collected, is disclosure "in the course of official duty." The disclosure of information to a Congressional Subcommittee, of course, cannot be considered to be disclosure "in the course of official duty" within the context of the Act. Accordingly, because of the restrictions under which investment information on individual U.S. firms in South Africa is collected, we are unable to provide the information requested.

Mr. DIGGS. Could you tell us what agencies of the Government the Department has communicated with in connection with Namibian policy and the nature of these communications?

That is, did you make any suggestions or requests that would enable other agencies to implement this policy within their areas of responsibility?

Mr. KAISER. We have numerous communications with various departments and agencies of the U.S. Government.

Mr. DIGGS. Well, this policy of discouraging investment in Namibia was announced, and it was announced, as I recall, at one of our hearings by the former Assistant Secretary. And the subcommittee would presume that it was not merely made in an announcement here at a hearing. The subcommittee would presume that the Department sent a letter to the Treasury, to Commerce, to the Atomic Energy Commission, to the various departments and agencies having to do with Africa and more specifically those that may have some dealings of defense with Namibia, so that implementation of State policy by other agencies would be encouraged.

I would assume that there was some kind of correspondence on this question with other agencies because otherwise, the question of credibility is raised which has run throughout our hearings like a thread.

We protest, we made this kind of announcement, and yet when you look at the bottom line for results, you find a kind of gap that puts a question mark behind the implementation of policy..

Mr. KAISER. I am not familiar, Mr. Chairman, with any kind of circular correspondence, but there is correspondence that would deal with specific issues that arise like that of tax credits, for example. This kind of correspondence does take place.

Mr. DIGGS. What about Newmont? When that fiasco came out, which obviously was embarrassing, did the Department take any steps there together with the Securities Commission in order to see that it would be avoided in the future?

Mr. KAISER. There probably was, Mr. Chairman, but I am not aware of precisely what form it may have taken.

Mr. DIGGS. I wish you would check to find out if, in fact, there was. [The reply of the Department of State follows:]

Within the Securities and Exchange Commission operating procedures for dealing with requests from companies for the deletion of proposed shareholder resolutions from proxy statements have been altered. Instead of being processed by as many as 18 offices, these requests are now handled by two persons in the Office of the General Counsel who are fully aware of U.S. policy regarding Namibia and U.S. business practices in southern Africa.

Mr. DIGGS. Mr. Johnston, what do you think about all of this? Do you have any comments to make on the statements that have been made by the Securities Commission representative and the Department?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I am sitting here enthralled, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DIGGS. Well, what is your overall impression as a private organization representative dealing in this field?'

Mr. JOHNSTON. I stand by my earlier words that there is a drift here. I don't get the feeling that these people are taking this thing deadly seriously; the matter of Namibia, the matter of the whole explosive situation in southern Africa.

Mr. DIGGS. Well, more specifically, do you think for example, that the SEC dealt reasonably with the stockholder resolutions that the Episcopal churchmen introduced?

Mr. JOHNSTON. As an injured party, no. I thought we had some very good resolutions. We had three drafts in 1972 which went right to the heart of the United Nations' legality, and this was disallowed because it was felt to be a judgment within the province of the management, so we could not challenge it.

[The following information was subsequently submitted by Mr. Johnston for inclusion in the record at this point:]

I would like to see the SEC regulations widened in scope so that issues such as United Nations' rights in Namibia and the South African defiance of them can be brought before the shareholders of an American corporation involved in that kind of situation.

Decisions which disregard the United Nations, of which the United States is a member State, and of paying taxes and following the laws of a usurping power-South Africa in this case-cannot be left to a small group of people whose interests are narrow. These determinations should be subject to the will of the entire stockholding public and should be allowed to be thoroughly and publicly aired.

But there is a question of the greatest magnitude. The United States government has no representative in Namibia and the United States government maintains that it does not recognize any South African authority in Namibia whatsoever. Yet American Metal Climax and Newmont Mining Corporation, by virtue of their control of Tsumeb Corporation, Ltd., are in effect representing the United States in that land. And by Cooperating with the South African usurper, these American firms are practicing a foreign policy totally at variance with that of their government. No one should have this power.

These issues go far beyond the normal, day-by-day running of a business. They reach into the very nature and operation of our society. It should be noted that another Subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs has just called for the United States government to "treat human rights factors as a regular part of United States foreign policy decision-making”. And the State Department has created a full-time Human Rights office. This concept should be carried into the governance of the actions of American-based international Corporations for the basic issue in Namibia as well as in many other parts of the world is human rights. This concept should be spelled out hard and fast by strongly enforced legislation.

I am submitting herewith the text of our three 1972 resolutions filed with both American Metal Climax and Newmont Mining Corporation-two of which were disallowed-those dealing with the United Nations authority, and also the text of our 1973 resolution.

Mr. JOHNSTON. They did allow us to ask questions, and we were defeated. Last year we went for withdrawal, and that was allowed, and we of course were defeated on that.

I do recall last year, too, this fiasco that keeps coming up back and forth on the resolution about equal wages.

