeial session, he will submit correspondenee to Yolksraad of the
South African Republic in its ordinary session in May, and nothing would be
more agreeable to him than that Her Mlajesty's Governient shonld inform him
of its further views before that session commenees.


Nr. 11 :443. SDAFRIKAN. REPUBLIK.) Prsident Krger an
den englischen Gouverneur in Kapstadt. Fornulirt
seine Bedingungen, von denen er die Annahm der
Einladung abhngig macht.
Office for Foreign Affairs, Government Office, Pretoria, February 25, 1896.
Nr. 11443. Your Excellency, 1I HAVE the honour to forward herewith to yoar
Sdafrikan. Excellency the letter which I promised by my telcgram of the Sth instiant,
Republik.
25.tFeb.189.as follows:-- |1 "I have received the cordial invitation of Her Majesty's
Government per your Exeellency's letter of the 28th ultimo, and am p ared
to come to England. In order to give me the liberty to let the Ilonourable
'Volksraad' jndge whether permission and power to act will be given !ne to go
out of the country an understanding must, of course, first be come to as to
what points wrill be discussed or not, so thiat I may lay those points before 1w
Volksraad for deliberation and resolution. I am of opinion that Her ajesty's
Government will show itself disposed likewise to discuss the point on which
it says that no modification can be brought about, after considering iny letter
which will set forth in detail matters referred to in this telegram and which
will follow as soon as possible."
In connexion with what follows, I have underlined several phrases to
which I take the liberty spceially to direct your Excelleney's attention, and
I now proceed to give in detail the points which I am disposed to diseuss.
At the commencement, I wish to observe that the objeet of this letter is to
pave the way for a friendly discussion of the matters herein mentioned, in
order to arrive at a satisfactory solution, and further that, although as yet
T desire no positive and direct assent to the desires expresses herein, I would,
nevertheless, to prevent a misunderstanding, desire to have an assurance that
*) Cliamnerlain emlpfing diesen Brief durch Rohinson am 2. Mirz. Ied.






uGrosssie in und die bdafrikanische Republik 196. 13

they will be taken into the most mature consideration with the earnest Nr. n143.
endeavour and the sincere desire to comply with my wishls. Thie desire to sRe .dik.
receive this assurance will be respeeted by your Excelleney and Her Majesty's 25. Feb.1896.
| Goveriment as reasonable, when I say that, eonsidering espeeially my ad-
vanced age and the unavoidable delay, owing to my absenee, in the trans-
action of matters affeeting the highest State interests, I would, with diffieulty,
be able to make the sacrifice in going only to discuss matters without arriving
at the desired result, and it is evident that if the assurance referred to by
mie annot be given by Her Majesty's Government, in all probability the
Ilonourable Volksraad would not grant its consent and eommission. || Further-
more, as this letter has in view a friendly explanation of matters, and there-
fore does not pretend to be a formal summing up of claims or demands,
which the Republie, on good grounds, believes itself eutitled to make, it is
not as yet necessary fully to unfold them, and therefore too it must be fairly
eonsidered that the eontents of this letter do not establish a prejudiee against
an eventual statement in detail of lawful rights to whieh this Government
will only then take its refuge if a friendly diseussion and settlement of
matters should fail, which, as I will not need to assure Her Majesty's Govern-
ment, I will be most deeply grieved at. j[ Lastly, let me still first be allowed
to state that I eannot hide from myself the fact that tle telegram of the
Right Honourable the Secretary of State of tle 6th February, reeeived by mc
after the Despateh of mine which is confirmed at the beginning of this letter,
has made me fear that it would be made impossible for me to persist in my
plan of eoming to England. Tlie general tendeney of tlat telegram, streng-
tliened by the following expression occurring therein, "Next division indieates
"position which Her Majesty's Government elaim to hold toward South Africai
,Republic as regards, first, its internal, second, its external, relations," made
me fear that an interference in internal matters was intended, for which
reason then, too, the Goverument eonsidered itself bound to send its Despatch
of the 12th instant. Sinee that 1 have hereupon received tlie telegraphic
reply of the Right Ilonourable the Secretary of State. Therein I observe
with satisfaction that my fear was not justified. In this confidence I now
again decelare myself perfectly prepared to accept the invitation issued by Her
Majesty's Government, beeause, in spite of the diffieulties above mentioned,
I wish to spare no endeavours and do not wish my position as head of the
State to deter me from doing for my beloved State all that ean materially
advanee her interests in a friendly manner. |1 Although, as already said, the
Goveriiment could tolerate no interference in its internal relations and the
official diseussion of affairs with the object of requiring ehanges therein will
have to be avoided, 011n the other hand I wish it to be understood that private
hints given by statesmen of experience in the true interest of the country and
its independenee will always be warmly appreciated by nie, from whatever
side they eome.






14 Grossbritanmin undt dic Suidfrikanische p 9li 6.

Nr. 113iiu Going over to a suminiii up of the points which, in mny opiio, shonld
;1ld4frihkan. be brought under discussion, 1 wish to mention in the first place:
1(epuMtl.
ii5.Feb.i s. 1. Thl superseding of the Convention of London with the eye, amiongst
otliers, on the violation of the territory of thie South African Republi:
becanuse in several respects it has already virtually eeased to exist; becaue
in other respects it has no more cuse for existenee; because it is injurious
to the dignity of an independent Republie; because the very name and the
continnal argmients on the question of snzerainty, which sinee the eonuelsion
of this Couvention no longer exists, are used as a pretext, especially by a
libellous press, for wilfully inciting both -white and coloured peopl against
the lawful autbority of the Republic; for intentionally bringing about mis-
understanding and false relation between England and the Republic, whereby
in this manner the interests of both countries and of their citizens and sub-
jects are prejudiced and the peaceful development of the Republie is
opposed. |j In the discussion of the withdrawal of ithe Convention as a whole,
Artiele IV. should naturally not be kept back. I have reason to believe that
the British Governmeut has come to the decision to make no alteration in this
on account of false representations made to it and lying reports spread by
the press and otherwise with a certain objeet, to the effect that the Govern-
ment of the Republic has called in, er sought, the protection of other Powers.
While I thankfully acknowledge and will ever acknowledge the sympathy of
otlier Powers or their subjects, and the conduct of the last iamed has in
the light of the trials recently passed through, on the whole offered a favou-
rable contrast to that of British subjects, there is nevertheless nothing further
from my thoughts than to strive for the protection of a foreign Power, iwhich
1 will never even seek. Neither I nor the people of the Republic will
tolerate an interference with the internal relations from any power whatever
and I am prepared, if the course proposed by me be adopted, to give the
necessary assurances for this, in order that Her British Majesty's Goveranent
nced have no fear that Her interests in South Africa should be injured.
2. Further should be discussed the superseding of the Convention by a
treaty of peace, commerce and friendship, by which the existing privileges of
England in the dominion of commerce and intercourse and the interests of
British subjects in the Repnblic will be satisfactorily guaranteed on the
footing of the most-favoured-nation, and herein I would be prepared to go to
the utmost of what can reasonably be asked.
3. Then the necessary guarantees will have to be given against a re-
petition of the violation of territory out of the territory of the Chartered
Company or the Cape Colony, and of disturbing military operations and
unlawful military or police or even private movements on the borders of
the Republie.
4. Further should be discussed the. cornpensation for direct and in-
direct injury to be given by England for and by reason of the incursion that






b ri ssbrite ien und die Sulafriklanischie Republik 1896. 15

recently took place. 1[ The reasons for this are evident and uced no argument. Nr. 11443.
The amiiount to bec demanded it is impossible as yet to determine, but, if Safrka,.
required, it can still be given before my departure to England. 25.Feb.i89s.
5. I would, although in the following respects I would not insist
beforchand on an assurance such as that intended with regard to the above-
mentioiicd points, nevertheless wish to request the earnest consideration of a
final settlement of the Swaziland question, in this sense, that that country
shall liencefortli become a part of the Ropublic. It is clear that, by this,
law and order will be advanced, that an interference of adventurers, who can
so casily exercise their influence on an uncivilised nation, will be chccked,
and tlat this regulation, as desired by me, will appear to be in the interests
of both Swaziland and the Republic. In connexion with this could theon come,
after discussion, a regulation favourable to the Republic as regards the dis-
position of the territories of Zambaan and Umbegesa.
6. Further, I would very much like to have discusscd the revocation of
the charter of the Chartered Company, which, if this does not take place,
will continue to be a threatening danger to the quiet and peace of the
Republic and thereby also to the whole South Africa.
I am of opinion that all the above desires are fair and just and that
HIer Majesty's Government, when, in addition to the reasons above given, it
takes into consideration the attitude which I and the people of thec Republic
have taken up towards Her Majesty's Government, in spite of the continual
provocation, in spite of all the calumny and the spreading of heaven-provoking
lies and false reports, as they have so clearly appeared in all relations in
connection with the ineursion; that, I say, Her Majesty's Government will not
hesitate to comply with my wishes, in the interests of the Republic, but even
in that of England too, for by this the shaken confidence will be re-esta-
blished in this country and in the whole South Africa. By this the way will
be paved for harmonious co-operation, for the advancement of mutual interests,
for the making of a firm bond of friendship which should exist if South
Africa is to meet a prosperous future, a time of permanent'peace and quiet. [|
I declare myself prepared, if it is made possible for me, not for a forced but
for a voluntary and liearty co-operation, and I am of opinion that I can say
with some certainty that in this I am the interpreter of every true Afri-
kander. j| Mutual trust must be the basis of our political prineiples, and that
trust the Republic on -its side will never put to shame. | I will be pleased to
reccive the views of Her Majesty's Government on the points herein brought
forward, in order that I may be enabled to bring the matter for decision
before tlhe Honourable Volksraad.
With renewed protestations of my peculiar esteem,
I am, &c.
S. J. P. Krger, State President.









Nr. 11444. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Gouverneur in Kapst t
an den Prsidenten der Stidafrikanischen Republik.
Will Krger eine besondere Sitzung des Volksrats
zur usserung ber die Einladung berufen?
Nr. 11444. Telegram. 29th February. I have reeeived yonr Honour's official letter
llitan ien. of 25th instant. May I enquire whether in the event of the reply of Her
o'9.Feb.1896. Majesty's Government being satisfactory you would summnon a special session
of the Volksraad to obtain leave or await the regular session in May next?
I ask because in the former case I should telegraph your Ilonour's Despatch
in extenso, whilst in the latter I would forward it by post for the conside-
ration of Her Majesty's Government.


Nr. 11445. SDAFRIKAN. REPUBLIK. Prsident Krger au
den englischen Gouverneur in Kapstadt. Antwort
auf das Vorige.
Nr. 11445. Telegram. jj 3.3.96. In answer to your Excellency's telegram of
sedafrikan. 29th of February, for which I thank your Excellency, I wish to inforim yon :
Republik. .
3. Mbrz s186.that if the answer of Her Majesty's Government is of such a nature that it
is considered satisfactory by ine for submission to the Volksraad, I will
immediately procecd to (the summoning of) summon a special session of the
Volksraad provided that on receipt of the answer, which 1 will naturally
receive in extenso, the time which must then still elapse till the 4th of 3lay,
being the cominencement of the ordinary session, is not too short to do so.
It is evident that the sumumons of a special session would be unnecessary if
the ordinary session had to follow too soon on it.



Nr. 11446. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Kolonialminister an den
Gouverneur in Kapstadt. Gerchte ber kriegerische
Vorbereitungen in der Sdafrikanischen Republik.
Sent 4.35 p. m., March 26, 1896.
Nr. M1144. Telegram. il 26th March. No. 3. Alarming reports arrived by cable
Gross- from several private sources as to attitude of burghers, of which we ave
|ll .MrzlS6. heard nothing from you or De Wet. lt is stated that they are determined
to proclaim iudependauce and cancel Convention, and that military preparations
ar going on011 in Transvaal, Orange Free State, aud Cape Colony. Should any
weight be given to these statements? I| s there any truth in report of new
defensive and offensive alliances between Transvaal and Orange Free State?






rossbrii n und.die lia.tfril nische Republik 189G. 17

Nr. 11447. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Derselbe an Denselben. Ant-
wort auf Nr. 11442, 43. Krger soll die Einladung
sobald als mglich dem Volksrat unterbreiten,
widrigenfalls wird sie zurckgezogen.

Sent 6.55 p. m., March 26, 1896.
Telegram. j| 2th March. No. 4. Your telegram No. 1 of 21st Marh Nr. 11447.
received. Her Majesty's Governnent regret that President has given no britannien.
definite reply to invitation to visit England which was sent to him on sn26.Mz1896.
28th January.
This invitation was the result of private information conveyed to Her
Majesty's Government that the President was desirous of arranging with them
a settlement of all differences, and of placing on a permanent and friendly
basis the relations between the United Kingdom and the South African
Republic. )| Before forwarding the invitation, Her Majesty's Government knew
that bis iHonour was in full possession of their opinion, that no arrangement
can be satisfactory or complete which does not include a fair settlement of
those grievances of the Uitlander population which have been recognized by
the general public opinion of South Africa, and which liave been the cause
of discontent and agitation in the past, and are likely-unless remedied-to
lead to further disturbances in future. 1| Her lMajesty's Government also took
care to satisfy themselves that the President had been made aware that they
were not prepared to modify in any way the provisions of Article IV. of the
Convention of 1884, and this was again made clear in the formal invitation
to visit England. il Under these circumstances, it was with great surprise that
HIer Majesty's Government learnt from the Despateh of the President of
25th February that bis Honour objected to discuss the question of the reforms
asked for by the Uitlanders, and that he desired to propose withdrawal of
Article IV. of the Convention, and Her Majesty's Government regret that they
were not informed of his Honour's views on the subject at an earlier date,
as they would not have felt justified in inviting the President to encounter
the fatigue of a journey to this country if they had not been led to believe
that he was in agreement with them as to the general object of such a
visit. | In their view, Her Majesty's Government were -able to offer a complete
guarantee in the future to the South African Republic against any attak upon
its independence, either from within any part of Her Majesty's dominions or
from the territory of a foreign Power. In return, they assumed that the
President would make known to them the measures which he proposed to
take to remedy the acknowledged grievances of the Uitlanders, and to con-
sider any suggestions which Her IMajesty's Government might wish to offer as
to the adequacy of these measures for the removal of all cause of internal
disturbanc es. Such a settlement would be a guarantee of peace and perpetual
amity between the Dutch and British races in the Republic, and would open
Staatsarchiv LX. 2






18 (irossbritnuunion und die Sdafikan Repu 18.

Nr. 11. tihe way to the friendly discussion of all other matters of ctroersy or
Gros- mutual interest.
26i tzlis. Her Majesty's Government have only to add, witl regard to their
previous declarations about Article TV. that they believe that this provision
of the Convention is as desirable in the interest of the Republic as in that
of Great Britain, and it is an essential condition of the guarantee which they
would be prepared to give as to the independence of the State. ]| But with
reference to their desire to obtain some assuranees as to the reforms asked
for by the Uitlanuders, it appears to them that the President is under a
misapprehension, which I had hoped from paragraph 5 of the President's
letter to you of the 25th February had wholly disappeared. |l HIer Majesty's
Government do not claim any right under the Convention to preseribe the
particular internal reforms which should be made in Soth African Repuhile,
but they are aware, from the promises and expectations held out to the Uit-
landers at different times, that the President himself recognises the need of
reforms, and they still hope that he will see fit to communicate to them bis
intentions with regard to this matter, and will be ready to consider aly
representations which they may make with reference to his proposals. 1j They
consider that they are entitled to make such friendly representations 011
behalf of British subjects in a foreign State suffering from admitted grievances,
and, in addition to this, Her Blajesty's Government are, as representing the
paramount Power in South Africa, specially interested in its peace and pros-
perity, and they canuot be blind to the danger which threatens its future if
legitimate causes of discontent continue to be ignored by the Government of
the South African Republic. H1 If, therefore, they are to treat with his Honour
with a view to a permanent settlement, it would be impossible to anticipate
a successful result without reference to this underlying cause of recent diffi-
culties. 11 Such a discussion as they contemplate would not involve any
acknowledgment on the part of the President of a right of interferenee in
the internal councerns of the Bepublic, but would only at the most amonnt to
a recognition of the friendly interest of Her Majesty's Goverument in its
security, and in the general welfare of South Africa. || The President would
be, of course, at liberty to accept or to reject any adviee that might be
tendered to him by Her lMajesty's Government, but in the latter case the
responsibility for the result would naturally rest wholly with him.
Her Majesty's Government have already expressed a willingness to give
full consideration to any representations which his Honour may wish to make.
on the otler points named in his letter, although some of them are matters
wholly in jurisdiction of Her M[ajesty's Government. i But unless tbe Pre-
sident is satisfied with the explanations I have now given, Her Mlajesty's
Government are reluctantly obliged to come to the conclusion that no good
purpose can be serrcil by the proposed visit. 1 H11r Majesty's Government are
aware that by the coustitution of South African Republic bis Honour cannot






GrossbritaI1iien und die Suldafrikanische Republik 1800. 19

flnally accept their illvitation till he has obtained permission of Volksraad, Nr. 11447.
whiich meets on 4th May. | They, however, think that sufficient time has now
elapsed since their invitation was first issued to justify themr in asking his 26.Mrz8'.6c.
Honour to say whcther it is or is not his intention to ask the Volksraad for
permission to visit England directly the Session commences, and to use the
great personal influence which he so justly possesses with his countrymen to
induee them to accord that permission. || If, unfortunately, lis IHonour does
not feol able at once to give you tlie assurauce of his personal desire to
accept invitation, it will be your duty to inform him that Her Ilajesty's
Government must reluctantly consider it withdrawn, and in that case I shall
take an early opportunity of adressing to you a further communication con-
taining views of Her Majesty's Government on the situation which will be
thus created. || Communicate with the President of the South African Re-
public in sense of above.

Nr. 11448. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Gouverneur in Kapstadt
an den Kolonialminister. Keine offensiven Rstungen
in der Sdafrikanischen Republik und dem Oranje-
Freistaat.
Received 8.40 p. m., March 27, 1890.
Telegram. || 27th March. No. 1. Your telegram of 26th March, No. 3. Nr. n11448.
Transvaal Republic and Orange Free State burghers are making military bit;,nnie,.
preparations, and I learn that Boers residing on the borders of Cape Colony 27.Marz19G.
and Natal are also arming; but the movement, so far as I can gather, is
defensive and not offensive. Boers generally believe that the recent raid
was, if not instigated, at all events connived at by Her Majesty's Govern-
ment, and that an attack upon their independence will be renewed on the
first favourable opportunity. I beliewe, however, from information received,
that there is no truth in tlie statement to which yon refer as to their inteution
to proclaim independence and cancel London Convention. |1 In my opinion,
our best policy is to sit still, as military preparations on our side would only
confirm the burghers in their unfounded suspicions and distrust. 1 I can learn
tiothing as to report of a new defensive and offensive alliance between
Transvaal Republic and Orange Free State. By existing treaty, they are
bound to assist each other in the event of attack from outside. You may
rely on my keeping you informed of all authontie facts, but the air is full
of baseless rumours, which are circulated for interestcd motives, and with
which I do not trouble you. |] The "Cape Times" correspondent telegraphs
yesterday from Johannesburg as follows: |1 Begins: "The rumours and reports
are numberless, and are of the most alarmist character, exciting the whole of
Johannesburg; but 1 can state authoritatively there is not the slightest foun-
dation for them. There is a great 'bear' movement in progress, and strife is
being stirred up for this object, and this object alone."--Ends.
2*






20 Grossbritannien irnd die S.dafrikan

Nr. 11449. SDAFRIKAN. REPUBLIK. Die Regierung a en
Generalkonsul in London. Betrachtungen br
politische Lage.
..C able dated Mareh 27, I8 6
Nr. 11449. Translation. 11 Your cable of the 24th re interview 1r. Chamb
Sdafrikan.
Republik. Jooste, and Meintjis. The Gornment would deplore it if any misunder-
2'7.Mrzls6. standing has arisen through the representation of zealous friends, if anyt
has been said to the effect that President wonhl accept the invitation withou
coming to an understanding beforehand about the points of discussion then
those who said it, whoever they may be and whatever their objets may e
been, were certainly not aware of the cirumistances of the case. Read our
telegram of the Sth February: the President expresses clearly from tie be-
ginning his willingness to come, but as clearly notifies that the Volksraad
must decide as to his leave and his instructions, so that naturally an under-
standing must first be arrived at concerning the points under discussion. lt
was then clearly stated that the President hoped the question of Artiele 4
could be discussed. Then read onr letter of the 25th Febrnary to the High
Commissioner; this letter agrees entirely with the telegram. If the President
had acccptcd the invitation without clearly understanding what points wre
to be discussed he would have had the whole burgher population against him.
From the first moment the President had and has the same opinion, so tlat
the imputation that the President's opinion has been altered or influenced by
the Hollanders is entirely false. The Africanders are by no means of one
opinion in this question, but they would unite in opposing the departure of
the President in order, for example, to conclude a new convention or a treaty
of commerce and other matters unless it was known beforehand that that
convention or that treaty would yield greater advantages than that of 1884.
Is not a preliminary understanding beforehand better than a disappointment
when the President arrives in England? 31r. Chamberlain himself says as
nmuch in his letter, that the President must not suffer such a disappointment.
When his Hononr discovered that Article 4 could not be discussed, he urged
that it might be discussed and adduced reasons for so doing. With respect
to the representations made by the British Government in regard to the
grievances of the Uitlanders he stated clearly tlat although he could not
permit any interference in the internal concerns of which the grievanees
question forms a part, yet he would gladly receive any hints or representations
given privately in a friendly spirit. In his proclamation of the 30th Do-
cember the President promises to bring all the representations of the Uit-
landers without delay before the Volksraad. Measures bave already been
taken, and others are still under consideration, to meet the wants of the
Uitlander population; but if, as stated in your telegram, these matters are to
be submitted to the approval or disapproval of England, the Government
might be expected to consider whether if this principle was once adopted it






Gross,,ritani .d die Saldafrikanische eplik 1G. 21

ought not to submit such measures to any other foreign Government which Nr. 11449
might have subjects iniludled amongst the Uitlanders. There is no secret and sRepublik.
notling new in the arming of the burghers; the law has always prescribed 27.iMirz8cG.
this, and the Governuent feels sone surprise that this should excite any
comment after the bitter lesson which this Government has just experienced,
when ans were actually laid for the besieging of Pretoria. Tle Govern-
ment thiuks this ouglt to be sufficient to convince anyone that it ought to
be its guard. In addition to this the Government is still constantly
receivig reports of a hostile spirit from the North. This Government is
most grateful to Her Majesty's Government for what it is prepared to do in
.the interest of this Republie, and it highly appreciates the sentimeuts which
frorn time to time Mr. Chamberlain has given public expression to, and this
Government would hail witi pleasure a settlement of matters by the visit of
tle President, b t it sees elearly the urgent necessity of first coming to some
sort of understanding in order to avoid later more serious misunderstandings,
The feeling of a section of the Uitlanders is still continually being excited
and stirred up, aud it would be idle for this Government to deny that this
condition of things is being brought about by influences and occurrences
outside the boundaries of this Republic. The Government regret exceedingly
to understand from you that there are further matters still pending which
might cause dissension. lt does not know what these are, but has always
shown a ready spirit, as far as possible, to remove any difficulty. The
Goverunment in view of the above explication cannot understand how Mr.
Chamberlain should feel aggrieved as to the manner in which this Govern-
inent has aeted in regard to the visit of the Presideut. IIad a special session
of the Yolksraad been called upon the communications which have already
passed, this Government feels sure that the consent of the Volksraad should
have been refused, and it was in the hope of a more favourable tone in the
negotiations that the Government has refrained from publishing the corres-
pondence and determined to wait for the ordinary session of the Volksraad.
If the Volksraad gives its consent the President is quite willing to hasten bis
departure. This Government is actuated by the best intentions, and in spite
of the newspapers still hopes that a satisfactory settlement will be arrived at.
See our letter of the 17th March. The Government is alive to the position
and has gone to work in a perfectly straightforward manner, and if the
journey of the President should fall through it will certainly not be througli
any unwillinguess from this side.






22 Grossbritannien und die afrianise epublik 1896.

,Nr. 11450. SDAFRIKAN. REPUBLIK. Der Prsident a
englischen Gouverneur in Eapstadt. Kri ger lehnt
die sofortige Berufung eines Volksrats ab.)
Department of Foreign Affairs, Government Office, Pretoria, March 17, 1896.
Nr. 11450. Your Excellency, 1I 1 have te hoour to ackowledge the receipt of our
Sd.ikan. Excellency's Despatch of the 6t1 March, No. 3, enclosing a telegraphic reply
17.M7Irzi8so. from the Right Honourable the Secretary of State to my Despatch of the
25th February last. 1| In reply to yoar Excellency's telegram of the 29th Fe-
bruary last, I informed your Excellency, per mine of the 3rd Mareh, that
should the reply of the Secretary of State be of such a nature as to be
regarded by me as satisfactory, to that end I would immediately proceed to
call a speeial session of the Volksraad, in order to obtain its decision with
reference to the instructions and permission to be given. || It grieves me more
than I can express to be obliged to declare that the reply now received has
caused me deep disappointment, and that by reason of tlie contents thereof
it is not possible for me to proceed to convene a special Session of the
Volksraad at once, for the purpose above-meitioned. j| 1 must state, to my
deep regret, that I do not feel at liberty to take that course, and that I
cannot take the responsibility upon myself, since I am firmly couviuced that
the people of the Republic would without a doubt disapprove of such an
unusual step, when the reply of Her MIajesty's Government differs in so many
essential respects from what I have submitted.
I need hardly point out that this difference, apart from matters of less
importance, seems to confine itself chiefly to the question of a discussion or
treatment of internal affairs of the Republic, which Her Majesty's Government
appears to desire, but to which I may not give my consent as head of an
independent State. || I have already said that I would appreciate the giving of
private hints in the interest of, and in confirmation of, thlie independence of
the conntry; but I neither can, nor may 1, lend a helping hand to giving an
opening by another way to the discussion of internal affairs, which would in-
volve the acknowledgment of the principle that the right exists to do so.
Tliere is further a very important difference between the view of Her Mlajesty's
Government and mine with reference to the question of clause 4 of the Con-
vention of 1884, which Her Majesty's Government wish should form part of a
new convention or treaty. 1 spoke of the substitution of the Convention by a
treaty of peace, amity, and commerce, on the basis of the most-favoured-nation,
while in the telegraphical communication under reply, mention is wade of a
new convention or a treaty for comniercial and other .purposes. | There are
olher matters whici will immediately appear from a comparison of my former
communication with the reply thereto. While, for instance, the question of a

*) D)ieses Schreiben erhielt Chamberlain am 13. April. Ein Auszug daraus war
ihm bereits am 21. Mrz (Nr. 11442) bersendet worden. Red.






