to
an agreement to which the South West African parties were to be
partners, it was possible to prevent any agreement coming into
existence except on terms, and these might imperil the principles of
controlled output and sales through one channel. But the Government
went further and claimed a general power of review and control over
diamond matters, to which in reality it had no legal right prior to the
passage of the Diamond Control Act of 1925 (Act No. 39 of that year).
Ernest Oppcnheimer took the view that everything possible should be
done to conciliate the producers. Writing to Louis on 19 March 1924, he
urged that 'we should do everything, so far as safe business allows, to
meet the producers' views about price adjustment, division of profit
and replacement. It is no use taking up the line that the producers
cannot help themselves, and must accept everything we propose.' He
continued,
This
argument would only be correct if the producers and the Government
really had as good an opinion of the value of the Syndicate to the
trade as wc have, but, as a matter of fact, they look upon the
Syndicate, as constituted at present, as almost unnecessary. They argue
that if the Syndicate have losses they come along to the companies for
relief, and in good times they make exorbitant profits. Everybody
dislikes the Syndicate, and this is due to petty difficulties which we
have made all along. We should deal openly and frankly with the
producers, because they anyhow realize that A. Dun-kelsbuhlcr and
Company, Anglo American Corporation and Barnato's are essential for the
trade, in view of their knowledge of the trade, their huge cash
resources and their interests in the producing companies.
I
do not want to change anything in the composition of the Syndicate; we
have a five-year arrangement and I am satisfied but we must not allow
ourselves to be influenced . . . and continue the present chicanery. .
. .
I
shall, of course, watch matters, and keep you posted, but the sooner
Barnato's and ourselves can make up our minds on a reasonable business,
which we could suggest to the producers, the better, and if we had to
ignore the other houses it would not matter. . . .
Though
Louis Oppenheimer, replying to this letter on 9 April 1924, agreed that
'something definite will have to be done', he was nevertheless, as an
old diamond 'hand', outraged by the tone of the discussion and the
attitude of the producers.
One
thing stares me in the face when I read the discussions among those
representing the producers and that is the absolute lack of
understanding of conditions on this side. You will not find any
business men ready to undertake to buy diamonds to the extent of
several millions with a so-called margin of 10 per cent to take 5 per
cent and divide profits thereafter while the seller
Flickr
Stumbleupon
Scribd