I am reminded that equal pay for equal wages has been sort of a watchword of the white labor movement in South Africa because it assured in its strange way that the whites would have been protected by job reservation and apartheid laws, would be assured of maintaining their jobs, and the blacks were excluded.

So, quite frankly, this is my New York street feeling on this, it is a game that is going on. I do worry about the real sincerity.

I must say, if I make further comment, Mr. Chairman, when I read the statement from the State Department, the next-to-the-last paragraph, which says, "The U.S. Government continues to be concerned that those South African policies which appear to bar political activities of oppositionists may result in marshaling support for those who hold that violence is the only recourse."

It is certainly more than appearing to bar political activities.
I mean they are knocking those people off over there.

They have them in detention, they are torturing them. This is only one instance of what the South Africans are doing.

You know, it is within the language and the thoughts that come to me, that is conveyed by this kind of language, that worry me, and that is why I feel that in our Government we don't seriously want to have freedom in southern Africa.

You know, I am sure that they would like to have the thing done with and have it settled certainly without violence, and so do I, but in marshalling support for those who hold that violence is the only recourse, I have no hang-ups myself about the liberation movements and their use of violence, but my concern about violence is the South Africans and Portuguese and Rhodesians-they are the violent people, they are the terrorists.

This thing has been flip-flopped in my estimation.

Mr. DIGGS. Let's conclude by asking you, Mr. Johnston, to submit your stockholder resolusions for the record.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.

[The stockholder resolutions follow:]

RESOLUTION No. 1 FILED WITH NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION BY EPISCOPAL CHURCHMEN FOR SOUTH AFRICA, A SHAREHOLDER, 1972

Resolved, That the Corporation recognize the United Nations as the lawful authority in Namibia (South West Africa) by (a) negotiating with that organization the establishment of the right of the Corporation, its subsidiaries, and/or affiliates to a continuing presence and operation in that territory; and (b) by suspending all operations of the Corporation, its subsidiaries, and/or affiliates therein until the said negotiation with the lawful authority has been concluded; and (c) by non-cooperation with the illegal administration of Namibia by the Republic of South Africa in such matters as the payment of taxes, filing of reports and participation in any labor recruitment scheme controlled wholly or in part by the Republic of South Africa.

STATEMENT SUPPORTING RESOLUTION 1 FILED WITH NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION BY EPISCOPAL CHURCHMEN FOR SOUTH AFRICA, A SHAREHOLDER, 1972 South Africa will not relinquish control over Namibia despite termination of a League of Nations mandate by the United Nations General Assembly and an International Court of Justice opinion saying nations should "... refrain from. . . any dealings with the Government of South Africa implying recognition of the legality of. . . such presence". The United States has accepted this opinion. The Corporation and its partially-owned subsidiary, Tsumeb Corporation, a major investor in Namibia, imply recognition of the illegal government. They should suspend operations, cease paying taxes and abstain from participation in labor recruitment schemes pending conclusion of negotiations with the United Nations.

RESOLUTION No. 2 FILED WITH NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION BY EPISCOPAL CHURCHMEN FOR SOUTH AFRICA, A SHAREHOLDER, 1972

Resolved, That the Corporation place all net profits which it derives from the operations of Tsumeb Corporation into an independently administered trust fund, to be held in escrow until such time as the United Nations, as the de jure

lawful authority of Namibia (South West Africa), becomes the de facto lawful authority of that territory and passes upon the propriety of profits earned by Tsumeb Corporation during the illegal occupation of the territory of Namibia by the Republic of South Africa.

STATEMENT SUPPORTING RESOLUTION 2 FILED WITH NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION BY EPISCOPAL CHURCHMEN FOR SOUTH AFRICA, A SHAREHOLDER, 1972 South Africa has refused to relinquish control over Namibia despite termination of a League of Nations mandate by the United Nations General Assembly and an International Court of Justice opinion that its presence in Namibia is illegal. The United States has adopted a policy of discouraging further investments in Namibia. Tsumeb Corporation, a partially-owned subsidiary of the Corporation and a large investor in Namibia, could incur liabilities by deriving profit from South Africa's illegal occupation of and its exploitative, racially discriminatory labor laws imposed in Namibia. Profits should be placed in escrow until liabilities can be properly assessed.

RESOLUTION NO. 3 FILED WITH NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION BY EPISCOPAL CHURCHMEN FOR SOUTH AFRICA, A SHAREHOLDER, 1972

Whereas, some stockholders believe from information now publicly available that United States corporations should no longer conduct business in Namibia (South West Africa), where the Republic of South Africa continues to administer that territory in defiance of the United Nations and the opinion of the International Court of Justice;

Whereas, specific information is vital for stockholders to make an informed decision about this Corporation's involvement in Namibia and South Africa;

Whereas, it is the right of a stockholder to have access to information about the Corporation's business unless it would injure the competitive position of the company: Therefore be it

Resolved, That the Board of Directors shall provide a full written report to the shareholders within four months of the date of the 1972 annual meeting on the Corporation's involvement either directly or indirectly through its subsidiaries and affiliates in Namibia and South Africa. This report shall include the following:

I. HISTORY

a. A history of the Corporation's involvement in Namibia and South Africa since 1948, including: (1) the legal form of ownership of the operations conducted by the Corporation, its subsidiaries and/or affiliates; (2) annual investment of capital broken down by sources within and without Namibia and South Africa; (3) annual profits with detailed statements of supporting data; (4) numbers of employees broken down by race (Africans, Asians, Coloureds, Whites); (5) contractual relations with the South African government; (6) taxes paid to the South African government.

b. A listing and explanation of political, educational and charitable grants and gifts made since 1948 by the Corporation, its affiliates and/or subsidiaries within or for the benefit of Namibia, Namibians, South Africa or South Africans.

