In response to the invitation from the Government of the South African Republic conveyed to us by Mr. E. Lippert, we beg to submit the enclosed memorandum upon the franchise question.
After such investigation as the restrictions imposed have permitted, we are of opinion that it would be quite useless to approach the Uitlander population with the Government proposal in its present form, chiefly for the following reasons:—
1. No consideration is given to the term of residence already completed.
2. The alteration of the franchise law according to lately prescribed procedure, whereby two-thirds of the burghers must signify approval, is a practical impossibility,—witness the fact that at the last Presidential election, surpassing in excitement and interest all other occasions of general voting, with the three recognized leaders in the field, and every agency at work to stimulate activity, less than two-thirds of the burghers on the register recorded their votes.
3. The present form of oath would be regarded as humiliating and unnecessary, in support of which view we instance that quite recently the Volksraad of the Orange Free State rejected upon the same grounds the proposed introduction of the same oath of allegiance.
4. The period of disqualification, during which the Uitlander would have given up his own citizenship by naturalizing and have acquired nothing in return, would be found most objectionable—especially with the experience that rights have in the past been legislated away as they were on the point of maturing.
5. In view of the unique conditions of this country, extension of the franchise without some approach to equitable redistribution of representatives would be regarded as no solution of the question and might even provoke doubts as to the bonâ fides of the proposal, which would be a deplorable beginning, yet one easily to be avoided.
Regard being had to the points raised in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4, we consider that as restrictive franchise legislation, apparently designed to exclude for ever the great bulk of the Uitlander population, dates its beginning from the Session of 1890, and as the various enactments bearing upon this question have been passed by successive Volksraads exercising their power to alter, add to, or revoke, previous enactments, and as the same powers are to the full enjoyed by the present Volksraad, it would be both possible and proper for the present Volksraad to annul all the legislation upon this subject from that date, and to restore and confirm the status prior to 1890, and thus satisfy the indisputable claims of those who settled in this country under certain conditions from the benefits of which they could not properly be excluded.
With regard to paragraph 5, a moderate proposal designed to give a more equitable distribution of representatives in the Volksraad would be necessary.
The above suggestions are not put forward as the irreducible minimum, nor are they designed for public use, nor intended as a proposal acceptable to the eye but impossible in fact, and thus sure of rejection. They are put forward in good faith as indicating in our opinion the lines upon which it would be possible to work towards a settlement with a reasonable prospect of success.
If the difficulties appear great the more reason there is not to put forward an unalterable proposal foredoomed to failure, but rather to try and find points of agreement which, however few and small to begin with, would surely make for eventual and complete settlement. In any case it is clear that the mere fact of a proposal to extend the franchise having been made by the Government, thus frankly recognizing the need to deal with the subject, will be hailed as a good omen and a good beginning by all fair-minded men.
The determination of the negotiators to have the position clearly stated in writing, and their fear that the use of intermediaries would end in the usual unhappy and unpleasant result—namely, repudiation of the intermediary in part or entirely—were not long wanting justification. The following is a translation of Mr. F.W. Reitz's reply:—
Messrs. G. Rouliot, H.F.E. Pistorius, A. Brakhan, E. Birkenruth, and John M. Pierce, Johannesburg.
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 27th March last, referring to certain proposals to the Government from representatives of the mining industry.
In order to understand the natural position it is necessary to state the facts more extensively than given in your letter.
It is wrong to say, as you do in the first paragraph of your communication, that Mr. Lippert came to you with certain proposals from the Government.
It appears also from the second paragraph of the same that Mr. Lippert came to you suo motu with the object, as he informed me afterwards, to see 'if it was not possible to obtain a better understanding between the Government on the one side and the mining industry on the other.' He acted in no wise as the agent of the Government, or in the name of the Government, to make any proposals to you, but only as a friendly mediator to see how far unnecessary differences and misunderstandings could be removed.
When Mr. Lippert came to Dr. Leyds and myself, and informed us that you and other gentlemen were agreeable to his mediation, we at once agreed with his plan, being aware that there was a warm desire and continued struggle on the part of this Government to remove out of the way all friction and trouble, and that in this case especially it was our object to leave no stone unturned to get all differences settled. We were the more anxious to meet you, because his Honour the State President had decided to lay before the Volksraad certain proposals of law, which are of great importance not only for the people of the Republic, but especially for the mining population and industry. We gave Mr. Lippert to understand that should the leaders of the mining industry have no objection to his mediation, we would not be unwilling to make use of his good services in this matter.
Mr. Lippert then went to Johannesburg, and returned to us with the assurance that there was no objection to his acting as mediator, and gave us some of the subjects on which it appeared to him that it was possible to arrive at a friendly understanding.
