TO THE FORMATION OF THE NEW SYNDICATE 121
diamond
board might deal in alluvial diamonds, but otherwise 'nothing contained
in this Act shall apply to the sale, disposal or export of alluvial
diamonds'.
It
fell to Ernest Oppcnheimer's lot to be cast for the role of instigator
of this legislation by the Minister of Mines, who told the House— on 2
March 1925—that he 'was glad to be able to tell the House that a wedge
had been driven into the Syndicate, and that no less a person than an
hon. member sitting on the opposite side of the House, who is connected
with the Anglo American Corporation . . . was materially a participant
in driving this wedge into the Syndicate'. He continued:
The
whole object of this bill is not to carry out everything that is stated
in it, but to have a sword of Damocles hanging over combinations and
combines like the Syndicate. It is not intended to attack producers in
South Africa: the main object ... is to protect producers . . . the
object of the bill is further to stimulate competition. ...
I cannot conceive of any hon. member saying that the producers in South
Africa are in every respect capable of minding their own business and
looking after their own interests, because if that statement is made, I
challenge it at once.2
Two
diamond experts attacked the bill in the House: David Harris, a veteran
of the diamond industry, and Ernest Oppenheimer. The former, in a
sledge-hammer attack, had not the slightest difficulty in disposing of
the cruder arguments directed against the diamond industry and the
Diamond Syndicate—Ernest Oppenheimer's speech was both more reasoned
and more penetrating. The principle of the bill was wrong in so far as
'no control bill meets the case if the one source of production which
is now uncontrolled is to be specially exempted'. 'I fully admit', he
went on to say, 'that one cannot interfere with the alluvial digger . .
. who earns a very precarious living. I maintain, however, that this in
itself docs not estabhsh the claim that all alluvial diamonds as such
should be excluded from the operation of this bill.' He continued:
2 On 9 March 1925, the Minister modified his remarks, as far as Ernest Oppenheimer was concerned:
'Perhaps
with regard to the Hon. Member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer)
my words were not quite explicit. I think I made use of the words
during my first portion of my speech that an hon. member opposite—and I
naturally alluded to the Hon. Member for Kimberley —had been materially
instrumental in driving a wedge into the Syndicate, or that he was a
material participant. I think I was somewhat incorrectly reported
there, because, if I remember rightly, I said that he had been
instrumental. I did not mean to convey to the House —and if that
impression was conveyed I wish to correct it at once —that he was a
voluntary participant in driving the wedge into the Syndicate.'