II. RELATIONS WITH WORKERS

a. A detailed listing of current wages and employee benefits by functional job description comparing African, Asian, Coloured and White workers. A summary and comparison of wage rates, fringe benefits and promotions since 1948 for each category of employees by racial grouping.

b. A description of grievance procedures and of Work Committees, if any, for African and other non-white workers and of any trade union contracts or informal understandings which restrict employment possibilities for African, Coloured or Asian employees.

c. A description, broken down by race, of technical training, general education, legal assistance, housing or other programs provided by the Corporation for workers or their families.

d. A description of any investment or plans for investment by the Corporation, its affiliates and/or subsidiaries in the "Border Areas" or Homelands proper.

e. A detailed description of the policy and practice of the Corporation, its affiliates and/or subsidiaries as to the recruitment of management and workers from outside of South Africa or Namibia for work within South Africa or Namibia.

III. RELATIONS WITH THE GOVERNMENT

a. A description and explanation of those South African laws which the South African government enforces or attempts or purports to enforce so as to directly affect the employment practices of the Corporation, its affiliates and/or subsidiaries and the working conditions under which African, Coloured and Asian workers are forced to labor; a statement regarding the compliance or non-compliance with these laws by the Corporation, its affiliates or subsidiaries; and a summary of those actions which the Corporation, its affiliates or subsidiaries have taken to avoid the effect of these laws or to bring about their repeal or modification toward a more humane treatment of workers.

b. A listing and explanation of any products or services, including materials for military or police use in a separate list, sold to the South African government since 1948.

STATEMENT SUPPORTING RESOLUTION NO. 3 FILED WITH NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION BY EPISCOPAL CHURCHMEN FOR SOUTH AFRICA, A SHAREHOLDER, 1972 For many shareholders, the Corporation's substantial investment, through Tsumeb Corporation, in mining operations which are a major force in the economy of Namibia (South West Africa), is a matter of grave concern. This proposal is designed to provide basic data essential to an informed shareholder electorate in order to enable it to evaluate the extent of the Corporation's involvement in Apartheid in Namibia or South Africa, its effects on the lives of black and brown employees and the value in the long run of the Corporation's investment.

PROXY STATEMENT OF EPISCOPAL CHURCHMEN FOR SOUTH AFRICA ON NEWMONT MINING CORP., 300 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, N. Y.

(Sponsored by: Episcopal Churchmen for South Africa 14 West 11th Street New York, N. Y.)

This Proxy Statement is furnished by Episcopal Churchmen for South Africa ("ECSA") in connection with the solicitation of proxies for use at the annual meeting of shareholders of the Newmont Mining Corporation to be held on Monday, May 1, 1972, at 100 West 10th Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Episcopal Churchmen for South Africa is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. The directors of ECSA are:

William O. Johnston, president, New York, N. Y.; Oscar J. Callender, Jr., vice-president, Hollis, N.Y.; May Dikeman, secretary, New York, N. Y.; Anne B. O'Brien, treasurer, White Plains, N. Y.; Ann Thacher Anderson, Tappan, N. Y.; and Elaine Wyatt, New York, N. Y.

ECSA intends to designate William Johnston, president; May Dikeman, secretary; and Edgar Lockwood, chaplain, to solicit proxies. No additional compensation for their services is contemplated apart from any regular salaries they now receive (Mr. Johnston is ECSA's only salaried employee), other than reimbursement for their reasonable expenses.

The cost of solicitation will be borne by ECSA which expects to obtain contributions toward such costs from contributions by its members, shareholders and other persons interested in the proposal presented.

ECSA is the owner of two shares of common stock of Newmont Mining Corporation.

ECSA will not attempt to disseminate its Proxy Statement to each shareholder of the Corporation since to do so would be too costly. It will seek to contact selected shareholders of the Corporation, either by mail or in person, or otherwise, and when it does so it will furnish a copy of its Proxy Statement.

However, a copy of ECSA's resolution, together with a short statement in support thereof, will appear in the Proxy Statement of the Corporation and consequently ECSA will be able to communicate with all of the Corporation's shareholders and each shareholder will have the opportunity to vote on the resolution put forward by ECSA.

Shareholders may attend the meeting and vote their shares in person. Shareholders may also vote by proxy and an opportunity is presented on the Corporation's form of proxy to allow shareholders to vote on ECSA's proposal. They may vote in favor of ECSA's proposal by indicating their approval of the proposal in the appropriate box on the Corporation's Proxy Statement and by executing and returning the proxy to the management of the Corporation.

37-052-74- -6