Grossbritnnieni und die Stlafrikanische Republik 1890. 23

guarantee agairst violation of the territory of the Republic is offered by the Nr. 11450.
Sdafrikan.
Secretary of State in a most extended sense, this Government would regard Republik.
a guarantee from the British side, such as was asked in my despatch of the 1.MarzRlS6.
25th February last, as suffieient with regard to British territory. |I Having
regard to the points for discussion proposed by me which this Government
from its standpoint thinks to be able to bring forward with succes, it is not
clear to me, unless further explained, what is meant by the giving of con-
cessions on this side. You will permit me to remark further with reference
to the point of compensation, that I can in nowise agree with the comparison
made by the Honourable the Secretary of State, between the inroad of Dr.
Jameson, and the part which may have been taken by subjects of the Republic
(it would have been more correcct to say by persons froin various parts of
South Africa) in earlier days in the Goschen, Stellaland, and Zulnland
questions. Their actions would, under no circumstances, have been construed
as a breach of the Convention, as the actions of Dr. Jameson, cum suis, in
every respect were. The main question now is, what steps can still be taken
to make an amicable discussion of affairs in England possible. Although, as
I have said, I do not feel at liberty to convene a special session of the Volks-
raad for the purpose, 1 shall submit the correspondence interchanged with
Her Majesty's Government to the representatives of the country, and I may
add here that the formal convening for the ordinary session according to law
will still take place in the course of the present week. || Nothing wonld be
more agreeable to me than that Her Majesty's Government should inform me
of its further views before that session commences, so that I may be in a
position to submit to the honourable Volksraad all the points which may be
adduced for my proceeding to England or otherwise in an exhaustive manner.
With renewed expression of my especial respect,
Your Excellency's servant,
S. J. P. Kruger, State President.


Nr. 11451. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Gouverneur in Kapstadt
an den Kolonialminister. Krtiger lehnt den Besuch
in England fr jetzt ab.
Received 2.30 a. m., April 25, 1896.
Telegram. 1] 24th April, No. 4. I have received this morning President Nr. 11451.
Kruger's reply, of which following is summary:- |1 Ile acknowledges receipt Cross-
britannien.
of your telegram of 26th March, and with reference to your regretting that S.Apr.R9SS.
he lhas not yet given definite reply to invitation of' 28th January, refers to his
telegram of 8th February and letter of 25th February, in which he stated
that he was prepared to go to England as soon as certain points were agreed
upon as a basis for discnussion. He observes you speak of private information
comcated to you bhefore sending invitation, but he does not know who






24 Grsritannin und die Sdafrikische epublik 1898.

Nr. supplied this information or the ature of it, if t was to the ee
b5itannin. le contemplated an unconditional visit o England it was orre The
25.Apr.is9. position taken up by him has always been consistent [?], that, in ovent
of a satisfactory basis for discussion being arrived at, he hoped Volksra
would give hirn leave. He regrets that no satisfactory basis has be
arrived at, but does not see that any blame is attributable to bis Gover
in this respect. He observes, further, that from the first is Governmeint ha
clearly placed on record that no interference with the internal affairs of the
South African Republic can be allowed. HIe says you have admitt tlie
justness of this position, yet, while agreeing that no such interfrece is
sought or claimed, tle intimation is nevertheless made that Her lajesty's
Government request that particular internal measures may be taken. || The
remedying of admitted grievances is spoken of, and he cannot pass withont
notice the expression "admitted." Hle regrets that, having intimated to 1Her
Majesty's Government a desire for the reconsideration of London Convention
in consequence of raid by Jameson and other British subjects, the position
should be taken up that the discussion of so-st.yled admitted grievanees should
be a sine qud non in the event of the discussion of London Convention being
agreed to. As before observed, his Government is at all times prepared to
receive in a friendly spirit any private suggestions which Her Majesty's
Government may wish to make with regard to interests of British subjects in
Transvaal, and to give such suggestions due consideration. Although bhis
Government has never acknowledged existence of what are designated admitted
grievances, and deny that on that account a right to rebellion exists, it doas
not affect to be perfect, and has repeatedly deelared its readiness to listen
to complaints brought forward constitutionally, as evidenced by the Govern-
ment Proclamation of 30th December. But the decision as to what measures
are best calculated to promote peace and prosperity of inhabitants, and the
determination whether legitimate causes of discontent exist, rest solely with
the Executive and Legislature of the country. jj Referring to your request for
a definite reply to the invitation, he feels confident you will recognise and
appreciate the difficulty of his position, and it appears to him to be the
wiser course not to press the question of his proceeding to England any
further at present, but to leave it an open matter, more especially in view
of the approaching Session of Volksraad of South Afrian Republic in May.
The desirability of his presence, at least for a portion of the Session, at
Pretoria, who important measures will have to be considered by the Legis-
lature, is apparent, and it is his confident hope that by patience and taet on
both sides the peaceful and satisfactory solution of matters will be attained. 1
His Government notices that you speak of the measures proposed to be taken
to remedy the acknowledged Uitlander grievances as a qid ro quo for a
guarantee to South African Republic against any attack upon its independence,
either froin any part of British dominions or from territory of foreign power.






Grossbritannien und die Sidafrikanische Republik 1896. 25

On tBis he observes that the relations between South Africau Republic and Nr. 11451.
Great Britain, as recognized by international law, already excludes any attack broI0iS
uipon independence of forner from within any part of British dominions, and 25. Apr.i8c.
au offer of something is .therefore made to South African Republie of which
it is already in possession. With regard to an attack from territory of a
foreign power, his Government has never desired nor requested any such
guarantee.
Despatch proceeds as follows verbatim:- 1\ Quotation begins: "Should
Her Majesty's Government, after due consideration, not see its way clear to
an immediate discussion of the London Convention and its being replaced by
a Treaty of amity and commnerce containing the most-favoured-nation clause
unless certain alleged grievances relating to certain internal matters in the
Republic are also brought on for discussion, this Government, deeply sensible
of the necessity of allaying the excited feeling in South Africa and promoting
a fricndly relation between the white races, will be prepared under existing
eireumstances not to press at present for a realization of its desire to obtain
a reconsideration of the Convention, and would, as the aggrieved and injnred
party, prefer to content itself with the postponement of this question. It will
rest satisfied for the present [? future] with the exercise [?] of its rights to a
pecuniary compensation by reason of thle violation of territory of the Republic
caused by the Jameson inroad, and to an assurance on the part of Her
Majesty's Government that no violation of such territory shall be repeated from
out of any of Her Majesty's possessions. It will still remain in the discretion
of Her Majesty's Government to render it possible for the State President with
confidence to propose to the Volksraad that leave should be given hin to
proceed to England upon the basis of discussion suggested or indicated by
1His llonour." Verbatim quotation ends. i| The despatch concludes with
assurance of sharing with Her Majesty's Government solicitude for tle interests
of South Africa as a whole, and expresses the opinion that through friendly
co-operation the confidence so rudely shaken, as woll as peace and prosperity,
will be restored.


Nr. 11452. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Kolonialminister an den
Gouverneur in Kapstadt. Antwort auf das Vorige.
Sent 3.40 p. m. April 27, 1896.
Telegram. 1j 27th April, No. 1. -1 have received your telegram of Nr. 1145.
24th April, No. 4. I regret the President does not see bis way at present Gross-
britannion.
to ask the Volksraad for permission to come to England to discuss in a27.Apr.1896.
friendly spirit subjects which affect the security of the South African Republic
and the general welfare of South Africa. || Under the circumstances, however,
Her Majesty's Government have no alternative but to withdraw the invitation,
which it appears from the President's message was given under a misappre-
1... .






26 Grossbritannien und die Sdafrikanische Republik 189.

ANr. no. hension of the facts. |1 On a review of the whole correspondence, r ajest
c rno i- Government are reluctantly obliged to come to the conelusion fiat the
2a.pr.is96.difference of view between themselves and te President is at preent o con-
siderable that no useful purpose would he served by th proposed conference
in London till a greater approalh to agreement bas been arrived lat. Tbe
take note of the statement of the President that his Government is at all
times prepared to receive in a friendly spirit any private suggestions vw i
Her Majesty's Government may wish to make with regard to interests of
British subjects in the South African Republic, and to give such suggestions
due consideration. They also note the assurances of the President of the
readiness of the Government of the South African Republie to listen to co-ii
plaints brought forward constitutionally, as evidenced by their Proclamation
of 30th of December, and as the Session of the Yolksraad begins nert month
Her Majesty's Government will await with confidence the fulfilment of this
promise. 11 Meanwhile they heartily reciprocate the hope of the President
that throngh friendly co-operation confidence, peace, and prosperity, may be
speedily restored.


Zum Angriffe Jamesons auf die Sdafrikan. Republik. (Vgl .Bd.5 .

Nr. 11453.*) GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der englische Agent bei der
Sdafrikanischen Republik an den Kolonialminister.
Berichtet ber sein'e Thtigkeit whrend des Jame-
sonschen Einfalls.
British Agency, Pretoria; May 1, 1896. (leceived May 26, 1896.
Nr. 11453. Sir, In taking the liberty of endeavouring to put certain facts before
Gross-
britannien. you with appropriate comment, I feel myself placed in the undesirable posi-
1. Mai 196.-tion of having to dilate upon services rendered, and perhaps overlooked,
owing to the peculiar surroundings connected with the anomalous nature of
the office I hold, but I feel that, in justice'to myself, 1 cannot remain longer
silent, and allow to stand unchallenged certain unwarranted misrepresentations
which have appeared in some newspapers, evidently for the purpose of
throwing dust in the eyes of Her Majesty's Government, and keeping them
in ignorance as to the facts connected with the services 1 rendered during
the late most trying crisis, and I feel assured that, when the particulars as
herein stated shall come to your knowledge, my plea for justicc will not be
in vain. | 1 know that I am subordinate to his Excellency the High Connmis-
sioner, and at the scene of my labours I am expected to carry out bis
instructions, which I have always done to the best of my ability, as the
success of the High Commissioner in Transvaal affairs has depended on the
manner in which his instructions have been carried ont. | However, during lie
late extraordinary and trying period I was compelled to act in the best

) Blauuch 8164. 1896.






Grossbritanien und die Sdafrikanische Republik 1896. 27

interests of Her Majesty's Government on my own responsibility and without Nr. 11453.
instrctions. Let ne irst invite your attention to some remarks on the late britaio
agitation in Johannesburg before T deal with subsequent events. | For monthls,i. Mai 189o.
rumours and reports of a disquieting nature wcre freely circulated, and very
tall talk was indulged in as to the course of action the leaders in the fer-
ment intended taking, but no one outside expected or anticipated any such
serious steps or violent action having for an object the overthrow of the
local Gov#nment. However, as time rolled on, these reports increased in
intensity and assumed a more definite form, it being then stated that the
agitators had a large quantity of firearms at their disposal, and men willing
to use them. Still, all this created at first nothing but vagne suspicions in the
minds of the Government of the Republic, who, with their hundreds of officials in
daily contact with the leaders of the disturbance, were even themselves without
accurate information. Therefore, with a view of finding out, if possible, the
real condition, and for the purpose of raising a wiarning voice to the leaders,
I visited Johannesburg on the 28th December last, and, learning from persons
unconnected with the movement that serious steps were apprehended, 1 spoke
to several of the leaders and warned them against the consequences of hostile
acts. I told them that, though I was not in their secrets and did not know
what organisations or preparations they had, I felt convinced, judging from
the condition of the community, that they were not able to cope with the
burghers of the Republic, who, I heard, had been warned to be ready at a
moment's notice. This latter report may have been inaccurate, but I felt
justified in using it as an argument to show what might be expected, and
how disastrous the consequences would be to Johannesburg in the event of a
conflict. II Still, the evidence gathered was not of such a nature as to arrive
at the conclusion that Johannesburg would, or could, rise, My own impres-
sion was, from what I could learn, that the organisation was still a hazy and
formless affair, too weak for clever and practical men to embark as leaders
of such a hazardous scheine as, to oppose the Transvaal Government by force
of arms. 1 I returned the same evening to Pretoria (28th December), and on
Monday, the 30th December, wlien I was just on the point of commencing
an official report on what I had observed in Johannesburg, President Krnger
sent for nme. I then met his Honour presiding over the Executive with an
Extraordinary Council, and was informed that an armed force of Enlgisli
troops had entered the South African Republic. I lost no time in conve3ing
this to the Hligh Commissioner, as per copy of telegram marked "A" attached.
I then kept myself in hourly communieation with the Government, and what-
ever information was received his Excellency the High Commissioner was
duly advised by me, as can be shown by such telegrams as these annexed,
marked "B" and "U". Under such eireumstances I could not act without
instruetions, thc first of these being in a telegram dated 30th December, but
was only delivered bere at 9 o'clock on the morning of the 31st, the same






28 Grossbritannien und die Rpublik 1896.

Kr. a3. day as it was handed in at the Cape Town telegraph office at 6 in
brit nin. the morning, instead of having been handed in there on the day previons
. !*a IS's. (certified copy attached, "D") In spte ofthis delay (inexpicable t e)
before the message reachod Pretoria, 1 immediately endeavoured obtain a
reliable man and a good borseman to convey his Exceleney's essage to Dr.
Jameson. This could only be done by 11 o'clok, with thSe asistanee f
General Joubert, and it was even then 1 o'cloek in the day before the ins-
senger and escort could start, but Dr. Jameson was reached early the next
morning, on New Year's Day, and before any fighting had taken place.
The excitement both at Johannesburg and Pretoria was of the wildest
character. In official quarters the impression gained ground that Johannes-
burg was well organised and effectively equipped with all the necossary mn1i-
tions of war, that it would rush to the assistance of Jameson, attack Pretoria
any moment, and that Kafirs as well as Enropeans had been armed. To refer
to all the telegranis passing between lis Excellency the High Commissioner
and myself would be needless repetition, but the one of these contaiinig the
text of bis Excellency's proclamation deserves especial comment, as I was
blamed for any delay in carrying out instructions. This telegram was des-
patched from Cape Town on the 31st December at 5.5 p. m., and received
in the telegraph office here at 5.40 p. m., but it was proved conelusively
that it was not delivered at this Agency until 9 o'clock on that evening,
the messenger in the meautime attending a young men's meeting with the
telegram in his pocket. As soon as I was in possession of thle message 1
went to the house of General Joubert, read to him the prociamatiou, aad, as
previonsly done, used his telephone connected with the President's honse to
likewise inform his Honour. General Joubert found it inconvenient to
assist me with a messenger to forward the proclamation. Although I was
without instructions to publisl it, General Joubert, at my request, allowed
one of his orderlies to proceed to the offices of the "Press" (the only mor-
ning journal) and bring a reporter to my house, where I gave to the latter
the substance of the proclamation, and which appeared in the issue on the
following morning. To obtain a messenger that night was impossible in spite
of the most strenuous exertions, and it was only at 10 o'clock next-morning
I succeeded in engaging the man Celliers, who left my house with a copy of
the proclamation under a covering despatch at noon on the 1st January, and
who delivered this official communication at 7.5 the next morning. However,
I later definitely ascertained that fighting began at 2.30 p. m. on the ist Ja-
nuary at the Queen's battery, a couple of miles west of Krugersdorp, and at
about 11 o'slock a. m. on the 2nd January Jameson surrendered. jj At this
point a word of explanation is due to myseif, as I have been blamed for not
endeavouring to carry out the order of personally meeting Jameson. 1 recei-
ved such instruction at past 2 p. in. on the ist January, after lighting had
commenced, anud after my mossengor bad left, and while I was in houry






"Grossbrilaien und die Sdafrikanische Hopulik 1896. 29

eommunication with the loeal Government, having for several nights never Nr. 11453.
retired to rest, and was tlherefore comparatively exhausted, and while expec- ritisse.
hing news of figlting at Johanniesurg and an attack on Pretoria. How then 1. IMai 1 %.
could 1 be expected to leave Pretoria, with no one to act in my stead, and
perpetrate the eruelty to a man of my advanced years to do an eight hours'
ride on horseback during the night? ]| A few words further about Jameson
before treating of matters in Johannesburg. |I After the discovery of the
Willo ghby Cronje correspondence, I was again made to bear the blame
of others, because I had reported that the terms of Jameson's surrender
was unconditional. This statement was often made by General Joubert in
the Executive Council, and reiterated when he informed me of the surrender.
In the face of this it seems unreasonahle to cast the blame upon me for not
knowing what took place between Willoughby and Cronj6, and which only
came to light two months' afterwards. || From your remarks respecting an
arrangement with President Kruger with reference to my going personally to
turn back Jameson, you must have been under the impression that I could
travel by rail to do so, and if Sir Hercules Robinson had not failed to en-
lighten you on this point I should not be blamed as I have been. || Again, be-
fore passing over to the Johannesburg affair, I wish to explain the apparent
diserepaney between my despatch of the 27th Dccember 1895 (Blue Book,
page 64) and telegram of the 31st Decemecr (Blue Book, page 7), as to the
condition of Johannesburg with regard to arms and organisation. My tele-
gram was based on information received by the local Government from their
varions and numerous offieials on the Raand Gold Fields-and who could
posses reliable information if these did not, who were daily in touch with
the ringleaders? = and naturally I considered such information to be the
most reliable. j I should here observe that of Jameson's connexion with the
Reform Committee, and his intentions, I never dreamt or suspected. || In the
early morning of the ist January, half an hour after midnight, the President
sent for me to come to his house, with the Commissioner of Police. There I
found assembled the President, the members of the Executive Council, three
judges, and other head officials. I was then informed that armed forces had
marched from Johannesburg that evening, presumably for Pretoria, and I was
asked what I could do in order to avert bloodshed. Knowing the position
taken by Her Majesty's Government in accordance with the proclamation of
the High Commissioner, received three and a half hours previously, I stated
that if I was given an escort to conduct me through the Burgher forces, I
would at once proceed to Johannesburg, meet those forces, and eudeavour to
turn them back. At the same time I expressed the opinion that I did not
beliee that Johannesburg was on the march to attack Pretoria. The Presi-
dent asked me if I could suggest another method, as he did not consider it
right for me to risk my life in passing through the Burgher lines. I then
suggested sending a telegram to the Reform Committee, which was agreed to,






I30 Grossbritauiien und die Stfrian Republik l 6.

Nr. 1143. aid I then and there dispatched a telegrai as per eopy DD an ich
ri tanu. the General Manager of Telegraph, himself in attendance, personally fiorwai,
1. Mil 1896. aud the next morning I reeeived a reply as per copy attached, E.
From the moment I ascertained that no hostile movement had beel taken
at Johannesburg, and that none was intended, I begged the Governmeat not
to surround the town by burghers, pointing out that, in the excited state of
the populace, indiscreet armed forces might rnsh ont, whei a collision eould
take place and the blood of thousands of persans, including innoeent women
and children, be sacrificed. My request was aeceded to. jj On the evening of
the 2nd January I again waited upon the President at the request of a de-
putation of the Reform Committee. I conveyed their representations and re-
peated my former requests, and the President renewed the assuranees men-
tioned in my telegram of the 2nd January to the Reform Committee (copy
attached marked F). I was, during all this time, filled with the greatest
anxiety for the people of Jobannesburg, knowing what would be the conse-
quences should an engagement take place. 1 therefore employed all my
energies, both with the Government and the Reform Committee, to keep them
to their promises, the Committee to avoid any overt act of hostility, and the
Government to keep back the burghers. I undertook all this on my own
responsibility, without even the semblance of an instruction for my guidance,
and all unbiassed persons capable of judging and knowing the circumstances
liave given nie the credit to a very large extent of being the cause of having
averted bloodshed. I| His Excellency the High Commissioner in his telegraml
respecting the position of Johannesburg (Blue Book, page 38) says, "an ar-
mnistice having been agreed upon "pending my arrival," but hce omitted to say
by whom or how that armistice had been brouglt about. Frlm the evening
of the 2nd January to the evening of the 4th the Reform Committee kept
to its promise, maintaining order, and the burghers, who had by the 3rd
January gathered to the number of 8000 men, were kept some distance away
from the town under different "commandos." || On the evening of the 4th his
Excellency the High Commissioner arrived. On Monday morning the 6th
January hce met the President and the Executive Council. What trauspired
at that conference his Excellency the High Commissioner reported in his
telegram of that date (Blue Book, page 32.) This conference lasted from
30 to 40 minutes, and was the first and last meeting between the High
Commissioner and the President, except when the former went to say good-
bye on the afternoon before he left, when he made some friendly remarks
on the situation which not eliciting a reply consequently did not invite dis-
cussion. II All the negotiations that did take place were eonduited through
my agency, as the medium of communication between the Higli ommissioner
and the President in Council. 1 was often seit for by them to discuss the
pending questions, and left it to me to inform the High Commissioner, and,
in ease answers were required, to bring back the messages. There was little






Grossbritaunnien und die Sdafrikanische Republik 1806. 31

correspondeice between bis Excellency and the President, and this was, witb Nr. 11453.
Gross-
a few exceptions, confiled to the delivery of Dr. Jameson and bis men. britannion.
Before the arrival of his Excellency I hlad succeeded in keeping the 1. Maii 18-
armed burghers away from the immediate vicinity of Johannesburg, or in
other words from besieging the town and coming in contact witb the Reform
Committee, who reiterated the assurances they had given me to keep order.
However, it was apparent that frantie excitement prevailed at Johannesburg
and rash acts might be committed if the armed Government forces had inve-
sted the place. Aly close and unremitting attention was therefore directed to
that mining centre, to save the people from rash folly engendered by the
utter weakness of the leaders of the revolutionary movement to advise and
remonstrate with them. On the other hand, I had to entreat and remonstrate
with the authorities by reiterating my opinion that the Reform Committee and
their supporters neither could nor would attempt hostilities. I consequently
had to closely watch the development of events and keep in touch with botl
parties. Naturally after the arrival of his Excelleney the ILigh Commissioner,
1 could only act under bis instructions and by his sauction before taking
any further steps. || On the 6th of January the President issued a procla-
mation calling upon the people of Johannesburg to surrender all arms and
ammunition for which no permits had been obtained, &c., before 4 o'clock
on the 7th of January (which, I believe, has been transmitted to you). On
the afternoon of the 6th of January, by invitation, I met the President and
several members of the Government, when bis Honour informed me that ad-
vices had been received from Johannesburg that very few arms had been
surrendered, and further said. "You have assisted us so far in averting
bloodshed, can you further use your influence with the people of Johannes-
burg in this matter of surrender, &c.?"' I agreed, and as it was too late to
go that evening, the President at once sent an offieial to arrange a special
train for me early next morning. I went to the High Commissioner and in-
formed him what had taken place and asked him if he had any objection to
my visiting Johannesburg. On receiving his consent I telegraphed to the
Reform Committee that I was coming over and wished them to arrange a
public meeting to receive what I had to communicate. The result of this
has been already participated and explained further in my telegram to his
Honour the President (copy marked C attached). |i In his telegram of the 7th
of January (Blue Book, page 34), bis Excellency says, "I sent De Wet."
This was technically correct, being in a subordinate position, but the actual
circumstances I have stated in the preceding paragraph, and I received no
other instructions from bis Excellency beyond the telegram of the 7th of
January (Blue Book, page 34, marked CC), which he forwarded to Johannes-
burg for me to read, but I am emboldened to say that the object of my
mission would have been attained without that telegram.
In the newspapers reporting my remarks to the Reform Committee and






SirMM iell Grssritanin und die Slafri iRepublik

Nr. 1153. address to the public, the name of Sir Sidney Shippard was c wit
brt n. mine as though we acted in concert. Knowing that the Adm strator of
1. wlai 96. Bechuanaland was strongly suspected by the overument and others s ein
too closely associatcd with the Gold Fields and the Reformtee, felt
that I could not, in justice to the cause I served, allow myself to be id
fied with him, and for this purpose I sent a telegram to the Johannesburg
newspaper "Star" repudiating any onnexion with himi, and which I sho
to the High Commissioner before despathing. | I have since oted that you,
Sir, did state in the House of Gommons that I was aided by Sir Sidney
Shippard. I take the liberty of stating that you were misinformed oD this
point, that the Administrator of Bechuanaland did not render me any assi-
stance and he was not asked to speak. His unnecessary and inmpolitic inter-
ferance raised a false issue and caused a great deal of trouble, especially by
bis inaccurate statements that the lives of Jameson's men were in the hands
of the people of Johannesburg. By being made associated with Sir Sidney
Shippard I have bcen considered equally responsible and blamed for this by
the newspapers. || Let me lere invite your attention to the letter 1 wrote to
Sir HIereules Robinson, and bis reply, copies attached, marked II and I, whieh
should speak for themselves. Sir Sidney Shippard is not the only one who
has been eredited with a sbare of the services I alone rendered o that oc-
casion, for a Mr. Charles Durant, a son-in-law of Sir Hercules Robinson, who
went to Johannesburg with bis wife in my special train as my guest, bas
claimed all the K o;, if any. This Mr. Durant neither had any right to
act or speak, and who never acted or spoke a single word on the subjcct of
iny commission, had the unblnshing effrontery in a letter to the journal
"Truth" of the 13th February, to place himself in my shoes and claim credit
for everything I did and said on that occasion, adding to bis otlier absolute
fabrications tliat he had taken me over to Johannesburg. 1 I think, sir, yo1
inust admit that these ineidents, in connexion with many other instances
where I have been placcd in a false position and where my services have
been suppressed, are very bard to bear, especially without a voice being
raised from Her Majesty's Government to defend me. On the Sth of January
1 again went over to Johannesburg in connexion with the surrender of arms,
&c., my work of that day being explained in the annexed telegrams marked
J, K, and L. 1| Before proceeding to the next stage I wish to inform you
that, after the public meeting of the 7th of Jauuary, Colonel Rhodes and
several members of the Reform Committee tendered me their thanks for the
assistauce I had rendered, saying that, before I addressed the people, those
to whom arms and ammunition bad been previously distributed refused to
give them up, while immediately after I had spoken the return of arms and
ammunition poured in from every direction.
No indication lad been given by tie Government as to what was inten-
dcd to be done to the ringleaders of the movement, and whenever I was






