said Ordinances, read together with the Despatches referring to the question, as shall appear to him to be correct.
5. The Award as published in the papers is as follows:
- (a) The claims of Her Majesty’s Government and of the Government of the South African Republic respectively are disallowed, save and except to the extent and degree following, that is to say:
- (b) The South African Republic is bound and entitled in its treatment of Indian and other Asiatic traders, being British subjects, to give full force and effect to Law No. 3 of 1885, enacted, and in the year 1886 amended by the Volksraad of the South African Republic, subject (in case of objection being raised by or on behalf of any such persons to any such treatment as not being in accordance with the provisions of the said law as amended) to sole and exclusive interpretation in the ordinary course by the Tribunals of the country.
6. Now, your Petitioners humbly submit that the above Award not being in terms of the reference is void, and that Her Majesty’s Government is not, therefore, bound by it. The very object with which the arbitration was decided upon is, it is respectfully pointed out, frustrated. The reference leaves it to the Arbitrator either to allow the claims of one of the two Governments or to lay down such interpretation of the Ordinances as may appear to him to be correct, regard being had to the Despatches referring to the question. Instead of interpreting, the learned Arbitrator has delegated the interpretation, and in delegating has, moreover, limited the delegation to such persons as, by the very nature of their position, cannot possibly avail themselves of the procedure and evidence that could be availed of, nay that was expressly stipulated to be availed of, by the Arbitrator, and that would tend to enable them to lay down such an interpretation as would be just and equitable, though, perhaps, not strictly legal.
7. The Award, your Petitioners submit, is invalid on two grounds. First, because the Arbitrator had delegated his function, which no arbitrator in the world can do. Secondly, the Arbitrator has failed to keep to the reference, inasmuch as he has left undecided the question that he was expressly called upon to decide.
8. The object, it would seem, was not to have the question of interpretation decided in a law-court, but to terminate the question once for all. Had not such been the case, Her Majesty’s government would never have entered into the voluminous correspondence with regard to the question of interpretation as found in the Transvaal Green Books, Nos. 1 and 2, 1894. The question that was to be, and your Petitioners submit can only be,decided diplomatically and politically has been left, if the Award is to be valid,
