FROM CRISIS TO CHAIRMANSHIP OF DE BEERS 173
interest
(however defined) but as a producer, whose policy might be at variance
with that of the established producers, both from the standpoint of
marketing and of output. In one other respect, the bill interfered
seriously with long-established rights. Section i of the bill
assimilated the position in respect of diamonds to that obtaining under
the Gold Law, i.e. 'the right of mining for and disposing of all
precious stones is vested in the State'. Specifically, moreover,
section 2 of the bill abolished the so-called 'Free State title' under
which there was no reservation of rights to the Crown, thus wiping out
a valuable right attaching to a large number of farms acquired by De
Beers in the past, expressly by virtue of the right. It was no answer
to the protests, which this step naturally evoked, to urge, as the
Minister did, that the 'Free State title' only attached to a limited
area of land and had been superseded by subsequent legislation.
It
again fell to Sir David Harris and to Ernest Oppenhcimcr to be the
experts in the House on whose shoulders lay the burden of responsible
criticism. The latter, especially, now that he was virtually the head
of the 'new' Syndicate and keenly alive to the dangers of 'irrational
exploitation', had to weigh his words very carefully. He was, in fact,
in a position of very great delicacy. He had been in communication
privately with the Minister of Mines—having evidently been shown an
advance copy of the bill—in a vain attempt to prevent the inclusion of
the section dealing with 'Free State titles'. He was engaged, behind
the scenes, in fighting, with little success for the moment, for a more
rational and emphatic policy on the part of De Beers; at the same time
he was conscious of risking his standing with his political friends on
the Opposition side of the House by backing the underlying principle of
the measure. In a long telegram to his brother Louis, sent in May 1927,
to which more detailed reference will be made in the next section, he
urged that
.
. . under most difficult circumstances I am using my standing in party
and good relationship with Government to get Diamond Bill passed.
Political situation here very difficult owing to high feeling Flag
Bill. Only through General Smuts's assistance and straining loyalty of
our party to utmost have prevented our party blocking bill ... so as to delay and, if possible, prevent passing Flag Bill. . . .
Moreover, whatever his difficulties with De Beers, he was a
member of the board of directors. Undoubtedly the bill interfered with
the value of the company's properties: he could not afford, in his
attitude to the