In consequence of this, and acting on our own initiative, and not as representatives of the Government, Dr. Leyds, Mr. Smuts, and myself, met some of your leading men, as set forth in your letter.
At this meeting we informed you of the intention of the President to alter certain laws for the general good. Only with reference to the franchise we gave you no definite proposal, the matter being then still under consideration. From your side we requested only a more friendly attitude from the Press, as we were convinced that the excessive Press campaign carried on by the newspapers, which are generally considered to be owned by you, or influenced by you, however much they may forward certain interests, still, in the end, did infinite harm to the existing interests of all sections of the population. Through the continual and incessant agitation and creation of suspicion on the part of the papers, the public mind was constantly in a state of insecurity, and the fanning of the race hatred made it impossible for the Government as well as the legislature to improve the relations between the so-called Uitlanders and the old population.
We requested your friendly assistance also in the settlement of the coolie question, not because we wanted to cause friction between you and other foreign governments, but only because the policy which refers to the native and coloured questions is of the utmost importance to South Africa.
Mr. Lippert had in his programme the granting of a promise on your side that you would support the Government in the obtaining of a loan which the Government may deem necessary, and that you should bind yourselves in writing to abstain from all political organizations inimical to the Government.
These matters we did not discuss, as we considered them unnecessary and inadvisable. From your side you deemed it necessary, before answering us, first to receive the instructions of your foreign principals. Before you could give us the result the President explained his intentions at Heidelberg, and afterwards at Rustenburg and Johannesburg.
Your letter, now under consideration, contains practically a definite answer to our communication to you. I shall now consider the points of your answer separately.
BEWAARPLAATSEN.
With reference to this matter, we think that the undermining rights under bewaarplaatsen, machine stands, and water-rights should be valued on a reasonable basis, independently by the Government, and by the owner of the surface rights (should there be a difference which cannot be settled amicably, then the value can be fixed by arbitration), and that the surface owner shall have the preferent right to purchase the affected under-mining right at such a valuation. From your communication I understand that you suggest a special method of valuation. That is a detail which can be settled when the valuation is actually commenced, and which experts are better able to judge over than I am. Therefore I shall say no more on this subject.
FINANCIER AND AUDITOR.
On this subject our opinion was that the auditor should be independent of the Government, and alone responsible to the Volksraad to appoint as financier a man of standing, with a seat in the Executive Council, to advise on all matters affecting finances.
I am glad to see that you are with us, and that it gives you great satisfaction. I must express my surprise, however, over your proposal that previous to the appointment this Government must first get the approval of Lord Rothschild or any other capitalist. I can only answer that it is in no wise the intention of the Government to frame the future financial policy of this State on a capitalistic basis, and thus your request cannot be agreed to. It is quite possible to make such an appointment which will carry general approval without being subjected to such a mutual condition.
LOAN, PRESS AGITATION, POLITICAL ORGANIZATION.
With reference to these matters, I have already made it plain to you that in following the proposals of Mr. Lippert by cabling to your principals, you acted under a misunderstanding. We requested no binding declaration from you, only a moral understanding, which would be easy for you to maintain, if it was in the interests of the Uitlanders as well as the burghers of the Republic. I regret that the mistake has arisen, otherwise I cannot see that any objection can come from your side to approve of the plans of the President.
DYNAMITE.
On this question there is a small difference between the proposed policy of the President and your answer.
I only wish to add that his Honour goes further than you do, as he has declared his readiness to expropriate the Dynamite Company, under agreement with its representatives, as soon as possible. If the expropriation takes place after the expiration of the present concession then it will naturally not be on the basis of a going concern.
FRANCHISE.
On this subject I can well understand that you do not wish to take upon your shoulders the responsibility of speaking and acting for the whole of the new population. It was more your personal opinions as men of position that we wished to know. Then again, according to your assurance at the aforementioned meeting, you do not take any personal interest in the franchise question, and that you would rather leave the question to the public; your answer is therefore perfectly fair. His Honour has therefore already acted in accordance with your idea, for he has brought the question of the franchise very prominently before the public, not only at Heidelberg and Rustenburg, but also at Johannesburg.
