1092 ADMINISTRATION AND LEGISLATION [PART V 
(1) That those Asiatics who satisfy the Colonial Secretary 
of the Colony that their mode of living is in accordance with 
European ideas should be allowed to live, with their servants, 
outside locations, but not to trade outside locations unless 
they fall under (2). 
(2) That those Asiatics who had established businesses 
outside locations before the war should not be disturbed. 
(3) That with the two exceptions mentioned above all 
Asiatics should be required to live and trade in locations, 
and should be prohibited from holding land outside. This 
provision not to apply to land now set aside and used for 
religious purposes. 
(4) All Astatics entering the Transvaal, unless specially 
exempted, to take out a certificate of registration at a charge 
of £3. 
(5) No restriction to be put on the issue of hawkers’ 
licences, provided that the Immigration Law referred to above 
is passed. 
You recommend the acceptance of these proposals by His 
Majesty’s Government as being the maximum amount of 
concession which it is possible to make to the demands of the 
British Indians, in view of the state of public feeling on 
the matter. 
On the fourteenth of May you telegraphed that the 
Supreme Court of the Transvaal in the test case brought 
before it had reversed the decision of the old Boer Court on 
the interpretation of Law No. 3 of 1885. The Supreme Court 
held that that law compelled Asiatics to reside but not to 
trade in locations. 
From this decision it follows that every Asiatic now resi- 
dent in the Transvaal (except those brought in under inden- 
ture under a special Ordinance) is as free to carry on trade 
where he pleases as is a subject of English or Dutch origin, 
so that legislation of the kind now proposed by the Transvaal 
Government must be in diminution of existing rights. This 
fact, in my opinion, much changes the aspect in which the 
matter must be regarded by His Majesty’s Government as 
the trustees of Imperial interests. including those of Indian 
subjects of the Crown. 
On the other hand, the law of the Colony as so interpreted 
is, as T understand your dispatch, distasteful to the Transvaal 
public, who strongly desire to modify it adversely for British 
Indians who may in future enter the country, as well as for 
those who are now resident there. 
* Habib Motan v. Transvaal Government, [1904] T. 8. 404; of. Essop and 
Others v. Rex, [19091 T. S. 480.