Grossbritannien und die Siafrikanische Republik 1896. 33

asked )by them, 1 was unable to answer, on that account. My private opinion, Nr. 11453.
l owever, was that negotiations would be entered into, after the surrender, rition.
l ... britannion.
betwecn the High Commissioner and the President, 011 the general question i. Mai 1r96.
and leading up to a settlement of the burning question, but with the excep-
tion of the letter of the 20th December from Johannesburg to Jameson, which
had been shown to me, I was not then aware that tle Government had found
other evidence amongst Jameson's papers proving that a large conspiracy
against the independence of the Transvaal had existed. This naturally in-
flienced the Government to be resolute and firm in any action with respect
to the Reform Committee. || On the lOth of January the arrest of the Re-
formers commenced. They were bronght here and lodged in Pretoria gaol,
while lis Excellency was still in this city, his stay having been delayed by
certain hitches in conlexion with the final handing over of Jameson's party.
The information upon which the local Government acted in respect to large
quantities of rifles, cannons, and ammunition in Johannesburg, turned out to
be unfounded, at all events very little beyond the quantity surrendered was
discovered, in spite of the most rigid searching. || After the arrests of the
Reform Committee the burgher "commandos" were moved close to the town
of Johannesburg and stationed around it, armed bodies frequently coming in
and marching through the streets. A body of special German police at the
same time was enrolled for service in the town, whose bearing. towards the
English was most provoking and offensive. A system of searching all parties
who left Johannesburg gave rise to endless complaints of the indignities per-
petrated by burghers on inhabitants, many of which were probably grossly
exaggerated, but at any rate the state of unrest and discontent became serious.]|
I went over again to Johannesburg to investigate the numerous reports, and
on my return waited upon the President and Executive Council, and took the
liberty of expressing my views on the subject and asked that the burgher
forces should be disbanded. His IHonour told me that the German police
would be disbanded, but he saw soine difficulty in removing the burghers.
However the next morning I was sent for and informed by the President that
lhe saw the force of the arguments I advanced, and that just after leaving
the Executive Council the qnestion was considered, and it was decided to
send the burghers to their homes, and orders had already been issued to
that effect.
On the 30th of December, as soon as the position became criticeal, 1
asked the President to accord protection to law- abiding British subjects in
the State, and to which he replied, "Everyone who is not against me and
will.keep the law sliall be protected equally, wletler le be a citizen of the
State or an Uitlander." I made this assurance known to all British subjects
who came to me for advice and protection, and which was duly intimated in
the newspapers. In spite of this-the only way to make the matter known-I
was beset by British subjects from early morn until late at night, wishing to
SStaatsarchiv LX. 3






34 Grosslritanniun nd1 4k Sitld(Lri k e i 11 Ik 18"'.

r. 11453. know how they were to be protected. Almost everyone bad a plan or method
Gr'ss. of bis own to suggest, and even when I pointed out that the course I had
britannien.
i. Maol i,6. adopted was the only practical one they considered it of no avail, and tlat 1
was bound to proteet them. How this was to be done did not trouble them.
I was bound to do it, and I was made the vietim of any amount of unspi
abuse for an alleged dereliction of my duties. At the same time grievance
of all conceivable kinds were magnified and drummed into my ears. Let
and telegrams poured in from all directions. Some said that they had been
commanded for personal service, others for money, and some wanted to
know how they should act in the event of certain possible contingencies
happening. || Single-handed 1 had to attend to all this, and assisted to the
best of my power and ability every ease of real grievance and satisfied every
reasonable demand. It was painful in many cases to see the amoqpt of
frippery and poltroonery exhibited, and it was from such quarters I received
thc most abuse and misrepresentation. l As soon as the political prisoners
were arrested, their wives and friends seemed to rusl en masse from Johannes-
burg clamouring to see their husbands and acquaintances. For all these I
had to obtain permits and cicoterne them besides, and yet it was alleged I
had failed in my duty. 1{ In the Executive Council assembled bis Honour the
President thanked ine twice for the assistance I had rendered to avert blood-
slied, 'and again coupled my name with that of bis Exeellency the High Com-
missioner in bis letter dated llth January, and to which his Exelle y
replied that I had fully deserved the thanks (copy annexed, marked .l.
When his Exeellency took leave of the President the latter said that he had
thanked me and he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would recognisc
and reward my services. His Exeellency said to me, "No man could have
done better under the cireumstances than yon, Sir Jacobus." 1 After the
surrender of Johannesburg, speaking of the changed position and the preven-
tion of bloodshed, addressing me his Excellency said, "Tlanks to your exer-
tions and judgment." In my presence bis Excellency said to the Governor of
Natal, "Sir Jacobus always does the right thing at the right timne."
After all this I have been apparently ignored by the Government I have
loyally served, regardless of health, while my colleagues the foreign Consuls,
who were passive spectators of the harassing events I had to deal with, re-
ceived handsome and substantial recognition from their Governments, but the
cold indifference with which my services have been received was not the only
slight I had to bear, for your despateh, Sir, of the 31st Jannary last, harsh
in tone and ignoring what I had done in the cause, was to be addei as an
expression of opinion from Her MIajesty's Government as toeiow these ser-
vices herein detailed had been appreciated. || A portion of the English press,
including some leading journals, have tauntingly spoken of me as the "Dutch-
man", "The Boer gentleman whosc past conduet is not unimpeachable", and
the grcatcst of all these newspapcrs demandcd that I slhoulid be immediately






4rossbritannien und die Sidafrikanischei Republik 1896. 35

replaced by an Englishmia. )| As to being of Dutcli extraction, I am satisfied with Nr. 11453.
Gross-
myself as regards my deseent, and if the Government of Her Majesty can britannion.
find any Englishinan who will serve the Crown as faitlfully as 1, a born 1. 1ai 1856.
British snbject, arve done, my loyalty is such that I shall gladly vacate the
positio to abler ad better hands. | As to my conduct in the past and present,
both in my private and public life as a minister of the Crown in the
Cape Colony, T defy anyone who can speak tle truth to say in justiee one
word against my fair name and fame. 11 This is my case, Sir, and in appealing
to the Government of the greatest, best, and most beloved monarch on eartlh,
as H1er Majesty's loyal subject I ask for nothing but justice-simple justice-
anud nothing more, |1 With every expression of respect.
I liave, &c.
J. A. DE WET, Her Majesty's Agent.

Beilagen.
A.
From Her Majesty's Agent to His Excellency the High Commissioner, Capetown.
December 30. Very urgent. The President sent for ine, and the
General then read to me a telegram from Landdrost of Zeerust that a number
of Euglish troops have entered the Republic from Mafeking and cut the wire,
aad are ow 01on the marclh to Johannesburg. I assured the President that I
could not believe the force consisted of English troops. The General then
said they may bc Mashonaland or Bechuanaland police, but he believes the
information that a force hlad entered the State, and he said he would take
immediate steps to stop their progress. His Honour rcquested me to ask your
Excellency whether this force is composed of English troops or police under
your Excellency's control, or whether you have any information of the mo-
vcment.

From Her Majesty's Agent to Uis Excellency the Higl Commissioner, Capetown.
December 30. Most urgent. Commandant General has received posi-
tive information that about 800 men, Mashonaland troops, are close to Rusten-
burg, well armed with six Maxims anud four otler cannons, on march to
Johannesburg, flying the English flag. His Honour desires mc to say tliat
an armed force of British subjects entering the Transvaal by force is a serious
breach of the Convention, that he is much surprised that IHer Majesty's Go-
vernment should allow such serious movements to go ou unchecked, and he
still hopes yonr Excellency will take immediate steps to stop this force from
proeeding any further, as bis Honour cannot allow such encroachments on
his legal rights with impunity, and most serious consequences will follow, for
which his Government cannot be held responsible. Awaiting immediate in-
stru.tions.
8'






36 Urossbritauund ii die Safrikanische l epublik L .

Nr. 11453. 0.
Gros- From Her Blajesty's Agent to 1i-s Excollency the High Commissiiner, Capetown.
1- Mai isG. December 30. Most urgent. 1 have just been informed on unque-
stionable authority that, in view of an armed force entering the Transvaal,
presumably British subjects, under the British flag, the President las asked
for the intervention of Germany and France, and the Consuls have cabled
the request to their respective Governments. No reply to any of my tele-
grams of to-day yet. I respectfully submit that I am placed in a mnost
awkward position in this critical condition to be without any instruetions for
my guidance. The Government has already sent for me twice. Possibly by
this time blood has already been shed.

D.
From Highl Commissioner to Her Majesty's Agent, Pretoria.
December 30. Yonr second telegram of to-day most urgent received.
Send at once a thoroughly trustworthy mounted express with following message
from me to Dr. Jameson to meet him on road. Begins: Her Majesty's Go-
vernment entirely disapprove your conduct in invading Transvaal with armeid
force, your action has been repudiated, you are ordered to retire at once
from country, and will be held personally responsible for the consequences of
your unauthorised and most improper proceeding. Ends. Inform President
of purport of this message.

D D.
From Her Majesty's Agent to Reform Committee, Johannesburg.
ist January 1896. I have received a proclamnation from his Excellency
the High Commissioner, commanding all British subjects to abstain from
countenancing or assisting Dr. Jameson in his uulawful procccdings. Iis
Honour the President has this night received a cable from Mr. Chamberlain
also expressing strongest disapproval of Dr. Jameson's action, and presumably
action of British subjects, against law and order. Reports received here by
the Government of armed force marching on Pretoria. As Her 1Mlajesty's
Agent I call upon you in the name of Her Majesty's Government to desist
from armed demonstration and to pause, and in the name of humanity to
think of the horrors of a civil war and the shedding of blood and saerifice
of probably many innocent lives by otherwise law-abiding British subjects
against the will of their own Goverument. I desire again to invite your
serious attention to the fact that negotiations arc going on between Mr. Cham-
berlain and his Honour tbe President. I am convinced the Government is
prepared to meet any committee or deputation at any time to discnss matters.
In view of this and of negotiations with Mr. Chamberlain I advise you to
follow a constitutional course.






robbitenienund die Stidafrikanische Republik 1890. 37

D D. Nr. 11453.
From Her Majesty's Agent, Pretoria, to the High Commissioner. brtannien.
ist January 1896.- 1 hope your Excelleney will approve of my action." M 896.
lIn my opinion if the Government does not comply with all the demands
contained ini Mr. Leonard's manifesto hostilities are inevitable, and they will
be sanguinary. The state of excitement and anxiety amongst the people of
Pretoria can hardly be deseribed. Every head of a family who can afford it
hias sent his family away. The armed force at Johannesburg is estimnated at
fourteen thousand.
E.
From Percy Fitz Patrick, Johannesburg, Secretary Reform Committee, to
Her Majesty's Agent, Pretoria.
ist January 1896.- The Reform Committee thank you for your commu-
nication and beg to inform you that they have anticipated the suggestion of
the High Commissioner, and, at the invitation of the Government, have sent
by this morning's train a deputation consisting of Messrs. Lionel Phillips,
J. G. Auret, and Abe Bailey, to confer with a commission appointed by the
Government.
F.
From Her Majesty's Agent, Pretoria, to Secretary of the Reform Committee,
Johannesburg.
2nd January 1896.- Upon the request of your deputation I waited upon
bis Honour the President, aud he has given me the assurance that pending
ithe arrival of the 1High Commissioner, who has left Capetown this evening,
Johannesburg will not be invested or surrounded by burghers, provided that
Ino acts of hostility against the Government or breaking of the law is com-
mitted by the Johannesburg people, or anything leading to hostility or brea-
king of laws.
G.
From Her M1ajesty's Agent, Johannesburg, to His Honour the President,
Pretoria.
7th January 1896. I have met the Reform Committee. Am gratified
with the spirit shown in the discussion of the all-important present position.
The Committee handed me the following resolution. Begins: "The Reform
Committee in .Johannesburg, having seriously considered the ultimatum of the
Government of the South African Republic conveyed to them through Hier Britannic
Majesty's Agent at Pretoria, in a telegram dated 6th instaunt, to the effect tlat
Johannesburg must lay down its arms as a condition preccedent to a discussion and
consideration of grievances, have unanimously decided to comply with this
,demand, and have given instructions to the citizens employed by tlis Com-
mittee for maintaining good order to lay down their arms. In coming to
this determination the Committee rely upon thie Government thliat it will






38 Grossritannien und die Sdafrikanische Republik 19.

Nr. 11a5. maintain law and order and protect life ad property in this town at this
ri iin. critical juncture. The Committee have been actuated by a paramount
i. Mi i,6. desire to do everything possible to ensure the safety of Dr. Jameson
and his men, to advance the amicable discussion of terms of settlement with
the Government, and to suppoit Her Majesty's High Commissioner in his
efforts in this respect. The Committee would draw the attention of the
Government of tlis Republic to the presence of armed burgher forces in the
immediate vicinity of this town, and wo.uld earnestly desire that these forces
be removed in order to avoid all risk of any disturbance of the public peace."
Reslution ends. I wish to add to my above remarils that 1 feel convinced
there will be no further difficulty in connexion with the laying down of their
arms. I would suggest that the Government co-operate with the Reform
Committee, under Government instructions, for a day or two, for tlie purpose |
of restoring the town to its normal state. This will only take a day or two,
and those who are excited among the people will by that time have calmed
down, and the police can resume their ordinary duties. The Committee will
co-operate in this matter. This course will very much facilitate the task of
your Government, if it meets with your approval.



From High Commissioner, Pretoria, to Sir Jacobus de Wet, Her Mlajesty's
Agent, Johannesburg.
7th January 1896. Urgent. You should inform the Johannesburg people
that I consider that if they lay down their arms they will be acting loyally
and honourably, and that if they do not comply with my request they will
forfeit all claim to sympathy from Her Majesty's Government and from British
subjects throughout the world, as the lives of Jameson and the prisoners are
now practically in their hands.

11.
6. April 1896.
Sir, |1 To the many misrepresentations and attacks upon myself by
English newspapers, "Tlie Newcastle Chronicle" of the 6th March (was sent
to me) adds several articles dwelling prineipally upon the Willoughby-Gronjd
correspondence, and by coupling my name with that of Sir Sidney Shippard
in connexion with the "lives of Jameson and the men dependent on the dis-
arming of Johannesburg", an utterance I never made, and the consequence of
which and for other reasons I repudiated any connexion with Sir Sidney in
my telegram of the 8th January to the State, which I showed to your Ex-
ccllency, and when I was given to understand that his action was not sanc-
tioned by you. lMuch confusion has arisen from the exprcssions used by Sir
Sidney, and 1 have been misrepresented and roundly slated for his words.
If he acted upon his own responsibility, and the newspapers, either wilfully





Grossbritannien und die Sdafrikanische Republik 1896. 39

or by mistake, coupled one names, and made me responsible for his words, Nr. 11453.
.. . Gross-
they alone are to blame, and there can be no objections to my contradicting britlion.
the Statements, botli to Mr. Cbamberlain and publicly, and thus once for all \. Mai ISIG.
removing the imputations from myself. The "Newcastle Chronicle" asserts
that Sir Sidney was sent to Johannesburg by your Excellency, and Mr. Cham-
berlain also stated in the House of Commons that I was aided by Sir Sidney
inferentially in an offieial or quasi-official capacity; all this gives a colouring
to the presumption that he acted with your Excellency's sanction. I shall,
therefore, be glad, before I take any steps to clear myself, to hear from
your Excellency whether or not Sir Sidney was delegated by you. I suppose
tlhere can be no objections to let Mlr. Chamberlain know what I did and said
at Johannesburg, for though I have humbly to submit when ignored by the
Government in whose interest I have strained every nerve day and night,
whilst my colleagues, the consuls of other nations, who were inactive specta-
tors of raids and risings by British subjects, are the recipients of haridsome
and substantial recognitions from their Governments, yet I have hope in the
justice of Her hlajesty's Government that they will at least allow me the pri-
vilege of exposing the perversions and suppressions of truth of which I have
been the victim.
I have, &c.
J. A. d.e Wet, Her Britannie MBajesty's Agent.

I.
From the High Commissioner to Her Majesty's Agent.
Government House, Capetown, April 14, 1896.
Sir, 1 I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despateh
of the 6th instant complaining of the attacks made upon you in English
newspapers, especially in regard to the allegation that you informed the
people of Johannesburg that the lives of Dr. Jameson and his men depended
upon the disarming of Johannesburg. || I do not think it is necessary that you
should now take notice of the statements in unwspapers on this'matter. |l Sir
S. Shippard was certainly not delegated by me to convey any message to
Johannesburg, although when he came to see me in Pretoria before leaving
for Johannesburg 1 told him of the ultimatum of the Government that Jo-
hannesburg must surrender arms in 24 hours or hostilities would commence.
I also told him that no decision had been come to up to that time as to
the disposal of Dr. Jameson and the other prisoners, and that the Govern-
ment would make no promises as to grievances beyond those embodied in the
President's proelamation. Any statements made by Sir S. Shippard beyond
what I have above speeified were not authorised by me.
1 have, &c.
Hercules Robinson,
Governor and High Commissioner.





40 Grossbritannien n Il d d afik e Republik-



ritannioin. From Her Majesty's Agent, Johannesburg, to s Excellency thie High
Com98.missioner, Preteria.

8th January 1896. Most urgent. Am now in meeting with Reform
Committee, who showed me telegram despatched by them to me at 12 noon,
which telegram did not reach me in Prtaoria. This telegram begins "All
enrolled men have been disbanded, with the exception of those retained to
preserve order in town to-day if necessary. These will be disbanded this
evening. The local authorities take entire charge of the town at 8 o'clock
to-night. We have handed the Government the three Maxims we had and
all ammunition, together with about 1,900 rifles. There are still spread about
approximately 500 rifles, issued for protection of life and property in town and
at the mines. We are making every effort to collect these, and have inser-
ted an advertisement peremptorily calling upon persons to hand in all guns.
We are informed that some of the guns have been sold and others stolen,
so we cannot hope to gather in all issued. Shall be glad if you will urge
upon the Government the desirability of keeping the canteens closed for at
least two days longer. People have resumed business, and the town is abso-
lutely quiet and the mines working." Telegram ends. The Committee assure
me that they never possessed any cannons or field pieces other than the three
Maxims already handed up by them, and they are prepared to support the
statement by affidavit if- rcquired by every member of the Reform Committee.
As stated in the above telegram, they are taking the most active steps to
collect the 400 or 500 guns still out, and have inserted a strong notice in
the local newspapers calling upon all persons who still have guns in their
possession to immediately surrender them. A deputation, consisting of three
members of the Committee, waited on the Government Commissioners to-day
and offered every facility for searching suspected localities, and offered them-
selves to remain as hostages during tlhe search as a voucher for the truth
of the statement made by them. The Committee suggests that the Govern-
ment should issue a proclamation calling upon all persons to register their
guns witl the Governmeut officials forthwith. The Committee has been in-
formed ly Pietersen, the lieutenant of police in Johannesburg, that a number
of the guns served out by the Committee for the preservation of order has
been purchased by private persons and by the Government police of Johannes-
burg. The Committee is prepared to assist the Commission appointed hy the
Government to inspect and search any places under their control or a which
they suspect that arms and ammunition are concealed. I feel perfectly con-
fident from the assnrances given me by tle Reform Committee and by the
attitude of the members that they are perfectly sincere in their statements
and in the undertaking to which they have pledged their hionour and their
persons.






Orossbrit ilen und die Sdafrikanische Republik 189G. 41

K. Nr. 11453.
From Her Majesty's Agent, Johannesburg, to Commandant General, Pretoria. ritss.
Translation. |J Sth January. (Very pressing.) 1 have spoken witli your Go- 1. LMai 1859.
vernment Commission. Withl their concurrence and approval 1 beg you very
kindly in the interest of peace and order that all arrangements with reference
to the disarmament and the preservation of quiet and order mny be left to your
said Commission. || Commandant Schutte begs me to teoll you that lhe has quite
suffieient special constables sworn in for this.
L.
From Her Majesty's Agent, Johannesburg, to His Excellency the High
Commissioner, Pretoria.

8th January 1896. Urgent. Am in conference witl the Govermuent
Commission now. They are not prepared to commence searching operations
before receiving further instructions from the Governminent. Two members of
tbe deputation are proceeding to Pretoria for that purpose, and will in all
probability not return before mid-day to-morrow. Under tlese circumstances
I will go back witl them to Pretoria and return with them to-morrow if
they ean begin operations at oncc. Kindly give Lady de Wet notice of my
return to-night.
M.
From Imperial Secretary, to Acting Seeretary, Pretoria.

Pretoria, January 12, 1896.
(South African Republic.) || Sir, 1i I am direeted by his Excellency the
High Commissioner to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday,
stating that, in the opinion'of tlie Government of the South African Republie,
cvery reason now exists for considering that the complications at Johannes-
burg are approaching to an end, and tbat as matters now appear, there need
be no longer any fear of furtlier bloodslied. || The Higl Commissioner desires
mne to express to bis Honour the President, and to the members of tle Exe-
cutive Council througli you, his acknowledgment of the thanks of the Govern-
ment of the Soutl African Republic for the assistance hle has been able to
render in preventing further bloodsled, and his thanks for the congratulations
of his IHonour the President, and of the members of the Executive Couuncil,
on the manner in which his object in coming las been fulfilled. || The High
Commissioner furtlier desires me to convey to his Honour the President and
the Executive Council, the cxpression of the feeling of satisfaction with which
lie Las received their acknowledgment of the services rendered by Sir Jacobus
de Wet, the British Agent at Pretoria. This acknowledgment his Excellency
thinks is fully deserved, and it will give him great pleasure to be the means
of conveying it to Sir J. de Wet. 11 Tlhe abscnce of tlic Higli Commissioner
from Capetown at the present time, when a new iiinistry has been in course






42 Grossbritannien und die Sudafrikanische Republik 18.

.r. 11i53. of formation, has not been without detriment to the public interest, and as
br n ien soon as bis Excellency is in a position to give definite instructions to the
1. Mai i,. Governor of Natal witli reference to the reception and disposal of the pri-
soners, whom the President has undertaken to hand over to him, he proposes
to leave for Capetown. In the meanwhile, bis Excellency desires to express
to his Ilonour tle President his best thankis for the hospitality which has
been extended to him during his visit to Pretoria.
1 have, & Graham Bower, Imperial Secretary.
















Verhandlungen zwischen Grossbritanuien und
(den Vereinigten Staaten ber den Grenzstreit
mit Venezuela und die Berufung eines Schieds-

gerichts 1896,

Nr. 11454*). VEREIN. STAATEN. Der Botschafter in London
an den Minister des Auswrtigen. Die Vereinigten
Staaten wnschen ein Schiedsgericht in der Venc-
zuelafrage.
Embassy of the United States, London, February 27, 1896. (Received February-27.)
My Lord, in order to reach a well-defined agreemeut for a basis of Nr. 11454.
negotiation to constitute a Tribunal for the arbitration of the boundary bet- Vereinigto
ween British Guiana and Venezuela-which seems to be almost unanimously27.Feb.Ss96.
desired in both the United States and Great Britain-I have the honour to
acquaint your Lordship that my instructions continue to indicate an urgent
desire to have the question removed, as soon as practicable, from the atmo-
sphere of possible controversy, and to that end I have sought an interview
withll your Lordship in order to propose, on behalf of my Government, an
entrance forthwith upon negotiations at Washington to effect this purpose,
and that Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington should be empowered to
discuss the question at that capital with the Secretary of State. || It has been
greatly desired by the Secretary of State of the United States, that a clear
definition of the "settlements" by individuals in the territory in dispute, which
it is understood Her 3Majesty's Government desire should be excluded from
the proposed snubmission to arbitration, should be propounded, accompanied
by such explanatory reasons as may assist a comprehension of the intent and
purpose of such exelusion. l| It is the desire of my Government to assist in a
basis of settlement which shall recommend itself to the sense of justice of
both countries, and to invest the proposed Tribunal of Arbitration with high
and liberal powers, to secure justice and equity in their award.
I have, &c.
(Signed) T. F. Bayard.
*) Nr. 11454-6C entstammen dem Blaubuch 8105. 1896.






44 Verhandlungen zwischen Grossbritannien nt den Vereinigte Staten etc.

Nr. 11455. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Minister des Auswrtigen
an den Botschafter in Washington. Wnscht eine
gemischte Kommission zum Schiedsgericht.
Foreign Offce, February 27, 1896, 7 P. M.
Nr. 11455. (Telegrapliie.) || The American Ambassador has proposed to me that he
broitien, should be furnisied with a definition of the words "settled districts," as used
27. Feb.i 96. by us in coinection witli the Venczuelan Boundary question. I have promised
to consult the Colonial Office, and to endeavour to comply with the request.||
Ile was, he intimated, abont to propose that negotiations should be commen-
ced between the two Governments with a view to agreeing upon a Tribunal
of Arbitration by which the controversy should be settled. il My reply was
that the proposal went too far, and that I was not prepared in matters of
high political import to admit unrestricted arbitration. 1 doubted whether it
was possible to obtain an impartial Arbiter, nor did I see my way to laying
down the law which should govern the deeision on many of the points 01on
which an Arbiter would necessarily be invited to pronounce. || But 1 prolosed
to him that we should obtain an authoritative statement of the facts either
by two Commissions or by a Joint Commission, leaving to subsequent dis-
cussion the question of building a deeision on those facts. 1| This proposal he
promised to refer to his Government for consideration.

