ledge of the sums
asked for by the original concessionaires they insisted upon the said
capitalists coming to an agreement with the concessionaires and
paying them the amounts asked; that it was thus understood between
the said capitalists and the Government of the South African Republic
that the sum named in the concession as the price to be paid to the
concessionaires for the formation of the Company was wholly
insufficient under the altered conditions, and that further sums had
to be expended to cover not only the increased amount demanded by the
original concessionaires, but _also other sums of money which were
asked by and paid to different members of the Executive Council and
Volksraad of the South African Republic and their relatives and
friends as the price for granting the concession._

The matter came before the High Court, and several of the exceptions
put forward on behalf of the Government were sustained. Regarding the
accusation mentioned, Mr. Advocate Esselen, who was counsel for the
State, excepted that names and particulars should be inserted, and
also that the State was not bound by the action of the Government or
Executive. He quoted the Volksraad resolution or _besluit_ upon which
the concession was granted, showing that L10,000 was mentioned as the
sum to be received by the concessionaires, and then proceeded:--

'Now, I say that the Government could not contract with the Company
at a higher figure than is above set forth. The measure of authority
granted to the Government is set forth in the Volksraad _besluit_
which I have read, and the Government could not exceed its authority.
Second, the defendant Company makes allegations which are tantamount
to fraudulent dealing on the part of the agents of the State. But it
will be said that it is the State which sues, and that it cannot be
heard to avail itself of the wrongful acts of its agents. In this
matter, however, it is the State Secretary who sues on behalf of the
State. The State is not bound in any event by the acts of individual
members of the Government. It was the Government which was entrusted
with a power of attorney on behalf of the State.'

This doctrine, so fatal to concessionaires and their methods, led to
the following interesting colloquy:--

Mr. Justice JORISSEN: Do you persist in this exception, Mr. Esselen?

Mr. ESSELEN: Certainly I do.

Mr. Justice JORISSEN: You have been very fortunate in succeeding
on two exceptions. Witho