In conclusion, I wish to refer to one matter which has caused me much pain. It was clearly and distinctly agreed and understood by you all as well as by us that both sides would treat this matter as confidential and secret, as discussions of such important matters cannot be carried on with any results on the tops of houses. What has happened? On the 28th of March I received your letter, and on the 3rd of April, whilst I was yet giving it earnest consideration and had taken all the measures to keep it secret, the contents of the same appeared in the London Times, while some days later your answer appeared in full in the Cape Times, the Diamond Fields Advertiser, and other papers under the influence of the capitalists. The manner in which these papers favourable to you, or controlled by you, have dealt with me in this matter has caused me (I admit it with regret) to doubt for one moment your good faith. Thinking, however, of the great interest as it were in the balance, and believing, moreover, that you never for private or party purposes intended to play with the true and lasting interests of all sections of the community, I cannot help thinking that the reply has been published through one of your subordinates, and regret that the publication has not been immediately repudiated by you publicly as a grave breach of faith. I would regret it, while there exists so few points of difference between us, that these things should bar the way through careless and wrong tactics to a permanent understanding, and trust that the hand extended to the Industry in absolute good faith will not be slighted purposely and wilfully. Owing to the publication of your reply, there exists no further reason for secrecy, and I shall hand my reply to the press.
The repudiation of Mr. Lippert's "official" character; the contention that the State Secretary, State Attorney, and Dr. Leyds could divest themselves of all responsibility in negotiations such as these, and claim to have been acting in their private capacity only; and the extraordinary anxiety to keep secret matters which deeply affected the public, and to the settlement of which the Government designed that the public should be committed, compelled the negotiators to produce evidence that the statements and conclusions of the Government were not warranted by the facts. The following letter, which was formally acknowledged but never answered, practically concluded the negotiations:—
To the Honourable the State Secretary, Pretoria.
We have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 8th April, 1899.
Certain of our statements being doubted and described as erroneous in your letter, we deem it advisable to go more fully into the facts which have preceded and led to this correspondence.
It may be that communications exchanged through an intermediary have been transmitted in a manner liable to convey a different impression from what was actually meant, and in order to clear any possible misunderstanding, we beg to enclose copies of all documents supplied to us by Mr. Lippert, whom we, at all times, considered as your authorized agent.
From these it will be apparent that during the negotiations we acted in perfect good faith, communicating and discussing what we justly considered were the wishes and proposals of the Government, and it will also be clear to you that every one of our statements is based on documents which we had every reason to believe were approved of by the Government.
On February 27th Mr. Lippert called together Messrs. E. Birkenruth, A. Brakhan, and G. Rouliot, to whom he stated that a settlement of certain pending questions could probably be arrived at. He said that he had ascertained the views of Dr. Leyds, Messrs. Reitz and Smuts, who had agreed to a certain programme, and he wanted to know whether we would be willing to open negotiations on that basis, in which case the three officials mentioned would see the State President and ascertain whether he would be prepared to adopt their views.
If the State President's approval could be obtained, Mr. Lippert suggested that a conference should be held to discuss the subjects mentioned in his memorandum.
This memorandum (Annexure 'A'), as explained to us by Mr. Lippert, enumerates under Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive the points which the Government expected us to concede, and the other clauses are what the Government proposed doing in return.
We were then informed that the programme must be considered as a whole, and either adopted or rejected as such, no question being considered separately, and that the matter must be kept absolutely secret.
Upon our statement that we personally would be willing to open negotiations on the basis suggested, Mr. Lippert went to Pretoria and informed the high officials above-named.
On March 1st Mr. Lippert informed us that the State President was viewing the matter favourably, and requested us to acquaint our friends by cable.
Our replies having been communicated to Mr. Lippert, a meeting was arranged on March 9th, as recited in our previous letter, at which, Mr. Lippert informed us, no new subject outside of those mentioned in his memorandum could be discussed.
Messrs. Pistorius and Pierce, being invited by Mr. Lippert to attend the meeting, were each supplied by him with a list of the questions to be discussed, forming part of the proposed settlement (Annexure 'B').
On March 12th Mr. Lippert communicated to us what he termed the definite proposals of the Government of the S.A.R., which were duly cabled to our friends in Europe (a copy of this cable has already been sent to you).
He also read to us the declaration, which he suggested we should sign on behalf of ourselves and our European friends (Annexure 'C').
A speedy reply to our cable was asked for, as Mr. Lippert had informed us that, if any settlement could be arrived at, the agreement had to be submitted to the Honourable the First Volksraad before the closing of the extraordinary session which was drawing near.
We beg to point out to you that by cabling these proposals to Europe, we could not possibly conceive that we were acting under a misconception, as the day on which they were made to us, the 12th of March, being a Sunday, the Telegraph Office was specially kept open for the purpose of dispatching the cables, which were duly received and forwarded upon production of an order from Mr. Lippert.
In our letter of March 17th to his Honour the State President, conveying the nature of our friends' reply, we mentioned the fact that the communication made to us by Mr. Lippert on behalf of the Government had been fully cabled; we stated that our friends no doubt based their suggestion to further discuss the whole of the proposals with Dr. Leyds upon the fact that the Government had stipulated that they should become parties to the proposed settlement.
