of days later regarding the question of the committee. The Government wanted the proposed committee to have executive powers and
to be put in control of matters affecting the supply of stones to
cutters and also questions dealing with standard assortments and parity
of prices.'
When
the issue was subsequently discussed by Ernest Oppenheimer and the
Minister, the former refused to accept these proposals. 'He made it
quite clear', the record runs, 'that a committee on the lines proposed
by the Government was not desirable nor necessary at this stage, as it
was quite clear the Diamond Corporation should not only control the
diamonds in London but also here. . . .' He thought that the
corporation 'should be given full control and that if a committee were
formed it should be merely for the purpose of investigating specific
grievances or difficulties . . .'. The Minister offered to close the
Cape Town office and centralize sorting in Kimberley if the
committee could be formed on satisfactory lines, 'but', said Sir
Ernest, 'it was perfectly clear that [he] had no intention of forgoing
the idea of the committee on the lines proposed by Dr. Pirow, or doing
anything that would hand control of the Government diamonds over to the
Diamond Corporation'.
This
attitude of Ernest Oppenheimer's no doubt sprang from his devotion to
the principle of 'sales through one channel' and from a well-founded
suspicion that unless there were centralization of sales, it was
impossible to prevent abuses, but it was asking too much, at that
stage, to expect Government to surrender control entirely; and, indeed,
the subsequent negotiations show that he realized he had been asking too much.
When
negotiations began in London, the subject was approached from an
entirely different angle. Sir Frank Meyer and Sir Basil Blackett
interviewed the Minister in London on 27 September 1932, the
Government Mining Engineer, Dr. Pirow, also being present. They put
forward a 'memorandum of suggestions' for his consideration. The
advantage of centralization of sales was stressed, but if the
Government were to agree to this 'it is clear that it must have not
only a say in the fixing of prices and assortment, but also first-hand
knowledge of the actual sales of the Union producers' diamonds which
take place in London'. Admittedly, there were political difficulties in
the way of the Government 'binding itself contractually to a
profit-earning body such as the corporation . . . nevertheless the
Diamond Corporation must continue to function' for:
(1)
It is the only body which has the requisite organization and trained
staff for dealing with the intricacies of the European market.