Nr. 11456. GROSSBRITANNIEN. -Der Botschafter in Washington
an den Minister des Auswrtigen. Antwort auf das
Vorige. Gegenvorschlag der Vereinigten Staaten.
Washington, March 1, 1896. (Received March 2.)
Nr. 11456. (Telegraphic.) (| Venezuela. At an interview which I have had with the
ritnnien Secretary of State, he informed me that the proposal made by your Lordship
1.S)ar s196.to Mr. Bayard, and communicated to me in your Lordship's telegram of the
27th ultimo, is unacceptable to the Government of the United States, because
no final settlement is provided by it. He requested that I should submit to
your Lordship the following counter-proposal: |1 A new Commission to be
appointed, to consist of two members nominated by tlie United States (pro-
bably from the American Commission) and two by Great Britain, who shall
report the facts to the two Governments. If they divide equally, a fifth
member to be appointed by agreement or nominated by a third party. || The
two Governments shall, on receipt of the final Report, endeavour to fix a line
satisfactory to all parties, including Venezuela, failing which the facts reported
shall be submitted to an Arbitral Tribinal, consisting of the Chief Justices
of England and of the United States, and of a third Arbitrator to he mutually
agreed upon or nominated by a third party. A divisional line, such as is
warranted hy the facts submitted, shall be ascertained and declaied by this
Tribunal, and all parties in interest, including Venezuela, shall accept the
line so ascertained and declared, and it shall be binding upon them.






Verhandu ngen awischen Grossbritaunien und den Vereinigteu Staaten etc. 45

Nr. 11457. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Derselbe an Denselben. Das-
selbe.
Washington, March 1, 1896. (Received March 2.)
(Telegraphic.) Venezuela. Mr. Olney's counter-proposal, which I had Nr' 1)1.7.
Gross-
the honour to telegraph to your Lordship in telegram of to-day's date, in- ibritnien.
volves arbitration without restriction. || The Secretary of State begged mc to Mrz 1996.
submit his proposal to your Lordship, althongh I expressed my opinion that
it would not be accepted. 1| Mr. Olney said that, as he did not kuow what
restrietions your Lordship wished for, lie could not make any other proposal,
but that, if any were put forward by your Lordship, they would be considered
with care, and, in all probability, if the restrictions shonld be reasonable, no
objection would be entertained to them. || The Secretary of State added that
it was not possible for Venezuela to abandon her claims to the settled di-
stricts unless a Tribunal of Arbitration decided against her, as she was ex-
pressly precluded from so doing by the terms of her Constitution. |1 I gathered
from nmy conversation with Mr. Olney that he will strive to indnce Venezuela
to accept rcgulations for the guidance of the Arbitrators such as would
diminish the danger of any injustice or hardship being inflieted by the deci-
sion of the Tribunal.



Nr. 11458. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Minister des Auswrtigen
an den Botschafter der Verein. Staaten. England
stimmt der Verhandlung ber die Venezuelafrage
in Washington zu.
Foreign Office, March 3, 1896.
Your Excellency, li The note which youn handed to me at our interview Nr. iiis.
on the 27th ultimo has received the carefunl consideration of Her Majesty's brnien
Government. || The communications which have already passed between Her. Mrz 18s6.
Majesty's Government and that of the United Staates have made you acquain-
ted with the desire of Her Majesty's Government to bring the difference
between themselves and the Republic of Venezuela to an eqnitable settlement.
They therefore readily coneur in the suggestion that negotiations for this pur-
pose should be opened at Washington without unnecessary delay. I have.
accordingly empowered Sir J. Pauncefote to discuss the question either with
the Representative of Venezuela or with the Government of the United States,
acting as the friend of Venezuela. 1| I will communicate to the Secretary of
State for the Colonies Mr. Olney's desire to be informed of the precise mca-
ning attached by Her Majesty's Goverument to the word ,Settlemeuts" in the
territory in dispute. || The limitations or conditions to be applied to the
arbitral jurisdiction of any Tribunal that may be created for the purpose of
deciding questions in dispute will be a proper subject for the negotiations to
wbich the United States' Government have invited us. I ventured, however,






46 Verhandlungen zwische Gsbrtane a Verii et.

Nr. 11458. at our interview already mentioned, to suggest a course of proe h which
rannior would not only have the effect of saving time-which I agree with youn in
3. 6. tking to be anoject of importanee- hut would go far to abridge the diffieulties of
the question, and evon to remove them altogether. The two Governments are, I
believe, quite agreed that the determination of facts is a suitable matter to
be considered and finally deeided by a properly constituted Tribunal. It r.y
be more difficult to arrive at a further agreement as to the law whieh should
in all eases govern the decision to be founded o those facts, or the method
of determining that law. But the possibility of our being compelled to argue
this question at a later stage, should not prevent us from setting in motion
that portion of the procedure on which we are agreed. It will at all events
save time to enter upon it at once, and it may well be that when we have
the facts before us, duly and finally ascertained, we shall see that in Iainy
respects they exclude the possibility of disagreenent upon the main question
at issue. I have, &c.
(Signed) Salisbury.


Nr. 11459. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Minister des Auswrtigen
an den Botschafter in Washington. Schlgt einen
allgemeinen Vertrag zwischen England und den
Vereinigten Staaten auf Einsetzung eines Schieds-
gerichts fr gewisse Flle vor.
Foreign Office, March 5, 1896.
Nr. 11459. Sir, II Tu the spring of last year communications were excha.nged between
britannio. your Excelleney and the late Mr. Gresham upon the establishment of a system
5.Mrz1896. .of international arbitration for the adjustment of disputes between the two
Governments. Circumstanccs, to which it is unnecessary to refer, prevented
the further consideration of the question at that time. |l But it has again been
brought into prominence by the controversy which has arisen upon the Vene-
zuelan boundary. Without touehing upon the matters raised by that dispute,
it appears to me that the occasion is favourable for renewing the general
diseussion upon a subject in which both nations feel a, strong interest, without
having been able up to this time to arrive at a eommon ground of agreement.
The obstaele which has separated them has been the diffieulty of deeiding
how far the undertaking to refer all matters in dispute is to be carried.
On both sides it is admitted that some exceptions must be made. Neither
Government is willing to accept arbitration upon issues in which the national
honour er integrity is involved. But in the wide region that lies within this
boundary the United States desire to go further than Great Britain. | For
the view entertained by Her Majesty's Government there is this consideratiou
to be pleaded, that a system of arbitration is an entirely novel arrangenent,
and, therefore, the conditions under which it should be adopted are not likely






zwischen ssbrianni id en Vereinigten Staten etc. 47

te be ascertained antecedently. The limits ultimately adopted must be deter- Nr. 11159.
mcinied by experiment. In the interests of the idea, and of the pacific results britnion,
which are expected from it, it would be wise to commence with a modests.)Iarzis8o.
beginning, and not to hazard the success of the principle by adventuring it
upon doubtful ground. The suggestion in the heads of Treaty which T have
inclosed to your Excellency will give an opportunity for observing more closely
the working of the machinery, leaving it entirely open to the Contracting
Parties, upon favonrable cxperience, to extend its application further, and to
bring under its action controversies to which for the present it can only be
applied in a tentative manner, and to a limited extent. || Cases that arise bet-
ween States belong to one of two classes. They may be private disputes in
respect to which the State is representing its own subjects as individnals; or
they may be issues which concern the State itself considered as a whole. A
elaim for an indemnity or for damages belongs gcnerally to the first class;
a Claim to territory or sovereign rights belongs to the second. For the first
class of differences the suitability of international arbitration may be admitted
without reserve. It is exactly analogous to private arbitration; and thcre is
no objeetion to the one that would no apply equally to tlie other. Therc is
iiothing in eases of this class which shonld make it difficult to find capable
and impartial Arbitrators. Bat the other class of disputes stands on a diffe-
rent footing. They concern the State in its collective capacity; and all the
mcmbcrs of each State, and all other States who wish it well, are interested
in the issne of the litigation. If the matter in controversy is important, so
that defeat is a serious blow to the credit or the power of the litigant who
is worsted, that interest becomes a more or less keen partizanship. Accor-
ding to thcir sympathies, men whish for the victory of one side or onother.
Such conflieting sympathies interfere most formidably with the chloice of
an impartial Arbitrator. It would be too invidious to specify the various
forms of bias by which, in any important controversy between two great
Powers, the other members of the commonwealth of nations are visibly affected.
In the existing condition of international sentiment, each great Power could
point to nations whose admission to any jury by whom its interests were to
be tried it would be bound to challenge; and in a litigation between two great
Powers the rival challenges would pretty well exhaust the catalogue of the
nations from whom competend and suitable Arbiters could bc drawn. It
would be easy, but scarcely decorous, to illustrate this statement by examples.
They will occur to any one's mind who attempts to construct a panel of nations,
capable of providing eompetent Arbitrators, and will consider how many of
them would command equal confidence from any two litigating Powers. || This
is the difficulty which stands in the way of unrestricted arbitration. By
wbatever plan the Tribunal is selected, the end of it must be that issues in
which the litigant States are most deeply interested will be decided by the
vote of one man, and that man a foreigner. He has no jury to find his






48 Verhandlngen zwischen rosshritannien den ereinitn Staten etc.

Nr. 11459. facts; he has 11o Court of App'eal to correct 'his law; and hoe is sure to be
,itans- credited, justly or not, with a leaning to one litigant or the other. Nations
9.Mrz is9. cannot afford to run such a risk in deciding controversies by whieh their
national position may be affected, or a number of thcir fellow-subjects trans-
fcrred to a foreign rue. || The plan whieh is suggsted in the appended draft
Treaty would give a Court of Appeal from thie single voiee of the foreign
judge. It would not be competent for it to alter or reserve the Umpire's
decision, but if his judgment were not confirmed by the stipnlated majority
it would not stand. The Court wonld possess the highest guarantee for im-
partiality whieh a Court hblonging to the two litigating nations could possess.
Its operation in arresting a faulty or doubtful judgment would Iake it possible
to refer great issues to arbitration whithont the risk of a disastrous mis-
earriage of justice. 1| I am aware that to the warmer advocates of arbitration
this plan will scem unsatisfying and imperfect. But I believe that it offers
an opportunity of making a substantial advance, which a more ambitious
arrangement would be unable to secre; and if, nnder its operation, experience
should teach us that our apprehensions as to the danger of reposing an na-
limited confidence in this kind of Tribunal arc unfounded, it will be easy by
dropping precautions that will have become unneeessary, to accept aind establish
the idea of arbitration in its most developed form. ]I 1 beg that you will read
this despatch and the appended draft Treaty to the Secretary of State, and
leave him a copy if he desires it.
I am, &c.
(Signed) Salisbury.


Beilage.
IHeads of a Treaty for Arbitration in certain Cases.

1. Her Britannic MiIajesty and the President of the United States shall
each appoint two or more permanent judicial officers for the purposes of this
Treaty; and on the appearance of any difference between the two Powers,
which, in the judgment of either of them, cannot be settled by negotiation,
each of them shall designate one of the said officers as Arbitrator; and the
two Arbitrators shall hear and determine any matter referred to them in
accordance with this Treaty.
2. Before entering on such arbitration, the Arbitrators shall select an
Umpire, hy whom any question upon which they disagree, whether interlocutory
or final, shall be decided. The decision of such Umpire upon any interlocu-
tory question shall be binding upon the Arbitrators. The determination of
the Arbitrators, or, if they disagree, the decision of the Umpire shall be the
Award upon tlie matters referred.
3. Complaints made by the nationals of one Power against the officers
of the other; all pecuniary elaims or groups of claims, amounting to not more






Veirhandlinigeni zwischen Grossbritaniiien und den Vereinigten Staaten etc. 49

than 100,0001. made on either Power by the nationals of the other, whether Nr. 11459.
Gross-
based on an alleged right by Treaty, or Agreement, or otherwise; all elaims britannsin,
for damages or indemnity under the said amount; all questions affecting diplo-s.)lrz8soe.
matic or Consular privileges; all alleged rights of fishery, access, navigation,
or commercial privilege, and all questions referred by special agreement bet-
ween the two parties, shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with
this Treaty; and the Award thereon shall be final.
4. Any difference in respect to a question of faet, or of international
law, involving the territory, territorial rights, sovereignty, or jurisdiction of
either Power, or any peeuniary claim or group of claims of any kind, invol-
ving a sum larger than 100,0001., shall be referred to arbitration under this
Treaty. But if in any such case, within three months after the Award has
been reported, either Power protests that such Award is erroneous in respect
to some issue of fact, or some issue of international law, the Award shall be
reviewed by a Court composed of three of the Judges of the Supreme Court
of Great Britain and three of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United
States; and if the said Court shall determine, after hearing the case, by a
majority of not less than five to one, that the said issue has been rightly
determined, the Award shall stand and be final; but in default of such deter-
mination it shall not be valid. If no protest is entered by either Power
against the Award within the time limited it shall be final.
5. Any difference, which in the judgment of either Power materially
affects its honour or the integrity of its territory, shall not be referred to
arbitration under this Treaty except by special agreement.
6. Any difference whatever, by agreement between the .two Powers, may
be referred for decision by arbitration, as herein provided, with the stipulation
that, unless accepted by both Powers, the deeision shall not be valid. 1| The
time and place of their meeting, and all arrangements for the hearing, and all
questions of procedure shall be decided by the Arbitrators or by the Umpire,
if need be.

Nr. 11460. VEREIN. STAATEN. Der Staatssekretr des Aus-
wrtigen an den englischen Botschafter. Fordert
nderungen an Salisburys Vorschlag eines allge-
meinen Schiedsgerichts.
April 11, 1896.
Excellency, || I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt, at your hands,
of the copy of Lord Salisbury's despatcli of the 5 th March, 1896. His Nr. 11460o.
Lordship, after recurring to the negotiations of last year between himself and Vereinigte
Staaten.
the late Secretary Gresham for the establishment of a general system of Arbi- n.Apr.xas6.
tration of disputes between the two Governments, and after, in terms excluding
from consideration the Venezuelan boundary dispute, expresses the opinion
that the time is favourable for renewing discussion upon the subject. He
Staatsarchiv LX. 4






50 Verhandlungen zwischen a|ossbritannien an din Vereinig etc.

Nr. U4i5. thereupon procceds to mak e a most interesting contribution to such discussion,
vereinigte' which he concludes by submitting the draft of a proposed Treaty, a copy of
Staaten.
ii.Air.i96. which, for convenienuce of reference, is annexed to this communicatio. [ It is
proper to state at the ontset that these proposals of Her Majesty's Prime
Minister are welcomed by the President with the keenest appreeiation of their
value, and of the enlightened and progressive spirit which animates them. So
far as they manifest a desire that the two great English speaking peoples of
the world shall remain in perpetual peace, he fully reciprocates that desire
on behalf of the Government and people of the United States. To himself
personally nothing could bring greater satisfaction than to be instrumental in
the accomplishment of an end so beneficent. || If Lord Salisbury's draft had
stopped with Artiele 3, no criticism could have been made either of the arbi-
tral machinery provided, or of the arbitral subjects enumerated, exeept that
the latter seem to be so cautionsly restricted as hardly to cover other than
controversies, which, as between civilized States, could almost never endanger
their peaceful relations. But Article 3, as well as Artiele 4, is apparently
qualified by the provisions of Artiele 5, since the national honour may some-
times be involved even in a claim for indemnity to an individual. Furthor,
the arbitral machinery provided by Artiele 4 is open to serious objection as
not securing an end of the controversy unless an Award 'is concurred in by
at least five out of the six Appellate Arbiters. In calling attention to these
features of the scheme as largely restricting its value, 1 am directed by the
President to propose, as a substitute for Articles 4 and 5, the following: -
Artiele 4. "Arbitration under this Treaty shall also be obligatory in
respect of all questions now pending, or hereafter arising, involving territorial
rights, boundaries, sovereignty or jurisdiction, or any pecuniary claim or group
of claims aggregating a sum larger than 100,0001., and in respect of all
controversies not in this Treaty" specifically described: Provided, howewer, that
either the Congress of the United States on the one hand, er the Parliaient
of Great Britain on the other, at any time before the Arbitral Tribunal shall
have convened for the consideration of any particular subject-matter, may by
Act or Resolution declaring such particular subject-matter to involve the
national honour or integrity, withdraw the same from the operation of this
Treaty; and provided, further, that if a controversy shall arise when either
the Congress of the United States or the Parliament of Great Britain shall not
be in session, and such controversy shall be deemed by Her Britannic Ma-
jesty's Government, or by that of the United States, acting through the Presi-
dent, to be of such nature that the international honour or integrity may be
involvcd, such difference or controversy shall not be submitted to Arbitration
under this Treaty until the Congress and the Parliament shall have had the
opportunity to take action thereon. "In the case of controversies provided
for by this Article, the Award shall be final if concurred in by all the Arbi-
trators. If assented to by a majority only the Award shall be final unless






Verianiiingen zwischen Grossbritannion und den Vereinigten Staaten etc. 51

one of the Parties, within three months from its promulgation, shall protest Nr. 1160o.
in writing to the other that the Award is erroneous in respect of some issue Strete
of fact or of law. In every such case the Award shall be reviewed by all.Apr.1l96.
Court composed of three of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Great Britain,
and three of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, who be-
fore entering itpon their duties shall agree upon three learned and impartial
Jurists to be added to said Court in case they shall be equally divided upon
the Award to be made. To said Court there shall be submitted a record in
fall of all the proceedings of the original Arbitral Tribunal, which record,
as part thereof, shall include the evidence adduced to such Tribunal. Theren-
pon the said Court shall proceed to consider said Award upon said record,
and may either affirm the same or make such other Award as the principles
of law applicable to the facts appearing by said record shall warrant and
require, and the Award so affirmed or so rendered by said Court, whether
unanimously or by a majority vote, shall be final. If, however, the Court shall
be equally divided upon the subject of the Award to be made, the three
Jurists agreed upon as hereinbefore provided shall be added to the said Court,
and the Award of the Court so constituted, whether rendered unanimously,
or by a majority vote, shall be final." || The considerations, which, in the
opinion of the President, render the foregoing amendments of Lord Salisbury's
scheme most desirable, and perhaps indispensable, may be briefly stated:||
1. The scheme, as thus amended, makes all disputes prima facie arbi-
trable. || Each, as it may arise, will go before the Arbitral Tribunal, unless
affirmative action by the Congress or by the Parliament displaces the juris-
diction. jj 2. The scheme, as amended, piuts where they belong the right and
power to decide whether an international claim is of such nature and impor-
tance as not to be arbitrable and as to demand assertion, if need be, by
force of arms. |1 The Administration in authority, when a serious international
controversy arises, must, in the nature of things, be often exposed to influences
not wholly favourable to an impartial consideration of the nature of that
controversy. 1| It may always be more or less controlled by personal predilec-
tions and prejudices inherent in the controversy or arising in its progress,
while considerations connected with party succes or failure, are factors not
likely to be wholly eliminated in determining upon a particular course of
action. il It is liable to decide in haste--to view the honour of the country
as not distinguishable from the good of its party-and to act without the
advantage of a full discussion of the subject in all its aspects by party oppo-
nents, as well as by party friends. |] On the other hand, if the issue between
war and Arbitration be left to the Supreme Legislative Tribunal of the coun-
try, to Congress on the one hand, or Parliament on the other, there will be
ample time for deliberation and for full investigation and debate of the subject
in all its bearings, while it is in the face of such an issue and of all its
responsibilities that mere party interests are most likely to be subordinated
4*










Vleraiigt"e onnection, however, remains to be stated. t is that, if war and not Arbi-
Staaten.
n.,P r. ie. tration is to be evoked iii settlement of an international controversy, t i
direct Representatives of the people, at w iose cost and suffering the war ust
be carried on, should properly be ehargeid with the responsibility of iaing
it. Il 3. The scheme, as amended, ehanges the Arbitration maehinery provi ie
by Artiele 4 of Lord Salisbury's draft in important partieulars. |I the first
place, the Award of the original Tribunal of Arbitration, if the Arbiters are
unanimous, is to be final, and the Appellate Tribunal is to give its deciion
in view of the record and proceedings (ineluding any evidence adduced) of such
original Tribunal. It is hardly consistent with any reasonable theory of
Arbitration that an Award concurred in by the Arbiter of the defeated country
should be appealable by that country. It is obvious, too, that the parties
may properly be required to present all their facts and evidence to the origi-
nal Tribunal. Otherwise, and if the Award is appealable in any event, the
original Tribunal might as well be dispensed with since each party will be
sure to make its real contest before the Appellate Tribunal alone. |[ In the
second place, by the sheine, as amended, an Award is the result of each
Arbitration so that the controversy is finally ended. Under the draft as
proposed, on the other hand, there will be an Award only in the rare cases
in which the six Appellate Arbiters favour it either uinanimously or by a
majority of five to one. Such an arrangement, it is believed, would be
dangerous and rather mischievous than salutary in its operation. In all thei
cases in which the Arbitrators were equally divided, or stood four to two,
public feeling in each country would have been aroused by the protractcd
discussions and proceedings, and the chances of a peaceful outcome would
be rather prejudiced than promoted. That would be the almost certain result
in cases in which the Arbiters stood four to two, and in which one Judge of
the highest Court of his country had found himself compelled to give his V te
in favour of the other country. It is a possibility to be noted that the party
defeated and disappointed by the Award of the original Tribunal, in a ease
where the stake is large and the public feeling intense, might find itself
under irresistible temptation to make all subsequent proceedings purely farcical
by making sure before their selection of the sentiments of two at least of the
Appellate Arbiters. It is submitted that precaution becomes excessive Aihen
the entire Arbitration proceedings are made abortive unless the Tribunal of
six Judges reaches an Award by a majority of at least five to one. If they
stand four to two-which means that, at least, one Judge of the higiest Court
of his country believes that country's claim to be ill-foinded-it is hardly
reasonable to insist that the result should not be accepted and made effeetive.II
It is believed also that there can be no Arbitration in the true sense without
a final Award, and that it may be better to leave controversics to the usual
modes of settlement than to enter upon proceedings which are arbitral only






Verhandlungen zwi6chen Grossbritannien unl den Vereinigten Staaten etc. 53

in iname, and which are likely to bavo no othler rosult thlan to excite and Nr. 11460o.
exasperate public feeling in both countries. l1 It' is objccted by Lord Salisbury ViS'''gt
that to insist upon the finality of an Award upon the controv rsics described n.1Apr. is6.
in Article 4, is to enable a single foreign Jurist to decide mnatters of great
international consequence. | But under Article 4 as amended, the members
added to the Appellate Tribunal need not be foreigners, and they control the
result, it must be by the votes of at least two of thcm. || Tt may be pointed
out too tlat, if bias on the part of foreign Jurists is fcared, the United
States being without alliances with any of the countries of Europe, is certainly
not the party to expect auy advantage from that source. Great Britain could
at least not fail to know in what quarters friendliness or unfriendliness might
be looked for. l| It is believed that the risks anticipated from the powers
given to a foreign Jurist as Arbiter or umpire under Article 4 as amended,
if not purely imaginary, may be easly exaggerated. Before the foreign Jurist
could act, the questions in dispute would have been thoroughly canvassed and
decided, once at least and perhaps twice-so that the risks in question may
fairly be regarded as reduced to a minimum. il Finally, to insist upon an
Arbitration scheime so constructed that miscarriages of justice can never occur
is to insist upon the unattainable, and is equivalent to a relinquishment alto-
gether of the effort in behalf of a general system of international Arbitration.
An approximation to truth-results which on the average, and in the loug
run, conform to right and justice-is all that the "lot of humanity" permits
us to expect from any plan. Not to surround an Arbitration plan with all *
reasonably practieable safeguards against failures of justice would undoubtedly
be the height of unwisdom. But beyond that, human skill and intelligcnce
are without avail, while for aetual results dependence must be placed npon
the patient lhearing and deliberate deeision of a Tribunal whose proceedings
will attraet the close attention and eareful scrutiny of the civilized world. ||
It may be conceded that a general Arbitration scheme not perfected through
repeated Arbitation experiments entails the risks of erroneous Awards. But
in this as in human affairs generally, there is but a choice between evils, and
the non-existence of any Arbitration scheme entails the far greater risks of
controversies, which should be arbitrated, being settled by the sword. It
would seem to be the part of-wisdom, therefore, to establish the principle of
general Arbitration even at the risk of the development of defects in the
schemine originally adopted. The affirmation of the prineiple would of itself
teiid to greatly diminish the chances of a resort to war, while the imper-
feetiops of the scheme as disclosed by its actual working would be reme-
diable at any time by the consent of the parties. That they would be so
rem died in fact, it is difficult not to believe, since a principle of such great
value being once established, it is wholly unlikely that both parties would
not desire to perpetuate its operation, and would not therefore be prepared
to consent to reasonable changes in the- necessary machinery. It would tend






54 Verhandlungen zwische Grossbritannin und den Vereinigte Staaten etc.

Nr. t6o. to insure such consent if the Trcaty were made terminable after a short term
Staa of years on notice by either party. It ouly remains to observe that, i Ar-
11.Ar. 1SO96. tidce 4 as amended shonld prove acceptable, no reason is perceived why the
pending Venezuelan boundary dispute should not be brought within the Treaty
by express words of inclusion. If, however, no Treaty for general Arbitratio
can be now expected, it eannot be improper to add tbat the Venezuel
boundary dispute seems to offer a good opportunity for one of those tentative
experiments at Arbitration which, as Lord Salisbury justly intimates, would
be of decided advantage as tending to indicate the lines upon which a scheme
for general Arbitration can be judiciously drawn. j Begging that this ommni-
cation--copy of which is inclosed for that purpose-may be brought to Lord
Salisbury's attention at your earliest convenience.
I avail, &c.


