THE WAR YEARS AND AFTER 341
Mine (which was refused), and between De Beers and the Cape Coast company (which was accepted).
In
January 1941, Government raised three points. Government was not
prepared 'to agree to the proposal that the constitution of the
association should be altered so as to provide that no notice of
intention to terminate it shall be given by any of the parties thereto
during the continuation of the war and one year thereafter'. Secondly,
as regards the Angola contract, it was not prepared to agree 'to any
arrangements extending beyond the life of the present producers'
agreement' and as regards the proposed modifications, 'the Government
agrees, but only on conditions that deliveries to the association on
account of Angola purchases shall be made as if this modification did
not apply until the end of 1942'. The important consequence was drawn
in the third point, namely that
as
the Government is anxious that a larger proportion of the world's
diamond trade should be secured for the South African producers, and is
likewise anxious to secure a maximum amount of revenue during the war
period, the approval given in the preceding paragraph is subject to the
further condition that the Diamond Corporation in respect of all
deliveries made on and after 1 January 1941 will
surrender a proportionate share of its stock quota to make room for all
outside purchases {including Angola) in exactly the same way as it does
in respect of purchases from Sierra Leone and one or two small
companies.
This
letter led to some interesting comments by Ernest Oppenheimer at the
meeting of the De Beers board on 21 January 1941. Official notice of
the termination of the producers' agreement had not yet been given: all
these exchanges of views were in the nature of a preliminary skirmish.
He was not prepared to quarrel with Government on matters which could
be amicably settled by discussion: the important matter was the policy
to be adopted, then and in the future, towards the outside producers.
The real safeguard, at the moment, was the war clause. There had to be
uniformity of treatment and for the moment, he said, 'we don't want to
have a fuss and I much prefer that we should keep the war clause and
take the minimum delivery'.
He continued:
I
want to tell you something for future negotiations. The more I think of
it, the more I am convinced that the only reason we are able to
maintain the outside contracts is the provision for minimum deliveries.
We are the only people who have sufficient money; others who can put
down 2 million pounds do not exist in the diamond trade. I am positive
we will always come to terms with them, and the very fact that no one
else in the trade can