In your reply of March 18th, no exception is taken to these statements; you tell us, on behalf of his Honour the State President, 'that the exchange of views can best take place direct with the Government, and here, within the Republic,' pointing out the fact 'that the session of the Volksraad was close at hand, and that therefore further delay is undesirable.'
You will thus see that we were perfectly justified in thinking that the communications made to our European friends, embodied the proposals of the Government of the South African Republic, were cabled with the knowledge and approval of the Government, and that we were requested to sign a declaration on behalf of ourselves and our friends, which declaration had to be made public.
Our letter of the 27th March conveyed to you our opinion and that of our friends, upon the subjects comprised in the programme which was submitted to us, and it is unnecessary to go over them in detail again. We beg only to offer a few remarks upon certain points raised in your letter of 8th April:—Bewaarplaatsen: We suggest a basis for the valuation of bewaarplaatsen, machine stands, and water-rights, which in our opinion ought to be adopted, in order to have a uniform and easy method of valuing these places.
Financier: Being fully aware of the complexity of financial problems and questions of taxation in this State, we are anxious that the financier appointed should be of such a standing as to command the confidence of all, so that his recommendations cannot raise any ulterior discussion. For that reason we expressed the opinion that, before making the appointment, the Government should be guided in its choice by someone belonging to a firm of well-known independent standing. We have no desire to see this Government base its future financial policy on any particular line, in the interest of, or directed against, any special section of the people. We only wish to see the financial policy established on sound recognized economic principles, with fair and equitable taxation calculated according to the proper requirements of the State.
Press Agitation—Political Organizations: We have already informed you, that so far as we know, there has been no organized press agitation, and that we should be willing at all times to deprecate the stirring up of strife between nationalities caused by any agency whatsoever. We consider it desirable to see that feeling more general, as we are convinced that exaggerated press campaigns conducted by newspapers generally reported to be influenced by the Government, and tending to create dissension amongst the various classes of the community, are calculated to cause an infinite amount of harm to the vested interests of all sections of the population.
Dynamite: In your letter of the 8th April, you appear to have lost sight of the fact that the proposed settlement was submitted to us as a whole. Mr. Lippert made it clear that, in consideration of the Government granting the measures enumerated in his memorandum, it was expected that we should abandon our present contentions, and declare ourselves satisfied with the settlement proposed by the Government. Under ordinary circumstances this would be far from meeting our desires, but we intimated to you that we should be willing to recommend to the mining industry the adoption of the proposals made to us on this subject, if by so doing we could promote a permanent satisfactory solution of all pending questions.
In conclusion, we beg to refer to the publication of our previous letter to you. It took place here on the 6th inst., in the afternoon; we immediately instituted an inquiry, and on the 8th inst., in the morning, we wrote that we were in a position to assure you that we could in no way be held responsible for the publication. We never for a moment doubted your good faith, nor that of the other gentlemen for whom the letter was meant, but thought that possibly the communication could have been made through one of your subordinates. However, not being certain of the fact, we merely repudiated any responsibility on our part, and regret that you should have publicly laid the blame on our side, without having communicated with us, asking for an explanation, if you had any suspicion.
We beg to assure you that we are as willing as ever to co-operate with you in arriving at a settlement of all pending differences in order to secure peace and prosperity in this country, and we shall be ready at all times to meet and discuss with you, or any other delegates of the Government, any matter likely to bring about a speedy and permanent solution of all questions, still bearing in mind what we mentioned in our previous correspondence, that we are not qualified to speak on behalf of the whole community.
As you have informed us that you have no objection to it, we shall give a copy of this letter to the press.
We have the honour to be, honourable Sir,
(Mr. Pistorius, being absent from town, could not sign this letter.)
MR. E. LIPPERT'S MEMORANDUM.
1. Cessation of press agitation here and in Europe.
2. Support on the coolie question.
3. Settlement of the dynamite question.
4. Loan (if required).
5. Severance from the S. A. League.
6. Appointment of State Financier and State Auditor, of European reputation, with a seat and vote on the Executive in all questions of finance.
7. No new taxation of mines until submitted by Minister of Finance.
8. Moderate valuation of bewaarplaatsen.
9. Burgher rights—five years—property test.
Cessation of press agitation here and in Europe.
Support to the Government in its treatment of the coolie question.
Settlement of the dynamite question.
Deprecate the objects of the S.A. League.
Support the placing of a loan if Government wishes it.