Nr. 11461. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Minister des Auswr-
tigen an den Botschafter in Washington. Antwort
aufOlneys Gegenvorschlge zum allgemeinen Schieds-
gericht. Verbindung mit der Venezuelafrage.
Foreign Office, May 18, 1896.
Nr. 11461. Sir, 1| I have to acknowledge your Excellency's despateh of the 13tb
Uross-
britanrien. ultimo, inclosing a note from Mr. Olney in reply to the proposals made ty
s. mai 1896.Her Majesty's Government for a General Treaty of Arbitration. 1 Her Majesty's
Advisers have received Mr. Olney's despatch with great statisfaction; in tliat
it testifies clearly to the earnest desire which animates the Government of
the United States to make effective provision for removing all differenees of
opinion which can arise between the two nations. They regret that in some
essential particulars the opinions of the two Governments do not as yet seem
to be sufficiently in accord to enable them to come to a definitive agreement
upon the wliole of this important subject. It appears to themi, however, that
there are some considerations bearing upon this matter to which the attention
of the Government of the United States should be more particularly invited
before the attempt to arrive at a general understanding ought to be laid
aside. |] I would say, in the first place, that Mr. Olney somewhat mistakes my
meaning when he says that, in raising this question, I "in terms excluded the
consideration of the Venezuelan boundary dispute." 1 wished to state our views
upon the question of general arbitration without touching upon certain points
in relation to which the two questions do not cover the same feid. But I
was well aware that any settlement to which we might arrive must in its
general princeiples be applicable to disputes, not only between Great Britain
and the United States, but between either of them and any other Governmeat;
and therefore, witl certain adaptations of detail, it would apply to a dispute
between Great Britain and Venezuela. In this view I am glad to observe






Verhandlungen zwischen Grossbritanin .lnd d.. Vereliigten Staaten etc. 55

that I am at one with Mr. Olney, because I hold that, in discussing the safe- Nr. 1146].
tGross-
guards by which a general system of arbitration should be sanctioned, it is britann in.
important to bear in mind that any system adopted between our two natious14. mib"936.
ought to be such as can in principle be applied, if necessary, to their rela-
tions with other eivilized countries. 1 Mr. Olney is satisfied with the provisions
of ArtieIe III of my proposals, and the plan of arbitration which it contains.*)
The only fault he finds with them is that they are too limited in thcir appli-
cation. He thinks that they "hardly cover other than controversies which as
between civilized States could almost never endanger their peaceful relations."
It is possible that the language of the Article may be modified with advantage.
It certainly was not intended to apply only to controversies of a practically
unimportant character. The discussions which arise out of disputed claims to
territory, which are dealt with in Article IV, are, or may be, much graver,
as well as much more difficult to decide. But it would not, I think, be
difficult to show by a consideration of the history of the present century that
controversies which have issued in war, or in warlike action, have not arisen
exclusively or even mainly from disputed questions of territorial ownership.
To examine the individual instances would involve a somewhat lengthy in-
vcstigation, which is not necessary now. It is more material on the present
occasion to dwell upon the encouraging fact that Her Majesty's Government
and the Government of the United States are entirely agreed in approving the
language of Article III, and the policy it is designed to sanction. Under these
circumstanccs, it appears to me to be a matter for regret that the two Go-
vernments should now neglect the opportunity of embodying their common
view, so far as it is ascertained, in a separate Convention. To do so would
not be to prejudice in the slightest degree the chance of coming to an agree-
ment on the more difficult portion of the subject, which concerns territorial
olaims. The first step would not prevent the ulterior steps being taken; it
would rather lead to them.
With respect to the mode of dealing with territorial claims, the views
of the two Governments are still apart. The United States' Government wish
that evcry claim to territory preferred by one neighbour against another shall
go, as of right, before a Tribunal or Tribunals of Arbitration, -save in certain
special cases of an exceptional charactor, which are to be solemnly declared
by the Legislature of either country to involve the "national honour or inte-
*) Article III runs as follows: "III. Complaints made by the natiouals of one Power
against the officers of the other; all pecuniary claiins or groups of claims amounting
to not more than 100,0001., made on either Power by the nationals of the other,
whether based on an alleged right by Treaty or agreement or otherwise; all claims for
damages or indemuities nder thlie said amount; all questions affecting diplomatie or
Consular Privileges; all alleged rigbts of fishery, acecess, navigation or commurcial pri-
vilege; and all questions referred by special agreement between the two parties, shall
be referred to arbitration in aecordauce withl tlis Treaty: and the award thereon shall
be final."






56 Verhandlungen zwischen Grossbritnnien d den Vereinigten Staaten etc.

Nr. 161. grity;" and that any dispute onee referred, uander thie Treaty, to arbitration,
shall be decided finally and irrevocably without the reservation of any further
is. Mai powers to either party to interfere. Her ajety's Goverment are not pre
pared for this complete surrender of their freedom of action until fuller ex-
perience has been acquired. In their view, obligatory arbitration on terri-
torial claims is, in more than one respect, an untried plan, of which the wor-
king is consequently a matter of conjecture. In the first place, the number
of claims which would be advanced under such a rule is entirely unknown.
Arbitration in this matter has as yet never been obligatory. Claims by one
neighbour to a portion of the land of the other have hitherto been limited
by the difficulty of enforeing them. Ilitherto, if pressed to the e d, they have
meant war. Under the proposed system self-defence by war will, in these
cases, be renounced, unless the claim can be said to involve "the national
honour and integrity." The protection, therefore, whieh at present exists
against speculative claims will be withdrawn. Such claims may, of course, be
rejected by the Arbiter; if they are, no great harm is done to the claiming
party. In the field of private right excessive litigation is prevented by the
judgment for costs against the losing party; but to a national Exchequer the
cost of an arbitration will be too small to be an effective deterrent. Whea-
ever the result is, from any cause, a fair matter of speculation, it may be
worth the while of an enterprising Government to hazard the experiment.
.The first result, therefore, of compulsory arbitration on territorial claims will,
not improbably, be an enormous multiplication of their number. Such liti-
gation can hardly fail to result, from time to time, in a miscarriage of justice;
but there will be a far more serious and certain evil resulting from it. Such
litigation is generally protracted; and while it lasts the future prospects of
every inhabitant of the dispnted territory are darkened by the gravest un-
certainty upon one of the most important conditions that can affeet the life
of a human being, namely, the character of the Government under which he
is to live. Whatever the benefits of arbitration may be in preventing war
from arising out of territorial disputes, they may well be outweighed if the
system should tend to generate a multiplicity of international litigation, bligh-
ting the prosperity of the border country exposed to it, and leaving its in-
habitants to lie under the enduring threat either of- a forcible change of alle-
giance or of exile. |i The enforeement of arbitration in respect to territorial
rights is also an untried project in regard to the provisions of the inter-
national law by which they are to be ascertained. This is in a most rudi-
mentary condition; and its unformed and uncertain character will aggravate
the other dangers on which I have dwelt in a previous despatch-the danger
arising from the doubts which may attach to the impartiality and the compe-
tence of the Arbitrators. |] There are essential differences between individual
and national rights to land, which miake it almost imnpossible to apply the
well-known laws of real property to a territorial dispute.






Verhandlungen ziih Grossbritannien und den Vereinigten Staaten etc. 57

Whatevor the primary origin of his rights, the national owner, like the Nr. 11461.
indciviual owner, relies sually on effective control by himself or through his roitinssi.
wredecessor in title, for a sufficient length of time. But in the ease of a is Ma i;.
nation, what is a suffient length of time, and in what does effective control
consist? In the ease of a private individual, the interval adequate to make
a valid title is defined by positive law. There is no enactment or usage or
accepted doctrine which lays down the lenght of time required for international
preseription; and no full definition of the degree of control which will confer
territorial property on a nation has been attemted. It certainly does not
depend solely on occupation or the exercise of any clearly defined acts. The
great nations in both hemispheres claim, and are prepared to defend, their
right to vast tracts of territory which they have in no sense occupied, and
often have not fully explored. The modern doctrine of "Hinterland" with its
inevitable contradictions indicates the unformed and unstable condition of
international law as applied to territorial claims resting on constructive occu-
pation or control. | These considerations add to the uneertainty attaching to
any general plan of arbitration in territorial disputes. The projected proce-
dure for this purpose will be fall of surprises: the nature of the Tribunal,
its ability and freedom from bias, may be open to much question: the law
which it is to administer has yet to be constructed. Even if the number of
such disputes is not much larger than those of which we have had experience
in modern times, the application of so trenchant and uncertain an instrument
to controversies in which the dearest interests and feelings of multitudes of
men may be engaged cannot be contemplated without some misgiving. But
if, as seems most probable, the facility of the procedure should generate a
vastly augmented number of litigants desirous of rectifying their frontiers to
their own advantage, the danger inherent in the proposed change may be
formidable. |l It appears to me that under these circumstances it will be wiser,
until onr experience of international arbitration is greater, for nations to
retain in their own hands some control over the ultimate result of any claim
that may be advanced against their territorial rights. I have suggested
arrangements under which their interests might be indirectly protected, by
conferring on the defeated litigants an appeal to a Court in which the Award
would need eonfirmation by a majority of Judges belonging to their nationality.
1 do not insist on this special form of protection. It would be equally satis-
factory and more simple to provide that no Award on a question of territorial
right should stand if, within three months of its delivery, either party should
formally protest against its validity. The moral presumption against any
nation delivering such a protest would, in the opiziion of the world, be so
strong that no Government would resort to such a defence unless under a
cogent apprehension that a miscarriage of justice was likely to take place. 1|
Mr. Olney himself appears to admit the need of some security of the kind:
only he would restriet the liberty of refusal to the period immediately prece-






58 Verhandlungen hen ssbrinnie nd Vereig etc.



is.Mai196. application to Great Britain in order to suit our special constitutional usages.
But it would not meet the case of errors committcd, from any cause, by the
Tribunal, which, in the case of a claim to inhabited territory, might have
such serious results to large bodies of men. || I apprehend that if Mr. Olncy's
proposal were adopted as it stands, the fear of a possible miscarriage of
justice would induce the Government whose territory was claimed to avoid all
risk by refusing the arbitration altogether, under the plea, which he allows,
that it involved their honour and integrity. The knowledge, on the other
hand, that there still remained an escape from any deeision that was mani-
festly unjust would make parties willing to go forward with the arbitration,
who would shrink from it behind this plea, if they felt that, by entering 01
the proceeding, they had surrendered all possibility of self-protection, whatever
injustice might be threatened by the Award. 1| I have no doubt that if the
procedure adopted were found in experience to work with tolerable fairness,
the rejection of the Award would come gradually to be looked upon as a
proceeding so dangerous and so unreasonable, that the right of resorting to
such a mode of self-protection in territorial cases would become practically
obsolete, and might in duc time be formally renounced. But I do not be-
lieve that a hearty adoption and practicc of the system of arbitration in the
case of territorial demands can be looked for, unless the safcty and practi-
cability of this mode of settlement are first ascertained by a cautious and
tentative advance. |1 I have to request that your Excellency will read the sub-
stance of this despatch to Mr. Olney, and will leave a copy with him if he
should wish it.
I am, &c.
(Signed) Salisbury.



Nr. 11462. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Derselbe an Denselben.
Schlgt die Grundlage eines Vertrags in der Vene-
zuelafrage vor.
Foreign Office, May 22, 1896.
Nr. 11462. Sir, I sent you in a despatch under date of the 18th instant some
GrOss- observations upon Mr. Olney's eommunication to you with regard to the stjeet
britannion.
,2. rMai is96. of general arbitration. |1 As it is possible, howeve that we shall not see our
way to surmount the difficulties which still separate the vicws of the two
Governments in regard to the larger aund more general question, I propose in
this despatch to convey to you proposals for thle settlement of the Venezuelan
dispute which I should be glad if you would submit to tle Government of
the United States, acting as the friend of Venezuela in this matter. From
the first our objection has beein to subject to tie deeision of an Arbiter, who,






Verlandlungen zwischen Grossbritannien und den Vereinigten Staaten etc. 59

in the last resort, must, of necessity, be a foreigner, the riglits of British Nr. 11462.
colonists who have settled in territory which they liad every ground for broita"ien.
believing to be British, and whose careers would be broken, and their fortunes 2. a i iS.
possibly ruined, by a decision that the territory on which they have setticd
was subject to the Venezuelan Republic. At the same time, we are very
conscious that the dispute between ourselves and the Republic of Venezuela
affects a large portion of land which is not under settlement, and which could
be disposed of without any injustice to any portion of the colonial population.
We are very willing that tho territory which is comprised within this definition
should be subjected to the results of an arbitration, even though some portion of
it should be found to fall within the Schomburgk line. With that end in view,
we propose the following basis of settlement of the Venezuelan boundary dispute:
A Commission to be created by agreement between Great Britain and the
United States, consisting of four members, namely, two British subjects and
two citizens of the United States. The above Commission to investigate and
to report upon the facts which affect the rights of the United Netherlands,
and of Spain respectively, at the date of the acquisition of British Guiana by
Great Britain. 1| This Commission will only examine into questions of fact,
without reference to the inferences that may be founded on them, but the
finding of a majority of the Commission upon those questions shall be binding
upon both Governments. |J Upon the report of the above Commission being
issued the two Governments of Great Britain and Venezuela respectively shall
endeavour to agree to a boundary line upon the basis of such report.
Failing agreement the report, and every other matter concerning this controversy
on which either Government desire to insist, shall be submitted to a Tribunal
of three, one nominated by Great Britain, the other by Venezuela, and the third
by the two so nominated; which Tribunal shall fix the boundary line upon the
basis of such report, and the line so fixed shall be binding upon Great Britain
and Venezuela. Provided always that in fixing such line the Tribunal shall not
have power to include as the territory of Venezuela any territory which was bond
fide occupied by subjects of Great Britain on the Ist January, 1887, or as the
territory of Great Britain any territory bond fide occupied by Venezuelans at
the same date. 1| In respect to any territory with which, by this provision, the
Tribunal is precluded from dealing, the Tribunal may submit to the two
Powers any recommendations which seem to it calculated to satisfy the equi-
table righlts of the parties, and the two Powers will take such recommen-
dations into their consideration. l| It will be evident from this proposal that
we are prepared to accept the finding of a Commission voting as three to
one upon all the facts which are involved in the question of Dutch and Spanish
rights at the time of the cession of Guiana to Great Britain. We are also
prepared to accept the deeision of an arbitral Tribunal with regard to the
ownership of all portions of the disputed territory which are not under
settlement by British subjects or Venezuelan citizens. If the decision of the






60 Verhandlungen zwischen shrtannien a Vereinigten Staten etc.

Nr. 11462. Commission shall affect any territory which is so settled, it will be in the
Gross-
brit nni power of either Government to decline to accept the decision so arrived at
22.ai s96. so far as it affcets the territory alleged to be settled. But I need not point
out to yon that even upon that question, although the decision of the arbitral
Tribunal will not have a final effect, it will, unless it bh manifestly unfair,
offer a presumption, against which the protesting Government will praetically
find it diffieult to contend.
I am, &c.
(Signed) Salisbury.




Nr. 11463. GROSSBRITANNIEN.- Der Botschafter in Washington
an den Minister des Auswrtigen. Olney ist dem
Schiedsgericht geneigter.
Washington, June 2, 1896. (Reeeived June 2, 9 P. M.)
Nr. 11463. (Telegraphic.) 11|| I have received your Lordship's despatch of the 18th ultimo
Gross-
britannie. respecting the proposals for a general Treaty of Arbitration. || After long dis-
2. Juni 1696. cussions with the Secretary of State, he seemed more favourable to the "Heads
for Arbitration Treaty" sent to nme by your Lordship, with an alteration which
I would venture to suggest in Article IV, to the effect that the award, if pro-
tested against, shall be reviewed by a Court composed of not less than five
of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the Power protesting. |1 As Congress
may rise any day, I promised to telegraphi to your Lordship suggesting the
above alteration, and to ask for an early reply.



Nr. 11464. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Der Minister des Auswr-
tigen an den Botschafter in Washington. England
acceptirt Olneys nderungen am Artikel IV.
Foreign Office, June 5, 1896, 2-5 P. M.
Nr. 11464. (Telegraphic.) || Arbitration. See your telegram of the 2nd instant. |1 Her
britamnion. Mjesty's Government would accept the 4th clause of the proposed Treaty in
5. Juni i8s". the form suggested by you. l1 Its application to Venezuela would also be accepted
if the United States for this purpose will stand in Venezuela's place, an
arrangement for which a subsidiary Convention will be required. The two
Arbitrators would be chosen by Great Britain and the United States rcspeeti-
vely. It would also be necessary that under the amended version of clause 4,
the revising Tribunal on the Venezuelan side should be not the Supreme Court
at Caricas, but the Supreme Court at Washington, and that there should be an
undertaking on the part of Venezuela to accept any decision to which the United
States submit, or which is not set aside by the Supreme Court at Washington.






Veradlug wisehen Grossbtan und dlcn Verciiigtun Staaten etc. 61

Nr. 11465.*) VEREIN. STAATEN. Der Staatssekretr des Aus-
w~rtigen an den engl., Botschafter in Washington.
Antwort auf Nr. 11463.
Department of State, Washiugton, June 12, 1896.
Excellency, | I have the honour to acknowledge your favour of the 3rd Nr. 11465.
Vereinigte
instant, to which is attached a despatch to yourself from Lord Salisbury of staaten.
the 22nd ultimo, embodying proposals for the settlement of the VenezuclaIu12.Jnnio''.
dispute, which you are requested to submit to the Government of the United States.
These proposals have bccn considered with care and with the strongest disposition to
find in them a practical, as weil as just, solution of the controversy to which
they relate. l| It is with regret, therefore, that this Government deem itself
unable to treat the proposals either as well adapted to bring the Venezuelan
boundary dispute to a speedy conclusion, or as giving due recognition to the
just rights of the parties conccerned. T| It is suggested, for example, that a
Commission of four persons, two of them British subjects and two of them
citizens of the United States, shall investigate and determine certain facts.
But unless this Commission chances to reach its results unanimously, or by
a vote of three to one, it may well be that it would be better had the Com-
mission never been created. In the not improbable event of its standing two
and two, nothing could come of it in the way of ascertained facts, while, by
hardening each party in the conviction of the truth of its own contention,
its tendency would be to make any peaceful settlement remote or even impos-
sible. II Further, this Commission so constituted as not to be certain of
reaching a result as to the subjects which are submitted to it, seems also
unfortunately limited as respects such subjects. It is to report the facts affee-
ting the rights of the United Netherland's and of Spain respcetively at the
date of the acquisition of British Guiana by Great Britain. Upon the basis
of such Report a boundary-line is to be drawn which, however, is in no case
to eucroach upon the bond fide settlements of either party. But how are
facts showing the existence and bona fides of such settlements to be aseer-
tained? As this Commission is carefully disqualified from investigating and
reporting them, the first and perhaps the best impression is that they are left
to be determined by further negotiations, involving another Conventiou, and
not impossibly still another Commission. If this slow and dilatory procedure
is not contemplated, it must be because the Arbitral Tribunal, which is to
consider not only the Report but "every other matter concerning this contro-
versy on which either Government desire to insist", will be bound to rcceive
and will undoubtedly have laid before it all matters pertaining to bond fide
occupation by settlers. Such may be the fair implication from the power
given to the Tribunal to make recommendations respecting the equities
growing out of such occupation. But if it is intended that the Arbitral Tri-

*) Lord Salisbury erhielt davon am 24. Juni Kenntniss. Red.






62 Verhandlungen zwischen Grossbritannien und den Vereinligtn taaten etc.

Nr. 11465. bunal shall hear the evidence and find the facts on the subject of boid fide
sate. occupation, there is certainly no reason why the power should not be given
i2.Juniis,,.in explicit terms. Even then it is not apparent why one and the same Com-
mission should not be charged with determining all the facts which the contro-
versy involves. | These considerations seem to show that his Lordship's pro-
posals, looked at as embodying a practical scheme for a speedy and final
settlement of the boundary dispute, cannot be regarded as satisfaetory. Another
and even graver objection to them remains to be stated. An Arbitral Tri-
bunal is provided which is to fix the true original baundary-line. if, however,
this line sets off to one pnrty territory bond fide occupied by a citizen or
subject of the other the ist January, 1887, it is not to be binding as to
such occupied territory. The deeision as to this part of the line, it is inti-
mated, will have great moral weight, and the Tribunal is authorized to make
recommendations respecting the equitable rights of the parties which they
are expected to duly consider. But the absolute result is that, though the
Arbitral Tribunal may find certain territory to belong to Venezuela, and may
even find that there are no equities which should prevent her having it,
whether she gets it or not, is to depend upon the good pleasure of Great
Britain-upon her generosity, her sense of justice, her caprice, or her views
of expediency generally. It is to be noted, too, that neither in this despatch
nor in any other way, though the attention of the British Goverument has
'been often called to the point, is any clue afforded to what sort of occupa-
tion it is that is characterized as bond fide. Would an occupation under a
temporary or revocable mining licence beginning the 31st December, 1886,
be of that character? While the claims of Venezuela have always been
matter of public notoriety, could a British subject establish his bona fides as
against Venezuela by showing that in point of fact he had never heard of
them ?
These, however, are minor criticisms. The decisive objection to the pro-
posals is that it appears to be a fundamental condition that the boundary-
line decided to be the true one by the Arbitrators shall not operate upon
territory bond fide occupied by a British subject (Ist January 1887), shall be
deflected in every such case so as to make such territory part of British
Guiana. It is true that the same rule is to apply in the case of territory
bond fide occupied by a Veuezuelan (Ist January 1887). But as Great Britain
asks for the rule and Venezuela opposes it, the inevitable deduction coincidos
with the undisputed fact, namely, that the former's interest is believed to be
promoted by the rule, while the latter's will be prejudiced. The true question
therefore is, is the rule just in itself-without reference to its actual wor-
king-so that Great Britain has a right to impose her will npon Venezuela
in the matter? How this question cn be answered in the affirmative it is
most difficult to pereeive, and is not even attempted to be shown by the
despatch itself. It is a rule which is certainly without support in any prin-






Verhahinluigen zwlischen Grnssritannicn und den Vereinigten Staaten etc. 63

eipal of international law or in any reeognized international usage.- It is a Nr. 11465.
Vereinigte)
rule which would hardly be insisted upon unless its practical application were staaten.
supposed to extend to many persons and to cover large interests. Yet, ifI2.JuniiSi6.
th( facts are not to be ignored nor the ordinary rules of law set aside, its
scope would seem to be quite limited, since the Schomburgk line was pro-
claimed for the first time in October 1886, while in Juni 1887, the Governor
of British Guiana, by express instruction from the home Government, addres-
sed the Court of Policy of the Colony in the following terms:- l| "Before wo
proceed to the order of the day, I am anxious to make statement with refe-
rence to the question of the boundary between this Colony and the Republic
of Venezuela. Among the applications which have been reccived for mining
licences and concessions, under the Mining Regulations passed under Ordinance
16 of 1880, 16 of 1886, and 4 of 1887, there are many which apply to
lands which are within the territory in dispute between Her Majesty's Govern-
ment and the Venezuelan Republic. || "I have received instructious of the
Secretary of State to caution expressly all persons interested in such licences,
concessions, or otherwise acquiring an interest in the disputed territory, that
all licences, concessions, or grants applying to any portion of such disputed
territory will be issued and must be acccpted, subject to the possibility that,
in the event of a settlement of the present disputed boundary-linc, the land
to which such licences, concessions, or grants apply may become a part of
the Venezuelan territory; in which case, no claim to compensation from the
Colony or from Her Majosty's Government can be recognized; but Her Ma-
jesty's Government would, of course, do whatever may be right and practi-
cable to secure from the Government of Venezuela a recognition and confir-
mation of licences, &c., now issued."
Any equities of a British subject making the bona fides of bis occupation
of Venezuelan soil (Ist January, 1887) at all material, must apparently have
accrued, therefore, during the seven or eight months between October 1886
and Juni 1887. In the opinion of this Government, however, such bona fides
on the part of the British settler is quite immaterial. So far as bona fides
is put in issue, it is the bona fides of either Government that is important,
and not that of private individuals. Suppose it to be true that there are
British subjects, who to quote the despatch, "have 'settled in territory which
they had every ground for believing to be British", the grounds for such
belief were not derived from Venezuela. They emanated solely from the
British Government, and if British subjects have been deceived by the assu-
ranees of their Government, it is matter wholly between them and their own
Government, and in no way concerns Venezuela. Venezuela is not to be
stripped of her rightful possessions, because the British Government has
erroneously encouraged its subjects to believe that such possessions were
British. In but one possible contingency could any claim of that sort by
Great Britain have even a semblance of plausibility. If Great Britain's asser-






64 Verhandlungen zwised dssitannieu Vert te.

Nr. 14as tion of jurisdiction, on the faith of which her subjects made settleents in
Vereinigte
Stat territory subscqucntly acertained to be Venezuelan, could be shownl to have
i2.Jni 1s96. been in any way assented to or acquiesced in by Venezuela, the tter Power
might be held to be concluded and to be estopped from setting up nry title
to such settlements. But the notorious facts of the ense are all the other
way. Venezuela's claims and her protests against alleged British usurpation
hliave been constant and emplhatic, and have been enforced by all the means
practieable for a weak Power to employ in its dealings with a strong one,
even to the rupture of diplomatic relations. It would seem to be quite
impossible, therefore, that Great Britain should justify her asserted jurisdic-
tion over Venezuelan territory upon which British subjects have settled in
reliance upon such assertion, by pleading that the assertion was bond fide
without full notiee of whatever rights Venezuela may prove to have. le 1 the
opinions of this Government, the proposals of Lord Salisbury's despatch ca
be made to meet the requirements and the justice of the case only if amen-
ded in various particulars. il The Commission upon Facts should be so consti-
tuted, by adding one or more members, that it must reach a result, and
cannot become abortive, and possibly mischievous. | That Commission should
mavc power to report upon all the facts necessary to the deeision of the
boundary coutroversy, including the facts pertaining to the occupation of the
disputed territory by British subjects. The proviso by which the bundary-
line as drawn by the Arbitral Tribunal of three is not to inelnde territory
bond fide occupied by British subjects or Venezuelan citizens on the Ist Ja-
nuary, 1887, should be stricken out altogether, or there might be substituted
for it the following: "Provided, however, that, in fixing such line, if territory
of one party be found in the occupation of the subjects or eitizens of the
other party, such weight and effeet shall be given to such occupation as
reason, justice, the rules of international law, and the equities of the parti-
cular ease may appear to require." 11 I have to request that you will cor-
municate tle contents of this despatch to Lord Salisbury, furnishing hiin,
should hce so desire, with a copy which is herewith inclosed for that purpose.
I have, &c.
(Signed) Richard Olney.


