to the 1930 agreement, and then the
producers could either choose to give notice or to risk the penalty by
closing down without giving notice. At the Cape Town conference, Ernest
Oppcnheimcr raised the issue: he was determined not to risk incurring
the penalty:
With
regard to the question of notice, we want to put ourselves in order. We
do not want to upset our workmen, the Government or the country so long
as it is understood that what we have told you now is our verbal notice
of our intention to close down at the end of June next. We cannot run
any risk. I am sure you realize that what we are doing is our utmost
effort, and therefore, if, on 1 July 1932, things have not improved and
we have to close down we must not be penalized by the Government for
not having complied with the stipulation in the agreement, namely, that
six months' written notice must be given to the Government of the
company's intention to close down. . . .
Unfortunately
the spirit of negotiations at the time the contracts were entered into
was such that this clause was insisted on, therefore we have got to
give notice to the Government and the workmen. . . .
However,
we have discussed this matter, and in the circumstances we will carry
on till 31 March, and then to 30 June. So long as we get our money in
you can rely on us to keep going, but we must comply with the
agreement, which provides that we can close down at any time we like,
but if we do close down without the Minister's consent he can penalize
us by taking our quota away. . . .
On
the other hand, the Minister and his advisers were clearly averse to
being given immediate notice, and desired to keep the situation 'fluid'
as regards the future. The matter was obviously of the greatest
importance, both to Government and the industry, and the attitude taken
up by Government was later to lead to a most distressing conflict
between the industry and the Minister of Mines. Ernest Oppenheimer
quite realized the difficulty:
'If
we wrote you a letter and gave you six months' notice ... so long as
you tell me that if we are compelled to close down in June we will not
be penalized I am quite satisfied. If that cannot be done we must carry
out the agreements.' The Minister's reply was to the effect that
'perhaps it would be just as well if we left that for the time being.
If by 30 June you want to close down I think we might come to some
arrangement then instead of giving us the notice now. Wait until June.'1*
14
It should be added that one of the complicating elements in the future
was to be a dispute as to the correctness of the shorthand transcript
of the conference. The accuracy of the passage quoted in the text was not disputed, however.