Appointment of a financial adviser to the Government, of European reputation, and of an Auditor, both with seats and votes in the Executive Council on all financial matters. (This has been amended by the Government, so far as the Auditor is concerned, to retain the present Auditor, and to give him, re dismissal, the same status as a Judge, and to make him directly responsible to the Volksraad.)
No fresh taxation to be levied on the mines until the Financial Adviser has laid his proposals before the Government.
Sale of the undermining rights to the holders of surface rights (bewaarplaatsen, &c.), at a moderate valuation.
Extension of the franchise by granting burgher rights after ... years of registration, coupled with a property test.
DRAFT OF DECLARATION TO FOLLOW PROTOCOL EMBODYING THE RESOLUTIONS AGREED UPON.
... Thereupon the subscribed parties from Johannesburg, for themselves, and for the parties they represent here and in Europe, declared:—
'The passing by the Volksraad of the laws to be submitted by the Government during this session,—
'For the appointment during the present year of a Financial Adviser to the Government, of European reputation, who shall have a seat and a vote in the Executive Council on all financial matters.
'For placing the Auditor-General on the same status re dismissal as the Judges, and for making him responsible directly to the Volksraad, it being agreed that until such Financial Adviser has laid his budget proposals before the Government, no fresh taxation shall be laid upon the mining industry, nor any other direct taxation.
'For granting the undermining rights under bewaarplaatsen, machine stands, and water-rights, to the present holders of the licences, covering such reserved areas at a moderate valuation; such valuation to be arrived at in the following manner: The Government to appoint a valuator, with instructions to value these rights at a fair and moderate valuation, the holder of the surface licence to appoint a valuator; if they agree, then the surface licence holder shall have the first right to the undermining rights at such valuation; if the two valuators cannot agree about a valuation, they shall appoint together an umpire; if they cannot agree about an umpire, the Chief justice of the High Court shall be asked to appoint an umpire; the decision of such umpire shall be final as to the value of the area under arbitration. If the holder of the surface licence refuses to purchase at the said valuation, the Government shall be at liberty to dispose of it elsewhere.
'For a permanent settlement of the dynamite question on one or the other bases following, namely, that the status quo remain in force till the end of the contract period, the Government making use of its right to revise the prices under the terms of the agreement or that the Dynamite Company reduce the price by 5s. to 70s. for No. 1 and to 90s. for blasting gelatine, the Government undertaking to take over the works of the Dynamite Company at the end of the agreement at a valuation as provided by the offer now before the Volksraad.
'For an extension of the franchise to all white aliens in this State, in the following manner: That naturalization be granted to all seeking it, who have resided in the State for two years and who are of good behaviour and who have not suffered any dishonourable sentence by any Court, upon taking the oath of allegiance as prescribed by the existing law; upon such naturalization he shall be entitled to elect a member to the Second Volksraad, and two years after shall be entitled to be elected as a member of the Second Volksraad. A period of seven years having elapsed after naturalization, he shall by virtue of that lapse of time and without further hindrance obtain full burgher rights, the Government, however, reserve to themselves the right (in order to secure the passing of such law through the Volksraad of this and that of the session of 1900) to extend the period of naturalization for the right of voting for the election of a President. Children of naturalized aliens, who attain their majority when their father has obtained full burgher rights, have ipso facto the same rights as the father. The Government shall also have the right to attach a moderate property qualification to the obtaining of these extended franchise rights. It is understood that by the laws of the State, this extended franchise can only finally be granted by the Volksraad in session 1900, after the law has been submitted to the people for twelve months, but that the period of 9 resp. 7 years shall date from the passing of the resolution to be passed by the Volksraad now in session.
will be hailed by us with great satisfaction as removing all obstacles to a friendly and peaceful development of mutual understanding and co-operation; it is our wish, and in the interest of those we represent, that the public in Europe and in South Africa be made fully aware hereof by means of the press, and that hostile agitation by means of the press here and elsewhere shall be avoided in future.
'We deprecate all attempts that may be made by political agencies to stir up strife between the different nationalities inhabiting this State, and shall not be parties to any such organizations.
'Seeing the many evils springing from indiscriminate immigration of coloured races, and having been assured that the Government will do all in its power to facilitate in other ways the supply of labour, we support the Government in its contention that the regulations concerning the treatment of "coolies and other coloured races" had best be left to them as a matter of internal concern.
'We will support the placing of a State loan recommended by the Financier in the European markets at reasonable rates, if the Government should desire us to do so in the common interest.
'Seeing the great value the Government evidently sets upon a friendly and permanent settlement of the dynamite question, which has contributed so much to disturbing the good relations, we declare ourselves satisfied with the final settlement arrived at.
'And should, after the passing of the above proposals of law as a whole by the Volksraad, the Government desire us to give publicity to this our declaration for the promotion of peace and goodwill, such publicity as the Government may desire shall be given thereto.'