N4r. 11466. VEREIN. STAATEN. Der Staatssekretr des Aus-
wrtigen an den engl. Botschafter in Washington.
Antwort auf Nr. 11461.
Department of State, Washington, June 2, 1886,
Nr. 1146,. Exccllcncy, || The despatch to you fromn Lord Salisbury of the 18th ultimo,
vereinigte copy of which you have kindly placed in my hands, has been read with great
Staaten.
22.Juni 196. interest. While this Government is unable to concur in all the reasoning or
in all the conclusions of the despatch, it is both impressed and gratified at






Verandlunge wi1 Grossbritanien ud den Vriigtn Staaten etc. 5

the earnest and serions attention which the important subject under discussion Nr. 1116e.
is evidently receiving. It cannot refrain from indulging the hope that per- Vereinigte
sistent effort in the line of the pending negotiations will have results which, 2.Juniss96.
if not all that the enthusiastic advocates of international arbitration antici-
pate, will be a decided advance upon anything heretofore achieved in that
direction. jl This last despatch differs from the prior one of Lord Salisbury
on the same subject in that, all general phraseology being discarded, an enti-
rely elear distinction is drawn between controversies that are arbitrable as of
course and controversies that are not so arbitrable. To the latter class are
assigned territorial claims, while to the former belong, apparently, whether
enumerated in Article III or not, claims of every other description. The
intent to thus classify the possible subjects of arbitration seems unmistakable.
In the first place, non-arbitrable subjects are expressly described as "terri-
torial claims", instead of as matters involving "territory, territorial rights,
sovereignty, or jurisdiction", the terms employed in Article IV. In the second
place, all the arguments adduced against a Treaty referring all differences
to arbitration are arguments founded on the peculiar nature of territorial
claims. The advantages of this sharp line of division between arbitrable and
non-arbitrable topics are very great, and the fact that it is now drawn shows
that the progross of the discussion is eliminating all but the vital points of
difference. 1| Lord Salisbury criticises an observation made in my despatch of
the llth April last, to the effect that the subjects of arbitration enumerated
in Article III are such as could almost never endanger the peaceful relations
of civilized States. The remark, however, seems to me well founded when
considered in its true connection-that is, when it is borne in mind that the
subject of present discussion is a general arbitration plan, not for the world
at large, nor for any two countries whatever, but solely for and as between
Great Britain and the Uiiited States. As between them, it still seems to me
quite impossible that war should grow out of such matters as those described
in Article III, whether a General Arbitration Treaty did or did not exist
between the two countries. Nor can I scriously doubt Lord Salisbury's con-
currence in this view-his apparent opinion to the contrary being based, I
think, on the supposed adoption and operation of Article III as the interna-
tional law of civilized States in general.
Lord Salisbury's pratical suggestion in this connection is that as the two
Governments "are entirely agreed in approving the language of Article III
and the policy it is designed to sanction", those provisions may well be at
once made effective by separate Convention without waiting for an agreement
upon other and more difficult points. Before a reply can be made to this
suggestion, however, it becomes necessary to ascertain whether, in the view
of bis Lordship, Article V of the proposals is to form part of such a Con-
vention. If it is, any prosent absolute accord of the two Governments as to
Artiele III can hlardly be predicated-the qualifying effect of Article V upon
Staatsarchiv LX. 5






66 C Grosshritannion rnd bn Vurvinigten Stamen etc.

Nr. U1e. Artietle III having been distinctly pointed out, and a substitut provision out-
verei'gte lined in my note to you ofthe th April, 1896. The reainder of Lord
s| 2nni 1896. Salisbury's despatch is de to territorial claims. The suggestion
half of the United States being that such a laim shall e pin e ari-
trable, and shall be arbitrated, unless Congress or Pariament eclare it
arbitrable, it is repliod that tle proposition involves a complete surrende
freedom of action for which Her Majesty's Governmont are not prepared.
But eaeh Government's freedom of action prior to entry po an arbitration
remains intact, the only ehange being that it is to b xrcised throgi
Legislature of each country. Hence, by the freedom of aetion t i ssurren-
dered must be meant the liberty to reject an award after entering upon a
arbitration. But it will not be contended that a Goveri. ent should be per-
mitted to fly from an award after once undertaking to stand y it, so that
as respects a territorial claim, bis Lordship's real position is that there ll
be no genuine arbitration at all. There shall be the theusual forms and
monies, a so-called Arbitral Tribunal, hearings, evidence, and arguments, but
as the grand rosult, instead of a binding adjudication, only an opinion wit t
legal force or sanction, unless aecepted by the parties. Lord Salisbury do|s,
indeed, propose that a protested award shall stand, either if approved by fie
out of six Jndges, nominated three by one party froam the Jidges of the
Supreme Court, and three by the other party from the Judges of the Supreme
Court, or if not disapproved by a Tribunal of five Judges of the Supreme
Court of the protesting nation. But neither metlihod makes any change in the
essential idca, which is, that a decision upon a territorial elaim shall not
operate as a binding award, unless the Power aggrieved by it, actiong throuh
its Political Department, or through both its Politieal and Judieial Depart-
ments, shall either affirm it or fail to disaffirm it. In Lord Salisbury's
judgment, action by the Politieal Department alone is to be preferred as
being "equally satisfactory and more simple." Now, it may not be wise to
assert, though the obvious objections eannot be ignored, that the experimelt
of subjecting a territorial claim to all the processes it would be subjected to
under a genuine arbitration may not have compensating advantages, and may
not be worth trying. Bat the experiment should be reeognized and known
for what it is-as an arbitration only in name, while, in fact, nothing
an uncommonly ceremonious and elaborate investigation.
It is suggested that the United Staetes admits the prineiple of the British
proposals, but gets security against a misearriage of justice in respect of a
territorial claim by reserving to itself a "liberty of refusal" prir to the arbi-
tration. But the United States' proposals contemplate no rejetion of
award when once arbitration has been resorted to-they reserve only
right not to go into an arbitration if territorial claim in dispute involves
the national honour and integrity. The British proposals also reserve the
same riglit. The vital difference between the two sets of proposals is tlere-






und den Yurcingtcn Staaten etc. 67

fore manifest. Under the British proposal, the parties enter into an arbitra- Nr. 11466.
tion and etermine afterwards, when they know the result, whether they will Vereinigte
Staaten.
be bound or not. Under the proposals of the United States, the parties enter 22.Juni1896.
into an arbitration having determii)ned beforehand that they will be bound.
The latter is a genuine arbitratiou-the former is a mere imitation which
may have its uses, but, like all other imitations, cannot compare in value
with the real article. It is further suggested that under the proposals of
thi Unitedi Staates, fear of a miscarriage of justice might induce the parties
to malne undue use of the plea that a claim is not arbitrable because invol-
ving the national lionour and integrity. The possibility of such an abuse
uidoubted(ly exists, and imust continue to exist, unless the principle of
Artiele V of the proposals is to be altogether abandoned. The fact was
fully recognized in my despatch of the llth April last, where it was sugge-
sted- that the risks of improper refusals to arbitrate questions on the ground
of their affe ting the national honour or integrity would be reduced, perhaps
minimized, if the decision in each case were left to the Legislature of eaclh
country. It cannot be necessary to now reiterate the considerations there advanced
in support of that suggestion. It is sufficient to refer to them, and to and that thus
for no satisfactoryanswerto them has occurred to me, er has been indicated in any
quarter. || Lord Salisbury favours the practical exclusion of territorial claims from
the aategory of proper arbitral subjects on two grounds. One is that the number
of such claims is unknown, and that, if arbitration respecting them became
obligatory, there would be danger of an enormomous multiplication of them.
What grounds would exist for this apprehension were General Arbitration
Treaties comprehending territorial claims universal and in force as between
each civilized State and every other, it is difficult to judge, and certainly
lced not now be considered. A Treaty of that sort between Great Britain
and the United States being the only thing now contemplated, it is not easy
to imagine how its consumraation can bring about the perils referred to.
From what quarter may these numerous and speculative claims to territory
be expected to come? Is the British Government likely to be prcforring
thlem against the United States, er the United States' Government likely to
be preferring them against Great Britain? Certainly this objection to inclu-
ding territorial controversies within the scope of a General Arbitration Treaty
between the United States and Great Britain may justly be regarded, if not
as wholly groundtess, as at least of a highly fanciful character.
It is said in the next place that the rules of international law applicable
to territorial controversies are not ascertained; that it is uncertain both what
sort of oacupation or control of territory is legally necessary to give a good
title, and how long such occupation or control must continue; that the "pro-
joeted procedire" will be full of "surprises"; and that the modern doctrine
of "Hinterland" is illustrative of the unsatisfactory condition of international
aw upon the subject under discussion. But it cannot be irrelevant to remark
5.






68 Verhain gen zwischen Gro itai nd den Stat etc.

Nr. 14a. that "spheres of inueae d the theo
Vereinigtie
t dea are things unknow t international aw, and d not as et rest pon
22.JuBnis89.any recognized principles of either internatial or iipal aw. They are
new departures which certain great European Powers have found css
and convenient in the course of their division amon themselves of g
tracts of the Continent of Africa, and which find their sanctioa solely in
reciprocal stipulations. "Such Agreements", declares a modern English write
on international law, "remove the causes of present disputes; but, if th re
to stand the test of time, by what right will they stand~? We hear much of
a certain 'llinterland' doctrine. The accepted rule as to the area of terri-
tory affected by an act of occupation in a land of large extent has been that
the crest of the watershed is the presumptive interior limit, while the flank
boundaries are the limits of the land watered by the rivers debouchig at
the point of coast occupied. The extent of territory claimed in respect
of an occupation on the coast has hitherto borne some reasonable ratio
to the character of the occupation. But where is the limit to the
'Hinterland doctrine?' Either these international arrangements can avail as
between the parties only and constitute no bar against the action of any
intruding stranger, or might indeed is right." || Withont adopting this eriti-
eism and whether the "spheres of influence" and the "Hinterland" doctrines
be or be not intrinsically sound and just, there can be no pretence that they
apply to the American continents or to any boundary disputes that now exist
thlre or may hereafter arise. Nor is it to be admitted that, so far as terri-
torial disputes are likely to arise between Great Britain and tle United
States, the accepted principles of international law are not adaequte to tseir
intelligent and just consideration and decision. For example, unless the Trea-
tics looking to the harnonious partition of Africa have worked some change,
the occupation which is sufficient to give a State title to torritory cannot be
considered as undetermined. It must be open, exelusive, adverse, continuous,
and under claim of right. It need not be actual in the sense of involving
the possessio pedis over the whole area claimed. The only possession required
is such as is reasonable under all the. circumstances-in view of the extent
of territory claimed, its nature, and the uses to which it is adapted and is
put-while mere constructive occupation is kept within bounds by the doc-
trine of contiguity. It seems to be thought that the international law gover-
ning territorial acquisition by a State through oecupation is fatally defecive
because thore is no fixed time during which occupation must continue. But
it is obvious that there can be no such arbitrary time limit except tlirough
the concensus, agreement, or uniform usage of civilized States. It is equally
obvious and much more important to note-that, even if it were feasible to
establish such arbitrary period of preseription by international agreement, it
would not be wise or expedient to do it. Each case shonld be left to
depend upon its own facts. A State whieh in good faith colonizes nas






Verianluingen zwischen Grossbrtann und den Vereinigten Staaten etc. 09

as oecupies, brings about largo investments of capital and founds populous Nr. 14C6.
settlements, would justly be credited with a sufficient title .in a much shorter t ten.
spacee than a State whose possession was not marked by any such changes of 22. Jnnis..
status. Considerations of this nature induce the leading English authority
on international law to declare that, on the onoe hand, it is "in the highest
degree irrational to deny that. prescription is a legitinmate means of interna-
tional acquisition"; and that, on the other hand, it will "be found both inex-
pedient and impracticable to attempt to define the exact period within which
it can be said to have become established-or, in other words, to settle the
precise limitation of time which gives validity to the title of national pos-
sessions."
Again, "The proofs of prescriptive possession are simple and few. They
are prineipally publicity, continued occupation, absence of interruption (usur-
patio), aided no doubt generally, both morrally and legally speaking, by the
employment of labour and capital upon the possession by the new possessor
during the period of silence, or the passiveness (inertia), or the absence of
any attempt to exercise proprietary rights by the former possessor. The
period of time, as has been repeatedly said, cannot be fixed by international
law between nations as it may be by private law between individuals: it must
depend upon variable and varying circumstances; but in all cases these proofs
would be required." |I The inherent justness of these observations, as well as
Sir Robert Phillimore's great weight as authority, seems to show satisfactorily
that the condition of international law fails to furnish any imperative reasons
for excluding boundary controversies from the scope of General Treaties of
Arbitration. If that be true of civilized States generally, fortiori must it
be true of the two great English-speaking nations. As they have not merely
political institutions but systems of jurisprudence identiceal in their origin and
in the fundamental ideas underlying them, as the law of real property in
each is but a growth from the same parent stem, it is not easy to believe
that a Tribunal, composed of Judges of the Supreme Court of each, even if
a foreign jurist were to act as umpire, could produce any flagrant miscarriages
of justice. l1 Lord Salisbury puts the supposed ease of a territorial contro-
versy, involving multitudes of people whose prospects may be darkened and
whose lives may be embittered by its pendency and its decision. The possi-
bility of such a case arising may be conceded; but that possibility can hardly
be deemed a valid objection to a scheme of general arbitration which is qua-
lified by the proviso that either party may decline to arbitrate a dispute
which in its judgment affects the national honour or iutegrity. The proviso
is aimed at just such a possibility, and enables it to be dealt with as circum-
stances may require. The plan of Lord Salisbury in view of such a possi-
bility is, that all the forms and ceremonies of arbitration should be gone
through with, but with liberty to either party to reject the Award, if the
award is not to its liking. It is respectfully submitted that a procceding of






70 Verhandlungen zsc ii(1n zwische ssbritanen Veriigten Staaten e.

Nr. 1146f. that sort inust bave a tendency to bring all arbitration into contempt that
. eroinigti
SStaten. each party to a dispute should decide to abide by au Award before entering
22.ani]S9s6. into arbitration, or should deeide not to enter into it at all, but, once ente-
ring into it, should be irrevocably bound. |1 The foregoing observations seem
to cover such of the suggestions of Lord Salisbury's despatch of the |18th
May last as have not already been touched upon in previous correspondence.
By the original proposals of Lord Salisbury, contained in the despatch of
5th March last, a protested award is to- be void unless sustained by the
Appellate Tribunal of six Judges by a vote of five to one. He has since
suggested that such protested award may be allowed to stand unless a Tri-
bunal of five Supreme Court Judges of the protesting country shall set it
aside for some error of fact or some error in lawV. Without committing
myself on the point, it occurs to me as worthy of eonsideration whether the
original proposals might not be so varied that the protested award should
stand unless set aside by the Appellate Tribunale by the specified majority.
Such a change would go far in the direction of removing that want of finality
to the proceedings, which, as has been urged in previous despatches, is the
great objection to the original proposals. 1 I1 have the honour to request that
you will lay the foregoing before Lord Salisbury at your early convenienee,
furnishing him, should he so desire, with a copy which is herewith inclosed
for that purpose.
I have, &c.
(Signed) Richard Olney.

















Btindnisse, Vertrge, Konventionen,

Protokolle etc.


Nr. 11467. VERTRAGSSTAATEN. Zusatzakte zur Berner ber-
einkunft betr. die Bildung eines internationalen
Verbandes zum Schutze von Werken der Litteratur
und Kunst.
Paris, 4. Mai 1896.

Acte additionncl du 4 mai 1896 modifiant les articles 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, 20 de
la Convention du 9 septembre 1886 et les num&ros 1 et 4 du Protoeole de
clture y annexd. Nr. u6.
Sa Majeste l'Empereur d'Allemagne, Roi de Prusse, au nom de l'Empire strtea.-
Allemand; Sa Majestd le Roi des Belges; Sa Majest6 le Roi d'Espagne, en4. Mai is8G.
Son nom, Sa Majeste la Reine R6gente du Royaume; le Prdsident de la Rd-
publique Francaise; Sa Majest6 la Reine du Royaume-Uni de la Grand-Bretagne
et d'Irlande, Imp6ratrice des Indes; Sa Majest6 le Roi d'Italie; Son Altesse
Royale le Graud-Due de Luxembourg; Son Altesse S&renissime le Prinee de
Monaco; Son Altesse le Prince de Mont6negro; le Conseil F6ddral de la Con-
ftddration Suisse; Son Altesse le Bey de Tunis, 6galement animes du ddsir
de proteger d'une manire toujours plus efficace et plus uniforme les droits
des auteurs sur leurs oeuvres littdraires et artistiques, out r6solu de conclure
un Acte additionnel la Convention sigude Berne le 9 septembre 1886,
concernant la erdation d'une Union internationale pour la protection desdites
oeuvres, et ont nomm6 pour leurs Pl1nipotentiaires, savoir: Sa Majestd
l'Empereur d'Allemagne, Roi de Prusse: 11 S. Exe. M. Paul Reiebardt, Conseiller
intime aetuel, Directeur au Ddpartement des Affaires tranugres; |] S. Exe. 3M.
le Professeur Dr. Otto Dambach, Conseiller intime actuel; || M. le Dr. Franz
Hermann Dungs, Conseiller intime, Conseiller rapporteur au D6partement de
la Justice; |1 M. Felix von Mller, Conseiller de l'Ambassade d'Allemagne
Paris. II Sa Majest6 le Roi des Belges: 1| M. le Baron Auguste d'Anethan, En-
voyd extraordinaire et Ministre pldnipotentiaire de Sa Majest6 le Roi des
Belges pres le Gouvernement de la Rdpublique franqaise; i| M. Jules de Borch-
grave, Secrdtaire de la Chambre des repesentants; i| M. le Chavalier Edouard





72 Bindnisse, Vertrge, KoJnvectione, Protolclle etc.

-7r. ]n-6. Descamps, Membre de 1'Acad ie royale de Belgique, Snateur. I Sa ajest6
Ver tra gs-
s Catholique le Roi d'Espagne, n Son neom Sa Majeste la Reine R6dgnte du
4. Mai 25e6.Iioyaume: j 31M. le Marquis de Novallas, Premier Secrtaire de I'Amiassada
d'Espagne Paris. il Le President de la R publique Franaise: 1 M. Charles
de Saulce Freycinet, Meimbre de l'Acadmie franiaise, Senateur; ||1 Henri
Marcel, Ministre plWnipotentiaire, Sous Directeur des Affaires commereiales au
Ministere des Affaires &trang&res; 13M. Charles Lyon Caen, Membre de rl'nstitut,
Professeur la Facultd de droit de Paris; 1 MI. Eugene Pouillet, Btonnier de
l'Ordre des avocats; 11 M., Louis Rep nlt, Professeur la Faculte de droit de
Paris, Jurisconsulte du Ministre des Affaires Utrangeres. || Sa Majeste la Reine
du Royaume-Uni de la Grande-Bretagne et d'IrIande, Impdratrice des Indes: | |
IM. Henry Howard, Ministre plenipotentiaire a l'Ambassade de Sa majest Bri-
tannique Paris; |] Sir Henry G. Bergne, Chef du D6partement, eommereial et
sanitaire au Foreign Office. | Sa Majeste le Roi d'Italie: |I M. le Commandeur
Luigi Roux, Docteur en droit, ancien Deput; 31. le Chevalier Georges Po-
lacco, Premier Secr6taire de l'Ambassade d'Italie Paris. || Son Altesse Royale
le Grand-Due de Luxembourg: 1| B. Henri Vannerus, Charg6 d'affaires du
Luxembourg Paris. [i Son Altesse S6renissime le Prince de Monaco: ][ M.
Hector de Rolland, Conseiller d'Etat, Avocat gdndral pris le tribunal supdrieur
de Monaco; I1 M. Louis Mayer, Chef du Cabinet de S. A. S. le Prinne de
Monaco. || Son Altesse le Prince de Montdengro: 1| M1. Henri Marcel, Ministre
plenipotentiaire, Sous-Directeur des Affaires commereiales au Ministere des
Affaires dtrangeres de France. [| Le Conseil Feddral de la Confdderation Suisse; jj
2M. Charles-Sdouard Lardy, Envoyd extraordinaire et iMinistre plenipotentiair
de la Confeddration Suisse pres le Gouvernement de la Republique FranBaise. h
Son Altesse le Bey de Tunis: |1 M. Louis Renault, Professeur la Facuit6 de
droit de Paris. |i Lesquels, apres s'etre communique leurs pleins pouvoirs
respectifs trouvs en bonne et due forme, sont convenus des artieles suivants:

Artiele 1.

La Convention internationale du 9 septembre 1886 est modifie ainsi
qu'il suit:
I. Artiele 2. Le premier alin6a de l'article 2 aura la teneur sui-
vante: 1| ,Les auteurs ressortissant l'un des pays de l'Union, ou leurs ayants
cause, jouissent, dans les autres pays, pour cleurs oeuvres, soit non publides,
seit publiAes pour la premiere fois dans un de ces pays, des droits que les
lois respectives accordent actuellement ou accorderont par la suite aux na-
tionaux." 1I I est, en outre, ajoutl un cinquieme alinda ainsi conQu: || ,Les
oeuvres posthumes seot comprises parmi les oeuvres protegdes."
II. Article 3. L'article 3 aura la teneur suivante; |l ,Les auteurs ne
ressortissant pas l'un des pays de l'Union, mais qui auront publie ou fait
publier, pour la premiere fois, leurs oeuvres litt6raires ou artistiques dans F'un






Bndnise, Veirtrgo, Konventionen, Protokolle etc. 73

.id ces pays, jouiront, paur ces oeuvres, de la protection accord6e par la Nr. 11467.
Convention de Berne et par le pr~sent Acto additionnel." Vertrags-
Staaten.
III. Artiele 5. Le premier alinea de l'artiele 5 aura la teneur sui- 4. Mai isa6.
vante: Les auteurs ressortissant l'un des pays de l'Union, ou leurs ayants
cause, jouissent, dans les autres pays, du droit exclusif de faire ou d'autoriser
la traduction de leurs oeuvres pendant toute la dure du droit sur l'oeuvre
originale. Toutefois, le droit exclusif de traduction cessera d'existcr lorsque
l'auteur n'en aura pas fait usage dans un d6lai de dix ans partir de la
premiere publication de l'oeuvre originale, en publiant ou en faisant publier,
dans un des pays de l'Union, une traduction dans la langue pour laquelle la
proteetion sera reclameo."
IV. Article 7. L'article 7 aura la teneur suivante:' b| ,Les romans-
feuilletons, y compris les nouvelles, publis dans les journaux ou recueils perio-
diques d'un des pays de l'Union, ne pourront etre reproduits, en original ou
en traduetion, dans les autres pays, saus l'autorisation des auteurs on de leurs
ayants eause. 11 I en sera de meme pour les autres artieles de journaux ou
do recueils priodiqies, lorsque les auteurs ou 6diteurs auront express6ment
declar, dans le journal ou le recueil meme o ils les auront fait paraitre,
qu'ils en interdisent la reproduction. Pour les recueils, il suffit que l'inter-
diction soit faite d'une maniere generale en tte de chaque numero. || A defaut
d'interdiction, la reproduction sera permise la condition d'indiquer la source. ]1
En aucun cas, l'interdiction ne pourra s'appliquer aux articles de discussion
politique, aux nouvelles du jour et aux faits divers."
V. Article 12. L'article 12 aura la teneur suivante: || ,Toute oeuvre
contrefaite peut ttre saisie par les autorites comp6tentes des pays de l'Union
o l'oeuvre originale a droit la protection legale. || La saisie a lieu confor-
mdment la 16gislaticn intUrieure de chaque pays."
VI. Article 20. Le deuxinme alinea de l'article 20 aura la teueur
suivante: || ,Cette dMnonciation sera adresse au Gouvernement de la Con-
fedration Suisse. Elle ne produira son effet qu' l'6gard du pays qui l'aura
faite, la Convention restant ex6cutoire pour les autres pays de l'Union."

Article 2.
Le Protocole de clture annex6 la Convention du 9 septembre 1886
est modifi6 ainsi qu'il suit:
I. Numero 1. Ce numero aura la teneur suivante: 1[ ,1. Au sujet de
l'article 4, il est convenu ce qui suit: 1| A. Dans les pays de l'Union of
la protection est accordUe non seulement aux plans d'architecture, mais encore
aux oeuvres d'architecture elles-memes, ces oeuvres sont admises au bnfice
des dispositions de la Convention de Berne et du present Acte additionel. i1
B. Les oeuvres photographiques et les oeuvres obtenues par un proc6dd
analogue sont admises au benefice des dispositions de ces actes, en tant que
ila lgislation interieure permet de le faire, et dans la mesure de la protection






74 Bndnisse, Vertrage, Knventioe, Protokolle etc.

Nr. 11467. qu'elle accorde aux oeu tionales s ir. 11 est nd que laphoo
nate. graphie autorise d'u ouvre d'art prot jonit, dans s les pas
.1Li i. l'Union, de la protection Mgale au sens de la Convention ~e Berne et du
prsent Acte additionnel, aussi longtomps qut dure le droit principal de re-
production de eette oeuvre mime, et dans les limites des conventions prives
entre les ayants droit."
II. Num4ro 4. Ce num6ro aura la teneur suivante: 4. L'acor
commun prevu l'article 14 de la Convention est ddte in6 ainsi qu'il suit
L'application de la Convention de Berne et du pr6senit Aete additionnel x
oeuvres non tombes dans le domaine public dans leur pays d'origine au mo-
ment de la mise en vigueur de ces actes aura lieu suivant les stipulations y
relatives contcnes dans les Conventions sp4ciales existantes auti conclure
cet effet. | A dMfaut de sermblables" stipulations entre pays de l'Union, les pays
respectifs regleront, chacun pour ce qui le concerne, par la ldgislation intdrieure,
les modalites relatives l'application du principe contenu dans 1'artiele 14. )
Les stipulations de l'article 14 de la Convention de Berne et du prsent
numnro du Protocole de clture s'appliquent egalement an droit exelusif de
traduction, tel qu'il est assurd par le present Acte additionnel. 1 >Les dispo-
sitions transitoires mentionn6es ci-dessus sont applicables en cas (e nouvelles
accessions 1'Union."
Artiele 3.
Les Pays de l'Union qui n'ont point participd au present Acte additionnel
seront admis y acc6der en tout temps sur leur demande. II en sern de
mAme pour les Pays qui accJderont ult'rieurement la Convention du 9 sep-
tembre 1886. II suffira, cet effet, d'une notification adressie par "crit au
Conseil f6d6ral Suisse, qui notifiera son tour cette accession aux autres
Gouvernements.
Artiele 4.
Le present Acte additionnel aura mine valeur et durc e que la Convention
du 9 septembre 1886. 11 sera ratifid et les ratifications en seront echangdos
Paris dans la forme adopt6e pour cette Convention, aussitt que faire se pourra,
et au plus tard dans le delai d'une ann6e. | I entrera en vigneur, trois mois
apres cet 6change, entre les Pays qui l'auront ratifie. |j En Foi de quoi, les
PlMnipotentiaires respectifs l'ont signe et y ont apposd le eachet de leurs
armes. || Fait en un seul exemplaire Paris, le 4 mai 1896.
(Unterschriften.)

