FROM CRISIS TO CHAIRMANSHIP OF DE BEERS 207
cate should constitute the new company: on 6 November 1928 he cabled:
We
are unanimous that De Beers and Syndicate only should be interested in
new company. See no objection: our object being Dc Beers again becoming
supreme. Sec no reason why other producers should be buyers. De Beers
have money and our interest is to make them all-powerful. . . . With
reference to De Beers chairmanship, after my arrival am certain will
obtain Sir David Harris consent to your appointment when all will be
plain sailing.
This was hardly an attitude calculated to improve relationships, whether on the personal or on the technical side.
With
Solly Joel's arrival in South Africa the personal difficulties began to
be smoothed over, but the divergencies between the viewpoints of
London and Kimberley remained acute. The urgency of arriving at a
solution had become accentuated because it was at this time that Ernest
Oppenheimer was negotiating for the purchase of the State alluvial
diamonds: the four conference producers were discussing adherence to
the purchase, and the question of whether they would come in, in the
absence of the formation of the new company, was under consideration.
Kimberley was insistent on all the conference producers coming into the
new company: London, though agreeing that the new company should be
formed 'without delay' (as the London directors informed their
Kimberley colleagues on 13 November), yet in the same cable they
insisted that 'we consider vital that De Beers should have 50 per cent
of board including chairman. . . . We agree board of 12 members, 6
appointed by Syndicate and 6 by us with nomination of chairman.' The
suggestion that De Beers should nominate half the board was accepted by
Ernest Oppenheimer the next day. At the end of the month, the London
directors were still adhering to their position, but finally, in
response to a direct appeal by Ernest Oppenheimer, Solly Joel and F.
Hirschhorn, they cabled: 'With regard to participation in capital new
company we agree participation of four producing companies in
accordance with quota.' Unfortunately, the cable (dated 4 December)
also made proposals regarding the directorate which brought about a
final collapse of negotiations. The London directors asked for 50 per
cent representation, including the chairmanship. The cable went on:
Personnel
of board suggested in [the Oppenheimer-Joel] cable would give Syndicate
8 members and De Beers would only have 4 directors who are not members
of the Syndicate. . . . No directors having interest in firms as selling agents can he included in De Beers nominees. Other producers should be