While the negotiations were actually in progress, and while the Imperial Government were awaiting a reply to their dispatch, the President made two determined attempts to rush the confirmation of the dynamite monopoly through the Raad. The first proposal was for the fifteen years' extension, and the second provided for condonation of all breaches of the concession in the past and for compensation upon the expiry of the concession.
The Uitlanders had not failed to perceive that the pit dug for them might conceivably serve another purpose. They ignored these two breaches of faith on the part of the President, and pursued the negotiations; and Mr. Kruger overreached himself. Having failed with Johannesburg, and having failed in the Raad, he appealed to his burghers with the scheme of mock reform. His hope was to get such support in the country that the Volksraad in its May session would have to spare the monopoly. He did not realize that he would have to make good the things which he had offered as shams. His greed had given the opening: his hand had provided the weapon. It is not good to be too clever; and the luck had turned.
The publication of the correspondence between the Government and the capitalists created a profound impression. The series of speeches delivered by the President in support of his sham reforms only deepened that impression by providing more and more convincing evidence as to who the real intriguers and mischief-makers were. To the Uitlander public one thing became quite clear, and that was that it was the Government who wished to barter their rights away and the capitalists—the abused capitalists—who refused to do so. An attempt was immediately made to hold a large public meeting for the purpose of endorsing the attitude taken by the negotiators, but the Government refused permission to hold an open-air meeting. In their attempt to hold a meeting indoors, the Uitlanders were defeated by the building being condemned as unsafe. The Government yielded, however, before the storm of disapproval which followed their prohibition, and the State Secretary, Mr. Reitz, suggested that the Uitlanders should hold a series of small indoor meetings in different localities. The meetings were accordingly held, and they provided unmistakable evidence of the gravity of the position. By their numbers, their unanimity, their enthusiasm, and their moderation, the Uitlanders carried conviction to some and roused the grave apprehension of others. Among the latter, it is fair to infer, were President Kruger and his sympathizers in the Free State and Cape Colony.
There is one disability the existence of which the advocates of the Uitlander cause are always painfully conscious of. They know as well as any of their critics that it is no picture which is all black—that you get no perspective, no effects, without contrasts! Yet it has not been believed that they were willing to acknowledge the good that there was, and that a politic instinct no less than a sense of justice prompted a diligent effort to discover and make much of the genuinely hopeful signs. The monotony was none of their making; it was in the nature of the facts, and not of the recital; but monotony there was, and it was productive of one very bad result. The conditions, admittedly bad, came to be regarded by a good many as being only as bad as they had for a long time been known to be, leaving little hope except through the long slow influence of time, but causing no immediate anxiety or alarm. Someday a grubbing historian may read the back files of South African newspapers and marvel that such warnings should have passed unheeded, but the fact is that the Transvaal Government and its sympathizers had become indifferent to warnings followed by no results and accustomed to prophecies unfulfilled. To say that they were 'fiddling while Rome burned' is to a great extent true of those of the South African Dutch who were sincerely desirous that the Transvaal Government should reform its ways and who were not consciously aiding in the republicanizing movement; but even of them it is not an adequate description,—as the answers given to two questioners by the most prominent and one of the most prominent Bondsmen indicate. Both of them had in private conversation on different occasions acknowledged the soundness of the Uitlander cause. To the suggestion, 'Then why not say so publicly?' the less important of the two replied, 'People would only say that I am climbing down and ratting on my party.' And the more important of the two, answering a similar question, said, 'Yes, the Rev. S.J. Du Toit did that. He was the founder of the Bond; and to-day he is—nothing! If I did it, I should fall as he did.' 'Then,' said his British friend, 'what is influence worth if it cannot be used for good? Can there be said to be influence when it cannot be used at all?' 'No,' was the reply, 'I have no influence as against the cry of race: blood is thicker than water; and I have no influence at all with Kruger.' The answer to this contained the crux of the question. 'Indeed you have; but you have not the courage to exercise it. The influence of advice has failed, dare you try the influence of repudiation?' The answer was a shake of the head and 'Blood is thicker than water.' That is it! The Piper pipes and the children follow.
