174
SIR ERNEST OPPENHEIMER
bill, to give room for suspicion that he was not sufficiently mindful of the interests of the company.
The
long speech which he delivered during the session of 25 April was a
masterly performance, very moderate in tone and combining a wide survey
of the situation in the diamond industry with penetrating criticism of
certain aspects of the proposed legislation. Probably to the surprise
of many of his auditors, he approved not only of the principle of
control—this was obviously so urgently needed that the case for it was
overwhelming—but also of the principle that alluvial production should
remain, as far as possible, the preserve of the 'small man'. He thought
the creation of the several classes of alluvial diggings wise, and he
also approved of the provision in the bill which gave Government
discretionary power to proclaim new diggings, instead of forcing
proclamation by a fixed time as under the then existing legislation.
He warded off any possible criticism that he was speaking as a
representative of the 'big interests'—De Beers and the Syndicate—by
pointing out that 'irrational exploitation', though causing grave
concern to those responsible for the management of the diamond market
had also gravely prejudiced the position of the digger by causing a
drastic fall in the price of their output: 'June prices [in 1926] were
26 per cent higher than the December prices.' He went on
I
should like to explain that this bill is not wanted in order to protect
the mines against the Lichtenburg fields or the Namaqualand field. This
bill is required to protect a great national industry against the
irrational exploitation of any diamond deposit, be it mine or
alluvial. If it were simply a question of protecting the industry
against the present Lichtenburg field this bill would not be required.
It would be too late anyhow, as the best farms in the district are
already proclaimed. The results of the 1927 overproduction will have
to be lived through or dealt with outside the bill. A full and frank
discussion between the producers of diamonds and the Government to
deal with the immediate position is essential, but this can only serve
a useful purpose if the bill is passed and action is taken under the
bill so that there carmot be a recurrence of the recent experiences. A
new discovery of diamonds, whether mine or alluvial diamonds, is in
itself no danger to the trade. On the contrary, a discovery from time
to time will secure the continuity of the diamond trade. The real risk
in a new discovery is irrational exploitation of such a discovery and
the Government must take steps under the new measure to prevent this
taking place at all costs.
But
he protested, and rightly protested, against various aspects of the
proposed legislation: the 'small man' in whose supposed interests the
