Incwadi Yami; or, twenty years' personal experience in South AfricaMatthews, J. W. (Josiah Wright)
History
Incwadi Yami; or, twenty years' personal experience in South Africa
Matthews, J. W. (Josiah Wright)
Diamond mines and mining -- South Africa; South Africa -- Description and travel
This law, passed in 1882, is more stringent than any of its
predecessors. Its main feature is that the onus of proof of the legal
possession of diamonds is thrown upon the individual in whose custody
they may be found, and any person within the confines of Griqualand West
may anywhere, at any time, be searched by the detective department, and
if diamonds are found on his or her person must give an account of their
legal ownership or be liable to fifteen years’ imprisonment, with hard
labor. The detective department at the time when this law came into
force received information which led it to the arrest of a most
notorious illicit diamond buyer, who both in Kimberley and at
Jagersfontein[41] (a celebrated mine in the Free State) had suffered for
this crime. Acting on their information, the officers thought that, on
searching this man, they would make a grand haul, when much to their
disgust instead of finding diamonds galore they found simply pieces of
glass most skillfully prepared in exact imitation of real stones, when
of course their prize was lost, and the man, to their chagrin, had to be
liberated.
These sham diamonds at first were brought out from Europe in all sizes,
shapes and colors, but at the present time this internecine illicit
trade, or fight among diamond thieves themselves, is waged to such an
extent that the detective department know of at least four individuals
on the Fields who are engaged in the manufacture of these spurious
stones.
Fluoric acid is employed, so I am told, to partially dissolve the glass
of which these are made into the shape required. As a matter of course
the sale of these sham stones when effected in Griqualand West is hushed
up.
The man taken in by purchasing a spurious diamond of this kind fondly
imagines at the time that he is buying a real although stolen diamond
under its value. He knows, if he be a licensed buyer, that he is
contravening the law in buying of an unlicensed seller, and
consequently, on finding out the deception which has been practiced upon
him, dare not give the seller into custody for obtaining money under
false pretences. He is well aware such a proceeding would merely reveal
to the public his illicit connection; again, if an unlicensed diamond
buyer, he naturally desires to keep the whole affair a secret.
It was not so, however, in the Cape Colony proper, Natal, Transvaal or
the Free State, where the operation of the act was not in force prior to
recent enactments, and the remark still applies to Natal and the
Transvaal, where any one, morality being out of the question, can buy or
sell a diamond legally. I use “legally” in the sense that the law cannot
touch him. Of course buying goods well knowing them to be stolen is a
crime in every civilized community, but in this particular instance,
without the special enactments of the Cape Colony and Free State, one
almost impossible to bring home to the criminal.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account