It is too much to believe that the conference between the High Commissioner and President Kruger was a suggestion to which the latter had to be won over either by President Steyn or Mr. Hofmeyr. It is, indeed, well-known that the idea of a meeting for the purpose of discussing matters at issue between the two Governments had been considered in Pretoria for some months before it actually took place.{51}
The news that, upon the invitation of President Steyn, the High Commissioner and President Kruger had agreed to meet at Bloemfontein, was received by the Uitlanders with relief; not hope, because it was believed that the President's object was to get something, not to give something; but sheer relief, because, come what might, the position could never again be the same as it was before the conference. Something must change; someone must yield; the unbearable strain must cease. Sir Alfred Milner—wise and just and strong—commanded the entire confidence of the Uitlanders. It was not hoped that he would succeed in effecting a settlement at such a meeting, because in the circumstances such an achievement was believed not to be humanly possible; but it was not feared that he would fail in his duty to his country and to his trust.
It is no part of the object of this volume to deal with the negotiations which took place at Bloemfontein or with the terms of settlement at the present moment under discussion; the object is to recite the circumstances and conditions which made these negotiations necessary, and which, if they fail, must lead to bloodshed.
With a barrier of insurmountable race feeling before them, the Uitlanders are hopeless of effecting a peaceful redress of their grievances except by the aid of the Suzerain power. The President and his party will not yield one iota except upon the advice of those who have the will and the power to see that that advice is followed. Such power rests in two quarters. It rests with the progressive Dutch of South Africa. They have the power, but unfortunately they have not as yet the will or they have not the courage to use it. Time after time have they been stultified by rallying to the cry of race and defending Mr. Kruger's attitude on certain points, only to find the President abandoning as untenable the position which they have proclaimed to be proper. To them have been addressed most earnest and most solemn appeals to be up and doing whilst there was yet time. From them have been extracted—in times of peace—the amplest admissions of the justice of the Uitlander case. But there is a point beyond which they will not go. They will not say to the President and his party: 'We cannot extol in you what we would condemn in ourselves. The claim of kindred cannot for ever be the stalking-horse for injustice.' That they cannot do; and thus are they bonded to the one who will raise the race cry without scruple. There is no more hopeless feature for the peaceful settlement of the Transvaal question from within than the unanimity which marks the public utterances of those who are claimed as representing Afrikander sentiment in the present crisis. Those expressions, ranging from the most violent denunciations by politicians and ministers of the gospel down to the most illogical and hysterical appeals of public writers, all, all are directed against the injured. Not a warning, not a hint—not a prayer even—addressed to the offender. They have not the sense of justice to see or they have not the courage to denounce the perpetrators of evil, but direct all their efforts to hushing the complaints of the victims. Truly it would almost appear that there is some guiding principle running through it all; something which recognizes the real sinner in the victim who complains and not in the villain who perpetrates; the something which found a concrete expression when bail was fixed at £200 for the murder of a British subject and at £1,000 for the crime of objecting to it.
No civilized body of men ever had more just cause for complaint than the Uitlanders of the Transvaal have, but they carry on their reform movement under very difficult and discouraging conditions. Those who have petitioned their Sovereign to secure for them some amelioration of their lot are branded by the head of the State as rebels for so doing, and his example is followed by all his party. Those men who organized or addressed the public meetings which were suggested by Mr. Reitz, the State Secretary, and held for the purpose of discussing a proposal publicly made by the Government, are the men whom Messrs. Dieperink and Viljoen, the members representing Johannesburg in the First and Second Volksraads, denounced as traitors who should be summarily dealt with by the Government. British subjects associated with the Uitlander cause who venture to call upon the British Agent in Pretoria or the High Commissioner in Cape Town are regarded as conspirators and are watched by spies and all their movements are reported to the Transvaal Government.{52} The recognized leaders among the Uitlanders are black-listed in the Dutch press, their names, addresses, and occupations given so that they may be identified,—marked down in the newspapers supported by the Government—as men to be dragged out and shot without trial. Uitlander newspapers have been suppressed for mere political reasons, without even the allegation that there was incitement to violence or disorder, and it is therefore not unreasonable that the impunity with which the Dutch newspapers continue this campaign month after month should be taken as the measure of the Government's complicity.
It is in these circumstances that appeal has been made to England, the only other quarter in which there rests the power to see that justice shall be done. It is an appeal which might well be based upon the broad and acknowledged right of a subject to claim in case of injustice the good offices of his own Government. But here it is based upon a special right. It is the spirit{53} of the Pretoria Convention which the Uitlander has invoked for many years, only to be told that the spirit is as it may be interpreted from the letter. But it is not so! Will it be suggested that the British Government contemplated such license when they granted the charter of self-government to the Transvaal or that they would have granted it had they foreseen the interpretation? Can it be said that Mr. Kruger and his colleagues contemplated it or would have dared to avow the intention if it were ever entertained? No! And he will be a bolder man than Mr. Kruger who will dispute that answer; for the President's own defence is, not that he had the intention or has the right to differentiate between races and between classes; but—that he does not differentiate. So that the issue is narrowed to this, that it is merely a question of fact!
