Boer Politics Part 4

5.--_Articles 4, 7 and 14 of the Convention of 1884._

These conditions are determined by the articles 4, 7 and 14 of the convention of 1884, of which the following is the text:--

"Article 4. The South African Republic will conclude no treaty or engagement with any State or Nation other than the Orange Free State, nor with any native tribe to the Eastward or Westward of the Republic, until the same has been approved by Her Majesty the Queen.

"Such approval shall be considered to have been granted if Her Majesty's Government shall not, within six months after the receipt of a copy of such treaty (which shall be delivered to them immediately upon its completion), have notified that the conclusion of such treaty is in conflict with the interests of Great Britain, or of any of Her Majesty's possessions in South Africa.

"Article 7. All persons who held property in the Transvaal on the 8th day of August, 1881, and still hold the same, will continue to enjoy the rights of property which they have enjoyed since the 12th April, 1877. No person who has remained loyal to Her Majesty during the late hostilities shall suffer any molestation by reason of his loyalty; or be liable to any criminal prosecution or civil action for any part taken in connection with such hostilities; and all such persons will have full liberty to reside in the country, with enjoyment of all civil rights, and protection for their persons and property.

"Article 14. All persons, other than natives, conforming themselves to the laws of the South African Republic (_a_) will have full liberty, with their families, to enter, travel, or reside in any part of the South African Republic; (_b_) they will be ent.i.tled to hire or possess houses, manufactories, warehouses, shops, and premises; (_c_) they may carry on their commerce either in person or by any agents whom they may think fit to employ; (_d_) they will not be subject, in respect of their persons or property, or in respect of their commerce or industry, to any taxes, whether general or local, other than those which are or may be imposed upon Citizens of the Republic."

In Dr. Kuyper's estimation the Articles 7 and 14 are as nothing. I do not even think he makes mention of them in his article (fifty-three pages in length), that has appeared in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_.

Thus, nothing is easier than to argue in the vacuum he creates about his readers. They hear nothing but words; of the facts they are kept in ignorance.

CHAPTER V.

LAW AND JUSTICE IN THE TRANSVAAL.[9]

1.--_Contempt of Justice._

I stated at the close of my last article that I did not think that Dr.

Kuyper had even made mention of Articles 7 and 14 of the Convention of 1884. I find that I was mistaken. He has said a few words about the latter, to draw from it the inference that it did not give the right of franchise to Uitlanders. He is right.

But Articles 7 and 14 guarantee to all white men, civil rights, the protection of their persons and property, the right to enter into trade, and equality of taxation. How did the Boers construe the application of these conditions of the Convention of 1884? As early as 1885 Mr.

Gladstone found himself obliged to send Sir Charles Warren to prevent the Boers from invading Bechua.n.a.land. Mr. Kruger had already attacked Mafeking, and annexed the territory. The Boers retreated, but brutally murdered a man named Beth.e.l.l who had been wounded by them.

That same year, the case of Mr. James Donaldson came before the House of Commons. He held property in Lydenburg. He had been ordered by two Boers (one of whom was in the habit of boasting that he had shot an unarmed Englishman since the beginning of the war, and had fired on several others) to abstain from collecting hut taxes on his own farm. On his refusal he was attacked by them; three other Boers joined them, and he was left in such a condition that he was thought to be dead.

Upon the representations of the English Government the aggressors were condemned to pay a fine; but the Government of Pretoria remitted it!

An Indian, a British subject and man of education far superior to that of the greater part of the Boers, while following a bridle path trespa.s.sed on the farm property of a member of the Volksraad, named Meyer. He was arrested, and accused of intent to steal. Sent before the owner's brother, who was a "field cornet" (district judge), he was condemned, with each of the Hottentot servants accompanying him, to receive twenty-five lashes, and to pay a fine. Rachmann protested, declared that the field cornet was exceeding his authority, intimated an appeal, and offered bail of 40; notwithstanding, he received the twenty-five lashes. George Meyer, the field cornet, knew perfectly well that he was exceeding his authority, but thought it too good a joke to desist. The Court, presided over by Mr. Jorissen, condemned him to pay damages to Rachmann. This was reimbursed to Meyer by the Government, and, despite the judgment of the Court, the President said he was in the right, and that he would protect him.

This is the way in which Mr. Kruger understands justice towards Europeans and European subjects; let us see how he understands it with regard to natives.

A Kaffir, named April, having worked several years on a farm, asked for his salary as agreed in cattle and a pa.s.s. The farmer refused him the cattle, and wanted to force him, his wives, and children, to continue working for him. The Kaffir appealed to the field cornet Prinsloo, who treated him as an unruly slave. The Court condemned Prinsloo for abuse of power. Some days later the President announced that he had reimbursed Prinsloo his expenses and damages, remarking: "Notwithstanding the judgment of the Court, we consider Prinsloo to have been in the right."

[Footnote 9: _Le Siecle_ 29th March, 1900.]

2.--_Confusion of Powers._

The Volksraad confuses legislative and judicial functions. Should a judgment displease it, it arrogates to itself the right to annul it. Nor is there any more respect shown by the Volksraad for contracts, and, on one occasion, it solemnly accorded to the Government the right to annul clauses which had ceased to be satisfactory. It is unnecessary to add that the principle of the non-retrospectiveness of laws is altogether unknown to it.

