482 REPORT—1905. 
the goldfields—the chief source of revenue and almost the only fountain of inven- 
tion and material progress—should have harassed the inventor and crushed 
ingenuity by the imposition of enormous renewal fees and a legal procedure alike of 
a detrimental and deterrent character to the individual discoverer of a new art or 
process. That a Patent Law was required there is no doubt, and advantage of 
its terms were largely taken by the public; but an Ordinance relating to copyright 
was at that time premature, and, indeed, even at the present time its provisions 
are very seldom brought into operation. Far more interesting, however, to 
the student is the presence before, with, and after the passage of these Patent 
Laws of personal rights locally known as ‘concessions,’ but which were in fact 
grants, somewhat of the character of those swept away in 1624 in England by the 
Statute of Monopolies (21 Jac. I., cap. 3). Issued mainly under the pretext of 
assisting local enterprise and encouraging local industry, and not—as were the 
monopolies granted by the English kings—openly given in exchange for personal 
pecuniary benefit and as a royal prerogative, these concessions were, it is now 
admitted, mainly obtainable by a judicious approach to those who had the power 
to give legal effect to these grants. Although not all exclusive monopolies, this 
vicious form of protection embraced such important subjects as liquor, explosives, 
railways, iron, sugar, wool, bricks, earthenware, paper, candles, soap, caleium 
carbide, oil, matches, jam, cocoa, and bottles. It cannot be said for one moment 
that these concessions did not interfere with the more legitimate patents for 
inventions; it was a practical impossibility for many years for any person to 
obtain a patent for explosives in the country owing to the explosives monopoly, 
and indeed, on at least one occasion, a proposed concession and an issued patent 
practically came into direct conflict. 
Last, where in theory it should be first, appears in 1892 the Trade-Mark Law, 
a measure due, doubtless, directly to the growth of population and the expanding 
condition of what were but a few years before mere mining camps, and indirectly 
to the decision in the case of Rose & Co, v. Miller in 1891. With the later 
development of these laws it is not necessary to deal in this abstract, nor, indeed, 
have the later enactments the same interest as those passed by the old Raad. It 
will perhaps suffice to say that a marked indication of restored confidence since 
the last change of Government is shown by the enormous increase which has 
taken place in the application for the various rights which are included in the 
title ‘industrial property.’ 
4. The Practice and Theory of Dumping. By W. J. CuarKkson. 
This was a discussion of the practice and theory of dumping in the com- 
mercial sense of the word. After describing the practice, which it was pointed 
out includes only the case of selling commodities abroad at a price below the cost 
of production, and the converse, which is the purchasing of such goods, it was 
shown how a high protective tariff, as in Germany, may give producers a 
monopoly of their own market. This leads to those combinations of producers 
known as trusts or cattels, whose primary object is to raise the price of the 
commodities they produce, to the disadvantage of the rest of the country. Work- 
shops and factories are equipped for enormous outputs, in order to minimise the 
cost of production, which frequently leads to surplus production. This surplus 
cannot be disposed of at home, owing to the stringent regulations of the trust 
regarding selling price, and must therefore be sold abroad at a loss. The evil 
effects of this practice upon the resource of the country were discussed, and the 
high price of iron and steel in Germany was instanced, where manufacturers of 
the finished goods are at a great disadvantage when competing both for home and 
foreign trade. 
The economic effect upon the country purchasing dumped goods was described. 
Low-priced importations, it was argued, increase the productiveness of the im- 
porting country and allow of a greater return to capital and labour. Greater 
opportunities occur for competing successfully for the world’s trade. It is doubtful 
whether any industry—in the United Kingdom, for example—is, or can become, 