But the appeal of British subjects in the Transvaal will claim a hearing for other reasons too! Only the blindest can fail to realize how much is at stake, materially and morally, or can fail to see what is the real issue, and how the Mother Country stands on trial before all her children, who are the Empire. Only those who do not count will refuse to face the responsibility in all seriousness, or will fail to receive in the best spirit the timely reminder of past neglect. If the reproaching truth be a hard thing to hear, it is, for those whose every impulse jumps towards championing the great Home Land, a far, far harder thing to say. Unpleasant it may be, but not without good, that England's record in South Africa—of subjects abandoned and of rights ignored, of duty neglected and of pledge unkept, of lost prestige and slipping Empire—should speak to quicken a memory and rouse the native sense of right, so that a nation's conscience will say 'Be just before you are generous! Be just to all—even to your own!'
{49} It is stated that President Kruger, ever since the signing of the London Convention on Majuba Day—February 27—1884, has believed in certain lucky days, and has a kind of superstitious regard for anniversaries. If that be so, the incidence of events has given him something to ponder over during the last three years. Three notable schemes conceived by himself and carefully designed to strengthen his position, have by a curious coincidence matured upon dates of certain interest in Transvaal history. All three have failed disastrously. The first anniversary of the Reformers' sentence day was the occasion of the Reformers giving evidence before the Industrial Commission, which so strongly justified their case. The Peace Negotiations with the Capitalists were opened by Mr. Lippert upon the anniversary of Majuba. The Bloemfontein Conference was opened upon the Reformers' emancipation day, the expiry of the three years' silence. That his Honour really attaches importance to these things was shown when over two hundred ministers representing the Dutch Reformed Church in the Transvaal met in Pretoria to urge upon him the suppression of the Illicit Liquor trade. In all innocence they had chosen May 24 on which to present their address. Their astonishment was great when Mr. Kruger, passing lightly by the liquor question, gave the assembled pastors a thorough wigging for finding fault with his administration at all, but chiefly for their unpatriotic conduct in selecting the Queen's birthday of all days on which to expose internal differences in their country.
{50} In addressing a meeting of burghers in Heidelburg three months later the President showed to what lengths he was prepared to go in defending the monopoly when in reply to a question he denied that any such offer had been received 'by the Executive.' The explanation, which he did not give, is that the Government, i.e., the President and State Secretary, had received it—and withheld it from the Executive!
{51} In March the writer made the suggestion to a representative of the Pretoria Government in the hope of getting rid by a 'square talk' of the many and ever-increasing differences, and was informed that the idea had often been discussed and as often abandoned, because it contained the objectionable feature of establishing a precedent for England's interference in internal affairs.
{52} When on a visit to Cape Town in April, the writer called several times upon the High Commissioner, and learning by private advice that his movements were being reported in detail through the Secret Service Department, he informed Sir Alfred Milner of the fact. Sir Alfred admitted that the idea of secret agents in British territory and spies round or in Government House was not pleasant, but expressed the hope that such things should not deter those who wished to call on him, as he was there as the representative of her Majesty for the benefit of British subjects and very desirous of ascertaining for himself the facts of the case.
{53} Since this was written, Mr. Chamberlain, speaking in the House of Commons on July 28, 1899, has thus disposed of the question:—
'It has been broken in the spirit more than it has been broken in the letter. The whole spirit of the convention is the preservation of equality as between all the white inhabitants of the Transvaal, and the whole policy of the Transvaal has been to promote a position of inferiority on the part of certain classes. There is something even more striking than that. The conventions were, of course, the result of a previous conference. At that conference definite promises were made which made it impossible to doubt with what object the convention was signed. On May 10, 1881, at a conference between representatives of her Majesty and representatives of the Transvaal the President, Sir Hercules Robinson, asked this question:—
'"Before annexation had British subjects complete freedom of trade throughout the Transvaal? Were they on the same footing as citizens of the Transvaal?
'"Mr. Kruger replied: They were on the same footing as the burghers. There was not the slightest difference in accordance with the Sand River Convention.
'"Sir Hercules Robinson: I presume you will not object to that continuing?
'"Mr. Kruger: No. There will be equal protection for everybody.
'"Sir Evelyn Wood: And equal privileges.
'"Mr. Kruger: We make no difference so far as burgher rights are concerned. There may, perhaps, be some slight difference in the case of a young person who has just come into the country."
(Cheers.) 'Now, there is a distinct promise given by the man who is now President of the Transvaal State that, so far as burgher rights were concerned, they made and would make no difference whatever between burghers and those who came in. The root of the difficulty which I have been describing lies in the fact that this promise has not been kept.'