Ernest
Oppenheimer, however, showed himself fully conciliatory: he was
prepared to give full information as to stocks and stated it was 'his
intention that the Syndicate should consult its partners fully'.
A
technical issue which had been raised again and again in connexion with
the activities of De Beers, now arose to complicate discussions,
namely, the possible liability to British income tax on the profits
made by a joint-account scheme, but the real cause of the break-down
was a matter of principle. On 25 June Lord Bessborough cabled to
Kimberley that, though Solly Joel and Sir David Harris were absent,
'the rest of us who are here have carefully considered the question and
as a matter of principle are definitely of opinion that, as a
mining comÂpany, we are not entitled to go into outside business of
this description involving capital commitments which are not only heavy
now but absolutely unlimited for the future'.
No
wonder Ernest Oppenheimer noted on the letter sent to him by De Beers
that 'under the circumstances it was really useless to discuss
anything'. The other De Beers directors at Kimberley were equally
outraged:
If
you are definitely of opinion that as a matter of principle, we, being
a mining company, should not go in for purchase of diamonds, it is a
pity we should have wasted last twelve months discussing various
suggestions. In this connexion we would . . . remind you that on
previous occasions we purchased diamonds jointly with Diamond Syndicate
with very similar object to that which prompted suggestion now under
consideration. . . . We feel that the direction of the company is
becoming impossible if every suggestion made from this end can be
turned down by a minority of the board in London and consider that we
should take a vote when the majority must decide. . . .
Nevertheless,
this letter, dated 8 July 1929, ended with the statement that 'full
board are now discussing with Louis Oppenheimer tentative arrangements
which we propose to recommend and put to the vote'. Next day a long
cable was sent to London, summing up Louis Oppenheimer's proposals
'which are subject to S. B. Joel's approval'. Whatever London's
hesitations, again expressed in a cable by Lord Bessborough of a week
later to the effect that 'De Beers as mining company should confine
itself production of diamonds and not be a buyer which is role of the
Syndicate for which purpose it was formed and should continue', these
proposals were identical with those subÂmitted later by Ernest
Oppenheimer to the board of De Beers at Kimberley on 19 December 1929
and unanimously carried.