In the Dom case the Volksraad pa.s.sed a resolution disabling the aggrieved individual from taking action against the Government.

Early in the year 1897, the Government appointed for a given day, the allocation of the Witfontein farm in "claims" (mine concessions of 150 by 400 feet). At the last moment it was announced that the claims would be decided by lottery; several persons having made known that they intended to sue the Government for their claims already pegged out, a measure was pa.s.sed by the Volksraad declaring all such actions null and void.

A Mr. Brown, an American, took proceedings. The President of the High Court, Mr. Kotze, p.r.o.nounced that this law was unconst.i.tutional, and gave judgment in favor of Brown, but left the amount of damages to be determined later after hearing further evidence.

Upon this, Mr. Kruger introduced a law known as Law I. of 1897, which empowered him to exact a.s.surances from the judges that they would respect all resolutions of the Volksraad, without testing whether they were in accord or contradiction with the Const.i.tution; and in the event of the President not being satisfied with the replies of the judges, it further empowered him to dismiss them summarily. The judges protested in a body that they would not submit to such treatment. The High Court was suspended and all legal business adjourned.

Sir Henry de Villiers, Chief Justice of Cape Colony, came to Pretoria to endeavour to avert the crisis. Mr. Kruger promised to refrain from enforcing Law I. of 1897, and to introduce a new law. The judges resumed their functions.

In February, 1898, a year later, President Kruger had not introduced a new law; President Kotze wrote to Kruger reminding him of his promise.

Mr. Kruger at once applied to him Law I. of 1897, and dismissed him.

Kotze was replaced by Mr. Gregorowski, who, at the time the law was pa.s.sed had solemnly protested that no honourable man could continue to act as a judge in the Transvaal until the law was repealed.

Now what does Dr. Kuyper think of the Volksraad's mode of legislation, and of the manner in which Mr. Kruger, that man "of intelligence and superior morality," interprets respect for justice?

CHAPTER VI.

POLICE, JUSTICE, AND LAW ACCORDING TO BOER METHODS.[10]

1.--_Legal and Judicial System of the Transvaal._

In the Transvaal, law is an instrument made use of either to favor or oppress the individual, according to circ.u.mstances. If necessary it is made retrospective. To provide for the case of judges refusing to apply such laws, Law I. of 1897 has been pa.s.sed, which compels them to swear obedience to the President and gives him the right to dismiss summarily such as prove insubordinate or lukewarm. The President of the High Court, Mr. Kotze, fell under the action of this law, in February, 1898.

Before that law, the President annulled any judgments that displeased him and caused the fines or damages inflicted upon the delinquents to be paid out of the public Treasury.

Such is judicial and legal rule in the Transvaal; and there are European lawyers of the opinion that the Uitlanders must be the most contemptible and lowest set of adventurers for not being satisfied with it! Dr.

Kuyper declares that "the fact.i.tious discontent existed only among the English"; and adds with contempt, "Let us look into the Edgar, Lombaard, and Amphitheatre cases--mere police affairs."

Well; let us consider Mr. Kruger's interpretation of the duties of the police.

[Footnote 10: _Le Siecle,_ March 30th, 1900.]

2.--_The Police._

The chief of the departments of justice and police is called the State Attorney.

In 1895, when Mr. Esselen was promoted to the post, he stipulated that he should have full liberty of action. As chief detective officer he appointed an officer belonging to the Cape Administration, Mr. Andrew Trimble, who entered upon his duties with vigour and determination. The gold thieves and receivers and the illicit canteen keepers who supplied the natives with liquor were up in arms at once and appealed to President Kruger. They represented Trimble as having served in the English Army, and as being in receipt of a pension from the Cape Government, further stating that his appointment was an insult to the Boers, who had been thus judged unworthy to provide from among themselves a Head of Police. Mr. Esselen, who stood his ground, was dismissed and replaced by a Hollander, Dr. Coster. Mr. Trimble, chief of the detective force, was replaced by a man who had previously been dismissed, and has since been dismissed again.

As it was useless to depend upon the police for the arrest of thieves, the directors and officials of the _City and Suburban Gold Mining Company_ took upon themselves the risks and dangers of police work. They caught two notorious characters, known thieves, with gold in their possession. The thieves openly boasted that nothing would be done to them; the next day, one was allowed to escape, the other, a notorious criminal, was condemned to six months' imprisonment. Mr. Kruger regarded this penalty as excessive, remitted three-fourths of the sentence, and had him discharged unconditionally.

The police of Johannesburg, a town almost entirely inhabited by English, do not speak English--an excellent method of ensuring order! They are chosen from among the worst types of Boers, some of whom are the descendants of English deserters and Kaffir women; whence comes the fact that some bear English names. The policeman Jones, who killed Edgar, is a case in point.

The murder of Edgar was a small matter in the same way as the Dreyfus case was a small matter; only when a case of this nature arises, it reveals a condition of things so grave that it excites widespread feeling at once.

Edgar was an English workman, a boilermaker, who had been a long time in Johannesburg; a well-conducted man and generally respected. He was going home, one Sunday night in 1898, when three drunken men insulted and set upon him. He knocked one of them down. The other two called the police.