Declaration
interpretant certaines dispositions de la Convention de Berne du 9 septembre 1886
et de l'Acte additionnel signe Paris le 4 mai 1896.
Les Plenipotentiaires sonssignes de l'Allemagne, de la Belgique, de l'Es-
pagne, de la Francee,Itali du Luxembourg, de Monaco, dn Montdngro,
de lai Norvge, de la Suisse et de la Tunisie, dinient autorises cet effet






Bndnisse, Vertrge, Koiventiouen, Protokolle etc. 75

par leurs Gouvernements respecetifs, sont convenus de ce qui suit, en co qul Nr. 11467.
concerne l'initerprdtatii de la Convention de Berne du 9 septembre 1886 et et.-
de l'Acte additionaiel dea ce jour: 1l Aux termes de l'article 2, alinia 2 doa0. Mli IMG.
la Convention, la protection assurl e par les actes prLcit6s depend uniquement
de l'aceomplissement, dans le pays d'origine de l'ocuvre, des conditions et for-
malitds qui peuvent ktre prescrites par la lIgislation de ce pays. 11 en scra
de mime pour la protection des oeuvres photographiques mentionnues dans le
S1, lettre 1, du Protocole de cloture modifi.. 1 2' Par oeuvres publices, il
faut entendre les ocuvres Mditoes dans au des pays de l'Union. En consd-
quence, la reprsen tation d'une oenvre dramatique ou dramatico-musicale, l'ex&-
cution d'une ocuvre musicale, l'exposition d'uue oeuvre d'art, ne constituent
pas un pnhlication dans le sens des actes preit&s. || 3' La transformation
d'un roman en piece de theftre, on d'une piece de theftre en roman, rentre
dan les stipulations de l'article 10. | Les pays de l'Union qui n'ont point
participd & la presente Declaration seront admis y acceder en tout temps,
sur leur demande. 11 en sera de mime pour les Pays qui acc6deront, soit
ila Convention du 9 septembre 1886, soit cette Conveition et l'Acte addi-
tionnel du 4 mai 1896. 11 suffira, cet effet, d'une notification adressee par
ecrit au Conseil fKderal Suisse, qui notifiera son tour cette accession aux
autres Gouvernements. La prdsente D6claration aura mime valeur et dure
que les actes auxquels eile se rapporte. Elle sera ratifi6e et les ratifications
S seront 6chang6es Paris dans la forme adopte pour ces actes, aussitt
que faire se pourra, et au plus tard dans le delai d'une ann6e. |] En foi de
quoi, les Pl6nipotentiaires respectifs Font sign6e et y out appos6 le cachet de
leurs armes.
Fait en un seul exemplaire, Paris, le 4 mai 1896.
(Unterschriften.)


Nr. 11468. DEUTSCHES REICH. Denkschrift, dem deutschen
Reichstage bei Einbringung des vorstehenden Ver-
trages vorgelegt.
Berlin, 28. Januar 1897.
Seit dem Bestehen der Berner Uebereinkunft, betreffend die Bildung eines Nr. 11468.
internationalen Verbandes znm Schutze von Werken der Literatur und Kunst, Deutsches
Reich.
vom 9. September 1886 (Reichs-Gesetzbl. 1887 S. 493 ff.) hat sich bezgliche.Jan.j.1897.
verschiedener wichtiger von ihr betroffener Materien das Bedrfnis heraus-
gestellt, eine Abnderung oder Erweiterung der einschlgigen Bestimmungen
anzubahnen. Der Weg, den in dieser Richtung hervorgetretenen Bestrebungen
gerecht zu werden, war durch die gedachte Konvention selbst vorgezeichnet,
indem Artikel 17 derselben bestimmt, dass sie Revisionen unterzogen werden
kann behufs Einfihrung von Verbesserungen, welche geeignet sind, das System
des Verbandes zu vervollkommnen" und des Weiteren vorsieht, dass ,derartige
sowie solcho Fragen, welche in anderen Beziehungen die Entwickelung des






76 Il3duisee, V rtge, uvt P rotole etc.

Nr. 114G Verbandes berhren, tuf Ko~ferenzen errtrt d sollen, el der eihe
Deutsches
Reich. nach in den einzelnen Verbandslndern durch Delegirte derselben abzalten
2 Wa.897. sind. || Auf Grund dieser Bestimmungen hat Frankreich in Geiseit von
Ziffer 6 des Schlusaprotokolls der Uebereinknunft, wonach die nchste Kon-
ferenz in Paris stattfinden", und die franzsische Regierung nach vorgngigem
Benehmen mit dem internationalen Breau den Zeitpunkt bestimmen" so1lte,
im September v. J. an die Kaiserliche Regierung und die brigen Verbands-
staaten Einladungen zu einer auf den 15. April d. J. angesetzten Revisions-
konferenz nach Paris ergehen lassen. Die Einladung ist deutscherseits an-
genommen worden, und die Konferenz hat zu dem gedachten Zeitpunkte
stattgefunden.
An den Sitzungen derselben, welche bis zum 4. Mai d. J. whrten, be-
teiligten sich die Delegirten smtlicher ursprnglichen Unionsstaatent) (mit
Ausnahme von Hayti) d. h. Deutschlands, Belgiens, Frankreichs, Gross-
britanniens, Italiens, der Schweiz, Spaniens, von Tunis, ferner der im Laufe
des Bestehens der Union beigetretenen Staaten Luxemburg, Monaco und
Montenegro sowie des unmittelbar vor Beginn der Konferenz beigetretenen
Norwegens. Ausserdem waren zu informatorischen Zwecken Argentinien,
Bolivien, Brasilien, Bulgarien, Columbien, Dnemark, die Vereinigten Staaten
von Amerika, Griechenland, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, Portugal, Rumnien und
Schweden durch Delegirte vertreten. Von den Delegirten einiger dieser
Staaten wurde im Laufe der Konferenz die Mglichkeit eines frheren oder
spteren Beitrittes ihrer Lnder zur Union in Aussicht gestellt. 1 Als Grund-
lage der Verhandlungen der Konferenz dienten die von dem Breau des
Internationalen Verbandes zum Schutze von Werken der Literatur und Kunst
in Bern vorher versandten ,Propositions de l'Administration frangaise et du
Bureau international". Speziell fr die deutschen Delegirten kamen ausserdem
noch gewisse, aus den diesseitigen Interessentenkreisen seit Bestehen der
Berner Uebereinkunft geusserte Wnsche in Betracht. Dieses Material war
in zahlreichen Vorberathungen der Kommissare der betheiligten Reichs- und
preussischen Ressorts einer sorgfltigen Prfung unterworfen und zum grossen
Theil auch einer eingehenden Sachverstndigen-Enquete unterzogen worden. |[
Liess schon die Fassung der oben erwhnten ,,ropositions", welche sich voll-
stndig an die einzelnen Artikel der bisherigen Uebereinkunft beziehungsweise
des zugehrigen Schlussprotokolls anlehnten, erkennen, dass auch auf dieser
Konferenz das erstrebenswerthe Ziel einer einheitlichen internationalen Kodi-
fikation des Urheberrechtes nicht wirde ins Auge. gefasst werden knnen, so
drngte sich dazu noch im Laufe der Verhandlungen immer mehr die Ueber-
zeugung auf, dass, ungeachtet des besten Willens der meisten Verbandsstaaten,
Angesichts des zum Teil aus Grnden ihrer inneren Gesetzgebung hergeleiteten

*) Republik Liberia hat seinerzeit die tibceinkimft vonm Septemehr 1886 nicht
ratifizirt, bildet also kein Mitglied des Verbandes.






lin ||Vrtrge, Koziveutionun, Protokolls etc. 77

Widerstrobens einzelner Liiiider auch das Zustandekommen einer einheitlichen Nr. 1,gS8.
Deutsches
In Folge dessen besteht das formale Ergebniss der Konferenz in der s.Jan,.1s;.
Vereinbarung einer Zusatzakte zu einigen Artikeln der bisherigen Uebereinkunft
und ihres Schlussprotokolls, welche alle vertretenen Unionsstaaten ausser
Norwegen, und einer zur Berner Konvention und zu der Zusatzakte verein-
barten Deklaration, welche alle vertreten gewesenen Verbandslnder einschliess-
lich Norwegens, jedoch mit Ausnahme Grossbritanniens, umfasst. *) |1 Wenn-
gleich daher unter diesen Umstnden das Ergebnis der Pariser internationalen
Urhleberrechtskonferenz des Charakters der Einheitlichkeit und Geschlossenheit
entbehrt, so kann doch andererseits mit voller Berechtigung hervorgehoben
werden, dass in materieller Hinsicht der Inhalt der neu geschaffenen Be-
stimmungen den durch die moderne Reechtsentwickelung auf diesem Gebiete
aufgestellten Gesichtspunkten nach Mglichkeit gerecht wird und dazu geeignet
sein drfte, in Verbindung mit den brigen, unverndert gebliebenen Artikeln
der Berner Konvention fr eine sachgemsse Ausgestaltung und Weiter-
entwickelung des internationalen einheitlichen Urheberrechts eine wertvolle
Basis zu bilden. Uebrigens hat die Konferenz in Nummer 5 der von ihr an-
genommenen ,,voeux"**) die Hoffnung ausgesprochen, dass aus den Beratungen
der nchsten Konferenz wieder ein einheitlicher Text der Uebereinkunft hervor-
gehen mge. 11 Was Deutschland anlaugt, so diiifte das in Paris Erreichte im
Wesentlichen den von Seiten der diesseitigen Interessenten geusserten
Wiinschen entsprechen, indem einerseits, wie beispielsweise hinsichtlich der
Erstreckung des Schutzes gegen Uebersetzung, berechtigten Bestrebungen
Rechnung getragen und andererseits in manchen Punkten den Nachteilen vor-
gebeugt worden ist, welche aus einem zu weit gehenden Streben nach Aus-
dehnung des Schutzes entstehen. |i Im Einzelnen ist zu den Bestimmungen der
beiden Vertragsinstrumente Folgendes zu bemerken:


A. Zur Zusatzakte.***)
a. Zu Artikel 1 dieser Zusatzakte.
(Abnderungen der eigentlichen Konvention.)

Zu 1: Der Artikel 2 der bisherigen Berner Konvention hat folgende
Aenderungen erfahren: || 1. Im Absatz 1 dieses Artikels ist noch besonders
zum Ausdruck gebracht worden, dass die zu schtzenden Werke zum ersten
Male in einem Verbandslande verffentlicht sein mssen. Es ist mit der Ein-


*) Der nachtrgliche Beitritt der Republik Hayti zu diesen beiden Vertrags-
instrumenten steht mit Sicherheit zu erwarten.
**) s. Anlage 4. s. Denkschrift S. 24.
"*) Eine Gegenberstellung der Bestimmungen der Zusatzakte und der in Betracht
kommenden Artikel der Berner Ubereinkunft ist als Anlage beigefgt.






78 finduisse, ge, Koventionen Protoolle etc.

Nr. 11s. schaltung dieser Wort keineswegs eine Anderung, sondern lediglich
Deutsches
U eir S Klarstellung des Sinnes des bisherigen Wo es babsichg. hrs
8. sae.J197. dieselbe schon um deswillen wilnschenswerth, weil sich die gl Wen
in dem neuen Artikel 3 (11 der Zusatzakte) findet.*) 2. Die Hinz g
eines fnften Absatzes zu diesem Artikel, dem zu Folge auch nachgelassen
Werke den im internationalen Verkehr zu schtzenden zuzuzhlen sind,
spricht gleichfalls nur dem auf der Konferenz von verschiedenen Seit
zum Ausdruck gebraehten Bedrfnis, etwaigen Zweifeln von vornhere
zu begegnen.
Zu II: Der abgenderte Artikel 3 hat in weiterer Fortbildung des Ge-
dankens, auf welchem der in der bisherigen Berner Konvention, in dem Reichs-
gesetz, betreffend das Urheberrecht an Schriftwerken, Abbildungen, musika-
lischen Kompositionen und dramatischen Werken, vom 11. Juni 1870
(Bundes-Gesetzbl. S. 339) sowie in der Uebereinkunft zwischen Deutschland
und Frankreich, betreffend den Schutz an Werken der Literatur und Kuns,
vom 19. April 1883 (Reichs-Gesetzbl. S. 269) zum Ausdruck gelangte Grund-
satz des direkten Verlegerschutzes beruht, den Schutz fr die in einem Ver-
bandslande zum ersten Male erscheinenden Werke eines nichtverbands-
angehrigen Urhebers an die Person dieses Urhebers geknpft. Es ist damit
einem Wunsche Rechnung getragen worden, der schon verschiedentlich aus
Interessentenkreisen und in der Fachliteratur geussert worden ist, und durch
dessen Erfllung mancherlei Kontroversen, die sich aus der bisherigen Rechts-
lage herleiten liessen, beseitigt werden. Die Grnde, welche fr die Setaffung
dieses neuen Artikels massgebend waren, sind in den ausfhrlichen, von der
deutschen Delegation in Paris in franzsischer Uebersetzung zur Verteilung
gebrachten, hier als besondere Anlage beigefgten ,Bemerkungen" des Nheren
dargelegt, wie denn berhaupt dieser ganze Artikel sowohl der Form als dem
Inhalte nach vorwiegend aus der Initiative der deutschen Delegation heraus
entstanden ist. |1 Es ist zu erwarten, dass durch die Festlegung des neuen
Prinzips der Anreiz fr fremde Urheber, ihre Werke in einem Verbandslande
erscheinen zu lassen, gesteigert werden, und dass diese Thatsache den weiteren
erfreulichen Erfolg haben wird, immer mehr Staaten dem Berner inter-
nationalen Verbande zuzufhren. I| Als Konsequenz aus der Fassung des ab-
genderten Artikels 3 ergiebt sich, dass der verbandsfremde Urheber, um den
Schutz in der Union geniessen zu knnen, die Bedingungen und Frmlichkeiten
erfllen muss, welche in dem Verbandsstaate, wo er seine Werke verffent-
licht *) oder verffentlichen lsst, vorgeschrieben sind. Hat er diese Voraus-
setzungen erfllt, so geniesst er den vollen Schutz, den die Union gewhrt,

*) ber die Bedingungen und Frmlichkeiten, welche die Voraussetzung des Schutzes
der Werke 1er Litteratur und Kunst bilden, s. bei der ,Deklaration" unter Nummer 1,
s. Denkschrift S. 22.
") ber den auf der Pariser Konferenz festgelegten Begriff der ,,Verffetlichung"
s. bei der ,Deklaration" unter Nummer 2, s. Denkschrift S. 23.



iA





li ertrge, Konvetionen, Protkole etc. 7

d. l. er wird geschtzt nicht nur gegen die unerlaubte Wiedergabe, sondern Nr. 111.is.
auch gegen die unerlaubte Uebersetzung und die unerlaubte Darstellung oder Doltselle
Auffbrung seiner in einem Verbandslande verffentlichten Werke, und zwar 28 Jn.[97..
im Rahmen der Artikel 5 der Uebereinkunft beziehungsweise Artikel 1, III
der Zusatzakte und 9 der Uebereinkunft. Schlechter gestellt als die verbands-
angehrigen Autoren sind die nichtverbandsangehrigen dadurch, dass ihre
nicht verffentlichten Werke einen Schutz in einem Verbandslande nicht er-
langen knnen. Man war auf der Pariser Konferenz der Ansicht, dass auch
diese, im Uebrigen aus der Natur der Sache sich ergebende differentielle
Behandlung der verbandsfremden Urheber einen Anreiz zum Beitritt weiterer
Staaten zur Union bilden werde. ]| Darber, dass im Sinne des abgenderten
Artikels 3 die nicht dem Verbande angehrigen Urheber auch in dem Ver-
bandslande selbst, wo sie ihre Werke verffentlichen oder verffentlichen
lassen, Schutz geniessen, herrschte in Paris Einstimmigkeit. [| In formaler Be-
ziehung ist noch zu bemerken, dass hier wie in allen anderen Stellen, wo der
Sinn es erforderte, die Worte: ,durch die gegenwrtige Uebereinkunft" durch
die Worte: durch die Berner Uebereinkunft und die gegenwrtige Zusatz-
akte" ersetzt worden sind.
Zu III: Die wichtige Frage, inwieweit ein Autor gegen die unbefugte
Uebersetzung seiner Werke auch im internationalen Verkehr zu schtzen ist,
hat wegen des von einigen Verbandsstaaten erhobenen Widerspruchs zwar
noch nicht die auch von Seiten Deutschlands erstrebt gewesene Lsung der
vollkommenen Assimilirung gefunden, immerhin aber wird mit der vor-
geschlagenen Abnderung des Artikels 5 Absatz 1 ein wesentlicher Schritt auf
dem Entwiekelungswege des internationalen Urheberschutzes gemacht werden.
Das ausschliessliche Recht des Urhebers, eine Uebersetzung zu veranstalten,
das ihm nach der bisherigen Vorschrift nur zehn Jahre lang von der Ver-
ffentlichung des Originals an vorbehalten war, soll in Zukunft auf die ganze
Zeitdauer, whrend derer das Originalwerk gegen Nachdruck in der Ursprache
geschtzt ist, ausgedehnt werden, sofern der Urheber innerhalb jener zehn
Jahre seinerseits eine Uebersetzung verffentlicht hat. Von der obenerwhnten
Beschrnkung abgesehen wird also die Wiedergabe des Werkes in einer nicht
genehmigten Uebersetzung der unerlaubten Wiedergabe in der Originalform
gleichgestellt, ein Grundsatz, der in der inneren Gesetzgebung einer Anzahl
von Lndern (so z. B. in Belgien, Frankreich, Spanien, den Vereinigten
Staaten von Amerika, nach der herrschenden Meinung auch in Grossbritannien)
bereits anerkannt ist nnd auch in den Kreisen der deutschen Schriftsteller
dringende Befrwortung findet. || Deutscherseits ist kein Bedenken getragen
worden, dieser Abnderung zuzustimmen. Die Auffassung, dass der Schutz
gegen Uebersetzung der Natur der Sache widerstreite, insofern dem Schrift-
steller ein Recht nur an dem Werke in seiner besonderen Sprachform zu-
komme, darf als nahezu berwunden gelten. Inwieweit es erforderlich er-
scheint, das ausschliessliche Uebersetzungsrecht zeitlich zu beschrnken, ist






80 nduisse, rrgej teureio rCto

Nr. e11s. eine Frage der Zweckmn itgkeit. Bei Abschluss der Berner Uebereinunft
*7u, gab fr die kurze Befristung lediglich die Hoffnung den schlag, d
28.Jan..s9. Lnder, die sich dem Verbande ferngehalten hatten, bei einer solchen Regelung
ihre Bedenken leichter schwinden lassen wrden. Diese Rcksicht hann jetzt
nicht mehr in Frage kommen. Die sachlichen Bedenken, die gegen eine
weitere Einschrnkung der Uebersetzungsfreiheit vom Standpunkt der deutschen
Interessen ins Feld gefhrt werden, gehen im Wesentlichen dahin, dass dadurch
die Uebersetzung der auslndischen Schriften in das Deutsche erschwert und
vertheuert werde. Wenn hierbei auf die Mglichkeit hingewiesen wird, dass
der Verfasser sein Werk der Uebersetzung gnzlich entziehe, so ist diese
Gefahr schon an sich sehr fernliegend; im Uebrigen ist fr diesen Fall durch
die Beschrnkung, die in dem Artikel 5 Aufnahme gefunden hat, Vorsorge
getragen. Es wird ferner die Besorgniss geussert, dass bei der Ausdehnung
des Schutzes man sich mehr als bisher mit unzulnglichen Uebersetzungen
werde begngen mssen, wenn sie die allein vom Urheber genehmigten sind.
Allein gerade bei der jetzigen Rechtslage werden hufig die guten Ueber-
setzungen in Folge des starken Wettbewerbes durch schlechtere, aber billigere
Uebersetzungen verdrngt, und dieser Umstand muss auf die Veranstaltung
guter Uebersetzungen lhmend einwirken. An sich wird an der guten Ueber-
tragung des Werkes dem Urheber selbst am meisten gelegen sein; regelmissig
hat auch Niemand in hherem Grade als er oder der Verleger, dem er die
Veranstaltung der Uebersetzung berlassen hat, den Beruf, durch Auswahl des
Uebersetzers und Ueberwachung der Arbeit auf ein befriedigendes Ergebniss
hinzuwirken. Schriftsteller und Verleger werden aber zu solchen Unter-
nehmungen grssere Neigung empfinden, wenn nicht mehr zu besorgen steht,
dass nach kurzer Zeit ein anderer eine Uebersetzung herausgiebt, die durch.
grssere Wohlfeilheit ungeachtet ihrer entsprechenden 31inderwerthigkeit den
Absatz an sich zieht. || Dass Uebersetzungen zu so billigem Preise, wie sie
jetzt vielfach feilgeboten werden, in Zukunft whrend der Schutzdauer des
Urheberrechts dem Verkehre vorenthalten bleiben, ist allerdings nicht aus-
geschlossen. Der Gefahr, dass die Preise zu hoch gespannt werden, wird in-
dessen hier, ganz wie bei deutschen Originalwerken, durch den Wettbewerb
gesteuert. Im Uebrigen kann der geringe Preis auf dem Gebiete der Literatur
gewiss nicht als Vorteil betrachtet werden, wenn das, was dafr geboten wird,
geringwertig ist. Im Interesse der Allgemeinheit ist es gerade zu wnschen,
dass ungengende Uebersetzungen auslndischer, oft schon an sich wertloser
Erzeugnisse nicht in solchem Uebermasse, wie es jetzt der Fall ist, bei der
lesenden Bevlkerung Eingang finden. Nicht minder muss es vom Standpunkt der
deutschen Schriftsteller und des reellen inlndischen Verlagsbuchhandels will-
kommen geheissen werden, wenn einer Ueberschwemmung des Bichermarktes
durch wertlose Uebersetzungen Einhalt gethan wird. I| Es darf hiernach darin,
dass deutscherseits den auslndischen Urhebern das ausschliessliche Ueber-
setzungsrecht in erweitertem Umfange gewhrt wird, auch vom deutschen






Binduisse, Vertrge, Konventionen, Protokolle etc. 81

Standpunkt ein Fortschritt erblickt werden, insofern dadurch einer guten in- Nr. m114s.
lndischen bersetzungsliteratur der Weg geebnet wird. Was auf der anderen R kI,.
Seite die rechtliche Behandlung der deutschen Schriftsteller in den anderen28s.Jan.s87.
Verbandslndern betrifft, so spricht ihr vllig berechtigter Wunsch, ihre Werke
nicht durch Unberufene bersetzt zu sehen, und, bei der zunehmenden Ver-
breitung der deutschen Literatur im Auslande, auch ein erhebliches Vermgens-
interesse fr thunlichste Ausdehnung des Schutzes. || Das ausschliessliche
Ucebersetzungsrecht ist davon abhngig, dass das einzelne Werk berhaupt die
Vorteile der bereinkunft geniesst, dass also die Bedingungen und Frmlich-
keiten erfllt sind, welche die Gesetzgebung des Ursprungslaudes fr einen
Schutz gegen die Wiedergabe in der Originalsprache vorschreibt (Artikel 2
Absatz 2 der bereinkunft). Dagegen ist es nicht erforderlich, dass auch
den etwaigen besonderen Voraussetzungen gengt ist, welche die Gesetze des
Ursprungslandes, wie z. B. das Reichsgesetz vom 11. Juni 1870 6, bezg-
lich des bersetzungsrechts enthalten. Die Verlngerung des Schutzes ber
die Frist von 10 Jahren ist ferner davon abhngig gemacht, dass innerhalb
dieses Zeitraums der Urheber in einem Verbandslande eine bersetzung in
der oder den Sprachen verffentlicht hat, fr die der weitere Schutz in An-
spruch genommen wird. Nach Ablauf dieser Frist wird das bersetzungs-
recht fr alle diejenigen Sprachen, in denen bersetzungen des Werkes nicht
erschienen sind, Gemeingut. Der Lauf der Frist beginnt erst mit der Ver-
ffentlichung des Originalwerkes. Daraus ergiebt sich im Hinblick auf die
Ziffer 2 der ,Deklaration", dass dramatische und dramatisch musikalische
Werke, die nicht im Drucke erschienen sind und deshalb trotz erfolgter Auf-
fhrung nicht als verffentlicht gelten, gegen bersetzung ebenso lange
geschtzt werden, wie gegen Abdruck berhaupt. brigens ist nach der
gewhlten Fassung der Berechtigte, auch wenn er durch Ablauf der Frist sein
Recht fr die Zukunft vollstndig oder fr die eine oder andere Sprache ver-
wirkt hat, nicht gehindert, gegenber einer bersetzung, die schon vorher
unerlaubter Weise erschienen ist, sich der gesetzlichen Rechtsbehelfe zu be-
dienen. 1l Inwieweit die Vorteile des Artikels 5 auch Urhebern zu gute kommen,
die dem Verbande nicht angehren, ergiebt der Artikel 3. Sie geniessen
hiernach den Schutz, der den Verbandsangehrigen zugesichert ist, mit der
schon bei Artikel 3 erwhnten Beschrnkung, dass das Werk verffentlicht,
und die erste Verffentlichung innerhalb des Verbandes bewirkt sein muss.
Dramatische und dramatisch-musikalische Werke verbandsfremder Autoren
geniessen daher, soweit sie berhaupt nicht oder ausserhalb des Verbandes im
Drucke erschienen sind (und deshalb nicht als ,verffentlicht" gelten), innerhalb
der Berner Union auch gegen Uebersetzung keinen Schutz*).
Zu IV: Auch bezglich des Schutzes von Artikeln, welche in Zeitungen
oder periodischen Zeitschriften erscheinen, sind auf der Konferenz im Wesent-
*) Wegen der bergangsbestimmungen beim bersetzungsschutz s. bei Artikel 2 II
Absatz 4 der Zusatzakte, s. Denkschrift S. 21 Ziffer 2.
Staatsarchiv LX. 6






82 Bindnisse, Vertrilge, Konventionen, Protokolle etc.

Nr. 11468. lichen die von der deutschen Delegation gemachten Vorschlige zur Annahme
Disc~. gelangt. || Es werden von nun an geschtzt: 1j 1. unbedingt: die Feuilleton-
28s Jan.1987.romane und -Novellen. Unter Novellen sind, wie in Paris des Nheren klar-
gestellt worden ist, kleinere Romane und Erzhlungen sowie unter Umstnden
auch Aufstze zu verstehen, die nicht blos Thatsachen enthalten, sondern auch
mit Zuthaten der Phantasie des Autors ausgeschmckt sind. | 2. bedingt -
nmlich unter der Voraussetzung, dass bei Zeitungsartikeln oder auf der be-
treffenden Nummer einer periodischen Zeitschrift das Verbot des Abdrucks
ausdrcklich ausgesprochen ist die smtlichen brigen Zeitungsartikel.
Fehlt der Vorbehalt, so knnen diese Artikel abgedruckt werden, wenn die
Quelle angegeben wird. Man ging brigens in Paris von der Auffassung aus,
dass die Quellenangabe sich nicht bloss auf die Angabe des Namens der Zeitung
oder periodischen Zeitschrift, in welcher der betreffende Artikel erschienen
ist, sondern, falls der Artikel gezeichnet war, auch auf die Benennung des Ur-
hebers zu erstrecken habe. 11 Die Unterscheidung von grsseren und kleineren
Artikeln nach Analogie des deutschen Urheberrechtsgesetzes vom 11. Juni 1870
ist, wie schon bei der bisherigen Berner Konvention, als zu unbestimmt weg-
geblieben. i| 3. uneingeschrnkt nmlich auch gegen ein ausdrcklich aus-
gesprochenes Verbot des Autors und ohne Angabe der Quelle drfen wie
bisher im Original und in bersetzung abgedruckt werden: Artikel politischen
Inhalts, Tagesneuigkeiten und ,Vermischte Nachrichten". || Durch die neuen
Bestimmungen des Artikels 7 wird der Betrieb der grsseren und der ernst-
haften kleinen deutschen Presse im internationalen Verkehr eine Regelung
erhalten, welche allen beteiligten Interessen gerecht wird, whrend anderer-
seits nach wie vor die Mglichkeit bestehen bleibt, gerade bei den haupt-
schlich in Betracht kommenden Zeitungsprodukteu, den eigentlichen Artikeln,
einem missbruchlichen Nachdruck entgegenzutreten. In dieser Beziehung
drfte sich vor allem die Thatsache, dass man zur Beseitigung der dieserhalb
bestehenden Zweifel sich entschlossen hat, die Feuilletonromane und -Novellen
den in Buchform erscheinenden Romanen und Novellen gleichzustellen, als
wirksam erweisen.
Zu V: Der bisherige Artikel 12 der Berner bereinkunft hatte es
zweifelhaft gelassen, ob die Beschlagnahme unerlaubter Nachbildungen von
Werken der Literatur und Kunst nur bei der Einfuhr und nicht auch nach
der Einfuhr in diejenigen Verbandslnder, wo die betreffenden Originalwerke
auf vertragsmssigcn Schutz Anspruch haben, erfolgen kann. || Durch die nun-
mehr in Paris zur Annahme gelangte, ihrem Wortlaute nach dem Vorschlage
der deutschen Delegation entsprechend formulierte Abnderung des bisherigen
Artikels, wonach die zustndigen Behrden desjenigen Landes, das die Original-
werke schtzt, kurzweg als zur Beschlagnahme der unerlaubten, von aussen
eingehenden Nachbildungen berufen und befugt bezeichnet werden, drften
alle Zweifel ber den zulssigen Moment der Beschlagnahme jetzt endgiltig
behoben sein.






Biiiidise, Vertrge, Konventionen, Protokolle etc. 83

Zu VI: Die Ersetzung der Worte: ,Diese Kndigung soll an die mit der Nr. 1146s.
Entgegennahme der Beitrittserklrungen beauftragte Regierung gerichtet Deutsches
werden" in dem Absatz 2 von Artikel 20 der bisherigen Berner bereinkunft2s.Jan.897v.
durch eine Wendung, derzufolge diese Kndigung an die Regierung der
schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft gerichtet worden soll, hat den Zweck, die
Fassung dieses Artikels mit derjenigen des Artikels 18 der Berner Konvention
in bereinstimmung zu bringen.

b. Zu Artikel 2 der Zusatzakte.
(Abnderungen des Schlussprotokolls zur Berner bereinkunft
vom 9. September 1886.)
Zu I. (Zu Nummer 1 des Schlussprotokolls.)
In den oben erwhnten ,Propositions" der franzsischen Regierung und
des Berner Breaus war vorgeschlagen worden, unter Abnderung der bis-
herigen. Nummer 1 des Sehlussprotokolls die Werke der Architektur und die
Photographien den im Artikel 4 der Berner bereinkunft aufgezhlten, den
Werken der Kunst im Sinne dieser bereinkunft zuzurechnenden Werken
anzugliedern. Der Annahme dieses Vorschlages stand jedoch der Umstand
entgegen, dass die innere Gesetzgebung verschiedener Verbandsstaaten ,Werke
der Architektur" als Schutzobjekte berhaupt nicht kennt, und dass in
mehreren Lndern den Photographien unter Absprechung des knstlerischen
Charakters entweder gar kein Schutz oder doch nur ein minderer als den
eigentlichen Kunstwerken zugebilligt wird. Es musste daher bei dem bis-
herigen Wortlaut von Artikel 4 sein Bewenden behalten.
Zu A. Hingegen erschien es angngig, den Werken der Architektur in
denjenigen Staaten, welche sie als Kunstwerke ansehen und schtzen, auch fr
den internationalen Verkehr die Gleichstellung mit den brigen, im Artikel 4
benannten Werken der Litteratur und Kunst zu gewhren. Diese neue Be-
stimmung ist fr Deutschland, das zu-denjenigen Lndern gehrt, welche die
architektonischen Werke als solche nicht schtzen, unbedenklich.
Zu B. Ilinsichtlich der Photographien erschien es erwnscht, die bis-
herige Fassung von Nummer 1 des Schlussprotokolls, wonach diejenigen Ver-
bandslnder, welche den photographischen Erzeugnissen den Charakter von
Werken der Kunst nicht versagen, die Verpflichtung bernehmen, denselben
die Vorteile der Berner Konvention zu Teil werden zu lassen, durch eine
Bestimmung zu ersetzen, welche auch diejenigen der Union angehrigen
Staaten umfasst, deren Gesetzgebung den Photographien zwar den knst-
lerischen Charakter abspricht, ihnen aber doch einen, wenn auch geringeren
Schutz gewhrt. |i Es ist deshalb in dem neuen Abschnitt der fraglichen
Schlussprotokollbestimmung nicht mehr zwischen diesen beiden Kategorien von
Lndern unterschieden, sondern es wird allgemein die Regel aufgestellt, dass
die photographischen Erzeugnisse der Vorteile, welche die Berner berein-
kunft und die Zusatzakte gewhren, insofern und insoweit teilhaftig werden
6*






84 Biilnduisse, Vertrage, Konventionen, Protokolle etc.

Nr. is. sollen, als die innere Gesetzgebung den einheimischen Produkten einen Schutz
nJ" 1i gewhrt. Dadurch fllt in einigen Verbandslndern, wie beispielsweise in
28.Jan.1is7.Deutschland, fr die ans den anderen Verbandsstaaten stammenden Photo-
graphien die durch die innere Gesetzgebung (deutsches Gesetz, betreffend den
Schutz der Photographien gegen unbefugte Nachbildung, vom 10. Januar
1876 Reichs-Gesetzbl. S. 8 -) als Voraussetzung des Schutzes der ein-
heimischen Photographien verlangte Erfllung gewisser Formalitten fort. Es
kann nicht geleugnet werden, dass hierdurch 'seitens dieser Lnder ein Opfer
gebracht worden ist, das jedoch nicht so bedeutend sein drfte, als dass cs
nicht im Interesse der Sache htte gebracht werden knnen. Ebenso lsst
sich nicht in Abrede stellen, dass durch diese Neuregelung des Photographien-
schutzes insofern eine Unbilligkeit in der Schutzgewhrung eintreten wird, als
die Lnder, welche photographische Erzeugnisse berhaupt nicht schtzen,
bezglich ihrer Erzeugnisse in den anderen Verbandslndern den vollen Schutz
der dortigen Gesetzgebung ohne Gegenleistung beanspruchen knnen. Die
Konferenz hat indessen geglaubt, auch diese Konsequenz der neuen Fassung
der Bestimmung Angesichts des Fortschrittes, den dieselbe an sich bedeutet,
mit in Kauf nehmen zu sollen, hat aber zugleich in dem ersten der von ihr
proklamierten ,voeux"*) der Erwartung Ausdruck verliehen, dass die Gesetz-
gebungen smtlicher Verbandslnder den photographischen Erzeugnissen Schutz
gewhren mchten, und dass die Dauer dieses Schutzes berall zum Mindesten
fnfzehn Jahre betragen werde, wodurch auch den neuerdings in Deutschland
zu Tage getretenen, auf Erstreckung des Photographienschutzes hinzielenden
Bestrebungen Rechnung getragen sein drfte. Il Den Photographien sind auf
Wunsch der franzsischen Delegirten die ,durch ein hnliches Verfahren"
hergestellten Erzeugnisse zugesellt worden, was unbedenklich erscheint**).

Zu II. (Zu Nummer 4 des Schlussprotokolls.)
Die Nummer 4 des Schlussprotokolls hat folgende Abnderungen er-
fahren: 1l 1. Im Absatz 2 wurden die Worte ,in ihrem Ursprungslande" ein-
gefgt, um festzustellen, dass es sich hier nicht etwa um Werke handle,
welche in dem Lande, das Schutz gewhren soll, noch nicht Gemeingut ge-
worden sind, sondern, wie brigens der Wortlaut von Artikel 14 der Berner
bereinkunft, auf den sich diese Nummer des Schlussprotokolls bezieht, klar
ergiebt, selbstverstndlich nur um solche Werke, welche zur Zeit des Inkraft-
tretens der Berner Konvention beziehungsweise der Zusatzakte in ihrem
Ursprungslande noch geschtzt waren beziehungsweise sein werden. |1 2. Es
ist ein weiterer, vierter Absatz hinzugefgt worden, in welchem gegenber der
in dem neuen Artikel 5 der Berner bereinkunft vorgesehenen Erweiterung

*) s. Anlage 4, s. Denkschrift S. 24.
**) ber die Erfllung der Bedingungen und Frmlichkeiten, welche die Voraus-
setzung des Photographicnscihutzes bilden, s. bei der ,Deklaration" unter Nummer 1,
s. Denkschrift S. 86.






Biunuisse, Vortrge, Konventionen, Protokolle etc. 85

des bersetzungsschutzes die bergangsbestimmungen der Konvention nnd Nr. 11468s.
der Zusatzakte gleichfalls fr anwendbar erkliirt werden. Daraus folgt, dass, Deutschi
wenn im Augenblicke des Inkrafttretens dieses neuen Artikels 5 in einem28.jJaT.is97.
Verbandslande seit dem Erscheinen eines Werkes noch nicht zehn Jahre ver-
strichen sein werden, der Schutz in Gemssheit des gedachten Artikels fr
diejenige Sprache, in welcher bereits eine rechtmssige bersetzung dieses
Werkes erschienen ist, fortdauert, dass jedoch, wenn beim Inkrafttreten des
mehrerwhnten Artikels die Frist von zehn Jahren seit dem Erscheinen des
Originalwerkes auch nur gerade verstrichen ist, ohne dass eine rechtmssige
bersetzung des Werkes berhaupt erschienen sein sollte, das bersetzungs-
recht desselben Gemeingut werden wird, und nicht etwa ein neuer Fristenlauf
beginnt. Es ist endlich noch der dritte Fall denkbar, dass die bisherige
zehnjhrige Frist des bersetznngsschutzes bereits verstrichen, innerhalb dieses
Zeitraums aber eine vom Urheber veranstaltete bersetzung verffentlicht ist.
In diesem Falle wrde das Werk einen neuen Schutz gegen bersetzung
gemss dem abgenderten Artikel 5 erlangen, soweit nicht die im Absatz 2
der Nummer 4 erwhnten Abmachungen oder etwaige Vorschriften der inneren
Gesetzgebung entgegenstehen. Fr Deutschland findet in letzterer Hinsicht
der Grundsatz des 1 Nr. 2 der Verordnung vom 11. Juli 1888 (Reichs-
Gesetzbl. S. 225) Anwendung; danach werden die vorerwhnten Werke den
Schutz des neuen Artikels 5 nicht geniessen gegenber solchen bersetzungen,
welche bei dem Inkrafttreten der Zusatzakte erlaubterweise bereits ganz oder
teilweise verffentlicht waren. | 3. Zu dem ebenfalls neuen Absatz 5, welcher
die Anwendbarkeit der bergangsbestimmungen fr die neu beitretenden
Staaten (vom Moment ihres Beitritts an gerechnet) festsetzt, ist zu bemerken,
dass ursprnglich in Aussicht genommen war, bei denjenigen Lndern, die
nicht innerhalb einer Frist von ein oder zwei Jahren bergangsbestimmungen
getroffen haben wrden, die volle Rckwirkung eintreten zu lassen; da jedoch
seitens einzelner Delegierter Bedenken hiergegen erhoben wurden, begngte
man sich damit, den Sachverhalt klarzustellen.

c. Zu Artikel 3 der Zusatzakte.
(Beitritt anderer Staaten.)
Dieser Artikel der Zusatzakte entspricht dem Artikel 18 der Berner
bereinkunft. Danach kann nach wie vor der Beitritt zur Berner Konvention
allein, jedoch von nun an auch zur Konvention und zugleich zur Zusatzakte
und zwar in einem wie im anderen Falle einschliesslich oder ausschliesslich
der ,Deklaration" erfolgen.

d. Zu Artikel 4 der Zusatzakte.
(Gltigkeit und Dauer der Zusatzakte, Ratifikation.)
Die in diesem Artikel enthaltene Bestimmung, dass die Zusatzakte die-
selbe Gltigkeit und Dauer haben soll wie die bisherige bereinkunft, bewirkt






86 Bndnisse, Vertrge, Konventionen, Protokolle etc.

Nr. 114N6. einerseits, dass erstere von keinem ihr beigetretenen Verbandsstaate fr sieh
Deutsches
Reich. allein gekndigt werden kann, und zum anderen wird der Umstand, dass die
28.Jan.is97. beiden Akte gleichzeitig ablaufen, die Schaffung eines neuen einheitlichen
Vertragsinstrumentes auf der nchsten Revisionskonferenz wesentlich erleichtern.

B. Zur ,Deklaration".
Die smtlichen, in die ,Deklaration" vom 4. Mai 1896 aufgenommenen
Bestimmungen htten in der Zusatzakte Aufnahme finden knnen, wenn nicht
von Seiten der Kniglich grossbritannischen Delegierten aus Grnden der
inneren Gesetzgebung ihres Landes gegen Annahme derselben fr den inter-
nationalen Verkehr Bedenken erhoben worden wren. j| Die Konferenz stand
daher vor der Wahl, entweder vollstndig auf die Beteiligung des Vereinigten
Knigreichs von Grossbritannien und Irland sowie seiner ausgedehnten lber-
seeischen Besitzungen an der Zusatzakte zu verzichten, oder die hier in Frage
stehenden erluternden Vorschriften in einer besonderen Urkunde, an der
Grossbritannien nicht teilnahm, zusammenzufassen. Sie hat das Letztere vor-
gezogen und bezglich dreier zweifelhafter Punkte folgendes festgesetzt:
1. Von seiten einiger Gerichtshfe sind vor einiger Zeit Urteile erlassen
worden, wonach der Schutz der in einem Verbandslande erschienenen Werke
der Literatur und Kunst in den anderen Verbandslndern abhngen sollte von
der Erfllung nicht nur derjenigen Bedingungen und Frmlichkeiten, welche
in dem Ursprungslande, sondern auch derjenigen, welche in dem Lande, wo
der Schutz in Ansprueh genommen wird, fr die einheimischen Werke vor-
geschrieben sind. Mit Rcksicht hierauf erschien es wnschenswert, durch
eine authentische Interpretation den Sinn von Artikel 2 Absatz 2 dahin ein
fr alle Mal klarzustellen, dass der durch die Berner bereinkunft vom
9. September 1886 und die Zusatzakte vom 4. Mai 1896 den Werken der
Litteratur und Kunst gewhrleistete Schutz lediglich von der Erfllung der im
Ursprungslande der betreffenden Werke vorgeschriebenen Bedingungen und
Frmlichkeiten abhngig zu machen sei. j| Die Anwendbarkeit des in Vor-
stehendem ausgesprochenen Grundsatzes auf die photographischen und die durch
ein hnliches Verfahren hergestellten Erzeugnisse noch besonders zu kon-
statieren, erschien deshalb erforderlich, weil eigentlich nur die im Artikel 4
der bereinkunft aufgefhrten Kategorien als Substrate des von ihr gewhrten
Schutzes anzusehen sind, und es demgemss hinsichtlich derjenigen Lnder, die,
wie oben ausgefhrt worden ist, den Photographien den knstlerischen
Charakter absprechen oder ihnen berhaupt keinen Schutz gewhren, zweifel-
haft erscheinen konnte, ob und inwieweit auch bei Photographien nur die
Erfllung der Bedingungen und Frmlichkeiten des Ursprungslandes die Vor-
aussetzung des zu gewhrenden Schutzes bilden sollte. 11 Bei dieser Gelegen-
heit kann noch darauf hingewiesen werden, dass man auf der Konferenz be-
zglich der Dauer des durch die Berner Konvention und die Zusatzakte
gewhrten Schutzes einstimmig der Ansicht war, die Bestimmung im Artikel 2






Binduisse, Vertrge, Konventionen, Protokolle etc. 87

Absatz 2, wonach der Schutz in den brigen Verbandslndern ,die Dauer des Nr. 11468.
Deutschea
in dem Ursprungslande gewhrten Schutzes nicht berschreiten" knne, sei Reich
dahin zu verstehen, dass ein Anspruch auf eine lngere Schutzdauer nicht 29.Jan.M897.
bestehe, dass es jedoch einem Staate, der eine lngere Schutzfrist gewhre,
als der Heimatsstaat des betreffenden Werkes, selbstverstndlich unbenommen
bleibe, diese lngere Frist auch den nichteinheimischen Erzeugnissen ein-
zurumen.
2. Mit Rcksicht darauf, dass der Schutz, den die Berner Union gewhrt,
unter Umstnden davon abhngig gemacht ist, dass das betreffende Werk in
einem Verbandslande verffentlicht sein muss, erschien es der grossen Mehr-
zahl der Delegierten der in Paris vertretenen Staaten erforderlich, den Begriff
der ,Verffentlichung" genau zu umgrenzen. Nach der in Folge dessen durch
Ziffer 2 der ,Deklaration" gegebenen Definition dieses Begriffs ist ,verffent-
lichen" gleichbedeutend mit ,herausgeben", worunter die erste Vervielfltigung
behufs Vertriebes an die ffentlichkeit zu verstehen ist. Herausgeben ist also
nicht vollkommen identisch mit ,Verlegen" im gebruchlichen Sinne, da es
den Selbstverlag mitumfasst. || Als nicht verffentlicht gelten nach dem Wort-
laut der ,Deklaration" dramatische, dramatisch-musikalische und musikalische
Werke, welche in einem Unionslande lediglich aufgefhrt, sowie Kunstwerke,
die in einem solchen nur ausgestellt worden sind. Dies hat zur Folge, dass,
wie schon oben bemerkt, derartig in die Erscheinung getretene Werke ver-
bandsfremder Autoren in der Union berhaupt keinen Schutz geniessen. Die
nicht verffentlichten Werke der verbandsangehrigen Urheber werden von
dieser Konsequenz nicht betroffen, da sie in Gemssheit der Artikel 2 und 9
der bereinkunft geschtzt werden, sie seien verffentlicht oder nicht. Eine
ausfhrlichere Darlegung der Grnde, welche dazu gefhrt haben, den Begriff
der Verffentlichung genau zu definieren, sowie der Konsequenzen, die sich aus
dieser Definition im internationalen Verkehr ergeben, ist in den als be-
sondere Anlage hier beigefgten ,Erluterungen der Ziffer 2 der Deklaration"
enthalten.
3. Die Thatsache, dass die Verarbeitung besonders beliebter Romane in
Theaterstcke und eventuell auch zugkrftiger Theaterstcke in Romanform
neuerdings einen immer grsseren Umfang angenommen hat, hatte den Wunsch
nahe gelegt, diese Flle ausdrcklich unter die im Artikel 10 der Berner
bereinkunft vorgesehenen ,Adaptationen" zu subsumieren. Es musste jedoch
angesichts des Widerspruchs der britischen Delegierten darauf verzichtet
werden, eine bezgliche Bestimmung dem genannten Artikel selbst einzuver-
leiben, beziehungsweise denselben in der Zusatzakte abzundern. 1| Fr Deutsch-
land ist die neue Bestimmung lediglich eine Ergnzung der im internen Ver-
kehr lngst durchgedrungenen Anschauung, dass derartige Umnderungen wie
die hier in Rede stehenden sehr wohl unter den Begriff der ,Adaptationen"
fallen knnen, und dass es lediglich Aufgabe des Richters ist, an der Hand
der Sachverstndigeugutachten bei jedem Fall zu prfen und zu entscheiden,






88 Budnisse, Vertrge, Konventioneu, Protoklolle etc>

Nr. i6s. ob eine ,Adaptation" vorliegt oder ein neues, selbstndiges Werk geschaffen
Detch. worden ist. Die Annahme war fr uns unbedenklich, da auch im Artikel 10
2s.Jn.,197. der Berner bereinkunft diese Prfung vorgesehen ist. || Der Beitritt zur
Deklaration" ist den Verbandsstaaten, die sich an ihr nicht beteiligt haben,
sowie denjenigen anderen Lndern offen gelassen, welche spter der Berner
bereinkunft oder dieser bereinkunft sowie der Pariser Zusatzakte beitreten
werden. Bezglich der Dauer und Gltigkeit der Deklaration" ist bestimmt,
dass sie hierin der Berner bereinkunft und der Pariser Zusatzakte gleich-
zustellen sei. Es gilt in dieser Hinsicht dasselbe, was bei Artikel 4 der
Zusatzakte ausgefhrt worden ist.
Die Pariser Konferenz hat ausser der Zusatzakte und der Deklaration
noch die in der Anlage aufgefhrten 5 ,voeu(x" beurkundet. Von dem ersten
derselben, der sich auf den Schutz und die erstrebenswerte Verlngerung der
Schutzdauer fr photographische Erzeugnisse bezieht, ist bereits bei der Be-
sprechung von Artikel 2 der Zusatzakte und von dem fnften, der das
Wnschenswerte einer spteren Vereinheitlichung des ganzen Vertragswerkes
ausspricht, in der Einleitung zu dieser Denkschrift die Rede gewesen. jj Was
den ,voeu" Nr. 2 anlangt, so ist derselbe darauf zurckzufhren, dass ur-
sprnglich eine der mehrerwhnten, der Pariser Konferenz als Programm vor-
gelegten ,,Propositions" der franzsischen Regierung und des Berner Breaus
den Vorschlag enthielt, die musikalischen Werke den dramatischen und den
dramatisch-musikalischen insoweit gleichzustellen, dass die Gewhrung des
Schutzes gegen unbefugte Auffhrung verffentlichter musikalischer Werke
nicht mehr, wie bisher, von dem seitens des Urhebers zu machenden aus-
drcklichen Vorbehalt abhngig sein sollte. Deutscherseits konnte dieser
Proposition nicht beigestimmt werden, da man durch die vor Beschickung der
Pariser Konferenz veranstaltete Enquete in der bereits bei den diesseitigen
Vorkonferenzen gewonnenen berzeugung bestrkt worden ist, dass die Zeit
zu einer internationalen Regelung dieser, in das deutsche Musikleben tief ein-
greifenden Frage noch nicht gekommen sei, dass es vielmehr wnschenswert
sein werde, in erster Linie die notwendigen, fr die verschiedenen Lnder
schwer einheitlich zu gestaltenden Ausnahmen von dem Schutze gegen Auf-
fhrungen vorbehaltlos vei ffentlichter musikalischer Kompositionen, insbesondere
im Interesse der verschiedenen Arten volkstmlichen Musiktreibens in Ver-
einen etc. beziehungsweise auf den Gebieten der Schule, der Kirchen- und
Militrmusik in den einzelnen Lndern im Wege der inneren Gesetzgebung
festzusetzen, sowie die Bildung eines Syndikats, wie es beispielsweise in Frank-
reich fr die Einziehung der Tantiemen aus der ffentlichen Auffhrung von
Musikwerken besteht, auch fr Deutschland anzustreben. Andererseits waren
aber auch vom deutschen Standpunkte aus keine Bedenken dagegen zu er-
heben, dass die einmal gegebene Anregung zum Gegenstande eines ,vos"
gemacht werde. || Der dritte, von der Konferenz proklamierte voeu" beschftigt
sich mit der Revision der Sondervertrge, die ber den Schutz von Werken




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs