1898, Article 731, a certain number of the School Board members required
by Article I of Law 15 of 1896 have to be nominated and chosen by the
Executive Council out of enfranchised persons (Article 2, Law 8, 1893)
proposed by the fathers of the school children, on the understanding
that the persons so chosen shall constitute less than half of the whole
School Board, and further, that the persons so proposed shall always be
double the number of the people actually nominated. The above facts
clearly prove, according to the opinion of this Government, that Her
Majesty's Government has also been misled in respect to the matter of
education. It is clear that one-fourth of the whole educational vote has
been devoted to the gold fields, so that the children of Uitlander
residents can make use of it; that proper provision is made for
education in the mother tongue whatever it may be, while at the same
time compulsory education of the language of the country is also
provided for. That both by the Resolution of the 1st June, 1892, as well
as by the Law 15 of 1896, more has actually been done for the Uitlanders
than for the original inhabitants, and that more time is given to the
mother tongue of the children in the schools on the gold fields of this
Republic than in any country in the world, and that here again
information of a misleading character must have been given to His
Excellency and the British Government.
Law No. 15, 1896, and the schools thereby established have been
defended by Englishmen in various newspapers. (See the _S.A. News_, 10th
May, 1899; _The Star_, 22nd March, 1899; _Manchester Guardian_, etc.).
With reference to the Municipality of Johannesburg, this Government
desires to remark that in accordance with the promise made in 1896, the
grant of Municipal Administration was made to the inhabitants of
Johannesburg by which the control of that town and its suburbs was
conferred upon them.
Her Majesty's Government seem to think that this Municipality does not
answer its purpose, in the first place because half of the members must
be naturalized burghers (not fully enfranchised burghers as the dispatch
under reply erroneously contends), and in the second place because the
financial powers of the town council are restricted.
With regard to the first objection, it is impossible that this should be
a great grievance, because a residence of two years in the Republic is
sufficient for naturalisation; as a matter of fact, more than the
necessary half of the members are burghers; this shows conclusively that
the requirement of burghership is in no sense an obstacle. The objection
as to the restriction of the financial powers of the council is not
conclusive, because there is no Municipality in the world the financial
powers of which are not restricted by the law under which they are
created, and the restrictions in the case of the town council of
Johannesburg are the usual ones in such cases.
The Advisory Board recommended by the Industrial Commission would have
proved inefficient because the laws with the administration of which
that body would have had to concern itself can be carried out in a
better and more efficient way by an official like the State Attorney,
who has almost unlimited power and means of doing so. This is exactly
what has happened. All complaints with regard to gold thefts have
actually disappeared; one no longer hears of complaints as to the
operation of the pass law; while latterly, as Her Majesty's Government
must be well aware, the Chamber of Mines and other bodies of the
Witwatersrand have repeatedly expressed their satisfaction with the
stringent way in which the liquor law has been upheld. No local body,
however well informed, would have been able to do what the State
Attorney has done in this matter, and that is sufficient justification
of the action of both Government and Volksraad in refusing to establish
such an Advisory Board.
The Government now passes on to the discussion of the administration of
justice, of which so much is made in the dispatch under reply.
With regard to these allegations, this Government perceives that much
importance is attached in the dispatch to the so-called Lombard
incident, the so-called Edgar case, and the so-called Amphitheatre
occurrence.
A brief consideration of the facts referring to these three matters will
show how unfounded are the accusations of Her Majesty's Government.
With reference to the Lombard incident, this Government wishes to point
out that no complaint was lodged with any official in this Republic for
a full month after the illtreatment of Cape coloured people was alleged
to have taken place, and that neither the Government nor the public was
aware that anything had taken place. The whole case was so insignificant
that some of the people who were alleged to have been illtreated
declared under oath at a later period before a court of investigation
that they would never have made any complaint on their own initiative.
What happened, however?
About a month after the occurrence the South African League came to hear
of it; some of its officials sent round to collect evidence from the
parties who were alleged to have been illtreated, and some sworn
declarations were obtained by the help of Her Majesty's Vice-Consul at
Johannesburg (between whom and this League a continual and conspicuous
co-operation has existed). Even then no charge was lodged against the
implicated officials with the judicial authorities of the country, but
the case was put in the hands of the Acting British Agent at Pretoria.
When the allegations were brought under the notice of this Government,
they at once appointed a commission of enquiry consisting of three
members, namely, Landdrost Van der Berg, of Johannesburg, Mr Andries
Stockenstrom, barrister-at-law of the Middle Temple, head of the
Criminal Section of the State Attorney's Department, and Mr. Van der
Merwe, mining commissioner, of Johannesburg; gentlemen against whose
ability and impartiality the Uitlander population of the Republic have
never harboured the slightest suspicion, and with whose appointment the
Acting British Agent also expressed his entire satisfaction. The
instructions given to these officials were to thoroughly investigate the
whole case, and to report the result to the Government; and they
fulfilled these instructions by sitting for days at a time, and
carefully hearing and sifting the evidence of both sides. Every
right-minded person readily acknowledges that far greater weight ought
to be attached to the finding of this Commission than to the
declarations of the complainants, who contradicted one another in nearly
every particular, and who caused the whole enquiry to degenerate into a
farce.
According to the report, nothing was proved as to the so-called
illtreatment; the special instances of alleged illtreatment turned out
to be purely imaginary; it was clearly proved and found that the
complainants had acted contrary to Law, and the Commission only
expressed disapproval of the fact that the arrests and the investigation
had taken place at night, and without a proper warrant. It fills this
Government with all the greater regret to observe that Her Majesty's
Government bases its charges on _ex parte_, groundless, and in many
respects false declarations of complainants who have been set in motion
by political hatred, and that it silently ignores the report of the
Commission.
The Amphitheatre occurrence is used by Her Majesty's Government to show
how incapable the police of the Witwatersrand are to fulfil their duties
and to preserve order. The League meeting was held at the so-called
Amphitheatre at Johannesburg, with the knowledge of the State Secretary
and State Attorney, and the accusation is that in spite of that fact,
the uproar which arose at that meeting was not quelled by the police.
The following are the true facts:--Mr. Wybergh and another, both in the
service of the South African League, informed the State Secretary and
the State Attorney that they intended to call this meeting in the
Amphitheatre, and asked permission to do so; they were informed that no
permission from the authorities was necessary, and that as long as the
meeting did not give rise to irregularities or disturbances of the
peace, they would be acting entirely within their rights. Their
attention was then drawn to the fact that owing to the action and the
propaganda of the South African League, this body had become extremely
unpopular with a large section of the inhabitants of Johannesburg, and
that in all probability a disturbance of the peace would take place if a
sufficient body of the police were not present to preserve order. To
this these gentlemen answered that the police were in very bad odour
since the Edgar case, that the meeting would be a very quiet one, and
that the presence of the police would contribute, or give rise to,
disorder, and that they would on those grounds rather have no police at
all. The State Secretary and State Attorney thereupon communicated with
the head officials of the police at Johannesburg, with the result that
the latter also thought that it would be better not to have any
considerable number of police at the meeting. The Government
accordingly, on the advice of these officials of the League as well as
their own police officials, gave instructions that the police should
remain away from the meeting; they did this in perfect good faith, and
with the object of letting the League have its say without let or
hindrance. The proposed meeting was however advertised far and wide. As
the feeling amongst a section of the Witwatersrand population was
exceedingly bitter against the League, a considerable number of the
opponents of that body also attended the meeting. The few police who
were present were powerless to quell the disorder, and when the police
came on the scene in force some few minutes after the commencement of
the uproar, the meeting was already broken up. Taken by itself, this
occurrence would not be of much importance, as it is an isolated
instance as far as the gold fields of this Republic are concerned, and
even in the best organised and best ordered communities irregularities
like the above occasionally take place.
The gravity of the matter, however, lies in the unjust accusation of Her
Majesty's Government--that the meeting was broken up by officials of
this Republic, and that the Government had curtly refused to institute
an enquiry.
This Government would not have refused to investigate the matter if any
complaints had been lodged with it, or at any of the local Courts, and
this has been clearly stated in its reply to Her Majesty's request for
an investigation.
The Government objects strongly to the systematic way in which the local
authorities are ignored, and the continual complaints which are lodged
with the Representatives of Her Majesty about matters which ought to be
decided by the Courts of this Republic. Instead, however, of complaining
to Her Majesty's Government after all other reasonable means of redress
have been vainly invoked, they continually make themselves guilty of
ignoring and treating with contempt the local Courts and authorities, by
continually making all sorts of ridiculous and _ex parte_ complaints to
Her Majesty's Government in the first instance; Her Majesty's Government
is also thereby placed in the equivocal and undesirable position of
intermeddling in the internal affairs of this Republic, which is in
conflict with the London Convention. Had the complaints been lodged with
this Government, or with the proper officials or Courts, the facts could
have been very easily arrived at, and it would have been proved that
the few officials who were present at the meeting as a section of the
public had done their best to prevent the irregularities, and that some
of them had been hurt in their endeavours to preserve order.
Instead of expressing their disapproval of such complaints, and
referring the petitioners to the local Courts, Her Majesty's Government
accepts those complaints, and gives them an official character by
forwarding them for the information of this Government, and by
publishing them in blue books for the information of the world.
Her Majesty's Government will readily acknowledge that there is no State
in the world with any sense of dignity, however weak and insignificant
it may be, which can regard such matters with an indifferent eye; and
when the relations of the two Governments are strained, then the
mainspring must be looked for in this action of its subjects, which is
not disapproved of by Her Majesty's Government, and not in imaginary or
trumped-up grievances.
The Edgar case is referred to by your Government as "the most striking
recent instance of arbitrary action by officials, and of the support of
such action by the Courts," and this case is quoted as a conclusive test
of the alleged judicial maladministration of this Republic; it will
therefore be of interest to pause for a moment and consider it. What are
the true facts?
A certain Foster, "an Englishman," was assaulted and felled to the
ground, without any lawful cause, by a man named Edgar during the night
of the 18th December, 1898; he lay on the ground as if dead, and
ultimately died in the hospital. Edgar escaped to his room, and some
police came on the scene, attracted by the screams of the bystanders.
Amongst the police was one named Jones. When they saw the man who had
been assaulted lying as if dead, they went to Edgar's apartments in
order to arrest him as a criminal (he had indeed rendered himself liable
for manslaughter, and apparently for murder). As he was caught in the
very act, the police officers were, according to the Laws not only of
this Republic, but of all South Africa and of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland, justified in breaking open the door in order
to arrest the culprit. While doing so, Edgar, with a dangerous weapon,
struck Jones a severe blow. Under the stress of necessity the latter
shot Edgar, from the effects of which he died. The question is not if
Jones was justified in taking this extreme step, for the State Attorney
of the Republic had already given effect to his opinion that this was a
case for the jury by prosecuting him for manslaughter. The question is
solely whether any jury in any country in the world would have found a
man guilty of any crime under the circumstances set forth, and whether,
if they did not find him guilty, the fact of their doing so would have
been stamped and branded as a flagrant and remarkable instance of the
maladministration of justice.
This Government is convinced that the English Judicial administration
affords numberless instances where the facts are as strong as in this
case, and it cannot see why an occurrence which could happen in any part
of the world should be especially thrown in their teeth in the form of
an accusation.
This Government does not wish to pass over in silence the censure which
has been passed by Her Majesty's Government on the Public Prosecutor of
Johannesburg, by whom the prosecution of this case was conducted; the
fact that he is of pure English blood, that he received his legal
training in London, that he is generally respected by the Uitlander
population on account of his ability, impartiality, and general
character, will naturally not be of any weight with Her Majesty's
Government against the facts of his action in calling witnesses for the
prosecution who were intended for the defence, and thus rendering an
imaginary cross-examination abortive.
This Government only wishes to point out that the fact that the Edgar
case is the strongest which Her Majesty's Government has been able to
quote against the administration of justice in this Republic affords the
strongest and most eloquent proof possible that, taking it in general,
the administration of justice on the gold fields of this Republic not
only compares favourably with that on other and similar gold fields, but
even with that of old and settled countries.
The untrue representations of this occurrence in the Press prove
conclusively that the newspapers of the Witwatersrand, the
atrocity-mongering tactics of which constitute a share of the organised
campaign against the Republic and its Government, have been compelled to
resort to mendacious criticisms on imaginary instances of
maladministration which were often simply invented. Where the Press is
forced to adopt such methods, the true grievances must of necessity be
unreal.
Her Majesty's Government now proceeds to discuss certain laws of this
Republic, with the object of showing that the Uitlander population is
also oppressed by the legislature of this country, the Press Law, the
Aliens Expulsion Law, and Law No. 1 of 1897 being especially instanced.
But it can also be proved that the population of the gold fields have no
solid grounds of complaint in regard to the laws in question.
Respecting the existing Press Laws, No. 26 of 1896, and No. 14 of 1898,
it is necessary to remark that no printer, issuer, or editor of a
newspaper can be prosecuted unless he has made himself guilty of
criminal libel, so that the principle of the Grondwet of 1858 has in
this respect been rigidly adhered to. Her Majesty's Government will at
once see that these laws cannot in any way bear harshly upon the writing
public, a fact which is clearly borne out by the way in which the
newspapers of this country are edited. Nowhere else in the world has the
liberty of the Press so degenerated into license. No newspaper in any
country in the world would for one moment dare to speak of the
Government, the Legislature, and authorities of the country as the
_Star_, the _Transvaal Leader_, and similar newspapers do every day in
this Republic.
The imaginary nature of these grievances is not dispelled by the fact
that the power is vested in the State President of prohibiting either
entirely or provisionally the circulation of any printed matter which is
contrary to good morals or public order, because the very same Supreme
Court, which in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government only exists at
the mercy of this Government, has pronounced that it has no power to
prohibit the circulation of any newspaper; the freedom of the regular
Press thus remains as unrestricted as under the old Grondwet.
As a matter of fact, any person who has any practical experience of the
Press of this Republic will regard the accusation as ridiculous, and as
evincing an entire ignorance of the true facts. This power has not been
exercised by the Judges on many occasions, but only once, and in that
instance the High Court annulled the decision.
With regard to the Aliens Expulsion Law, this, like the Press Law, ought
to be estimated according to its spirit and operation. Since this law
has come into force the State President has only on one occasion made
use of the power vested in him of expelling an undesirable individual,
and his action was endorsed by the approval of the Press and the public
of the country. As similar laws exist in nearly every civilised country
in the world, it is difficult to see why such a law in this Republic
should prove so objectionable in the eyes of Her Majesty's Government.
With regard to Law No. 1 of 1897, and the dismissal of Chief Justice
Kotze by virtue of its provisions, this Government can only state that
it was with the bitterest regret that it felt itself compelled, in
consequence of the arbitrary action of the said Chief Justice, to take
comprehensive measures in order to prevent absolute constitutional and
judicial disorder and chaos. It was an instance where a Chief Justice in
conflict with a law existing for, at least, forty years, and in direct
contradiction of his own decisions, suddenly adopted and applied a new
principle, which affected the legality of the laws of the Republic, and
produced real constitutional chaos. Would not any other Government under
similar circumstances have done exactly what this Republic did, namely,
pass a special law in this unusual case, in order to remove the
exceptional difficulties?
This law was only applicable to this particular instance, and became
inoperative immediately after its application; and this Government
cannot understand how suspicion can therefore fall upon the impartial
administration of Justice in this Republic. If the Government had
acquiesced in the position taken up by the late Chief Justice, then all
titles dependent upon Volksraad resolutions would have been called in
question, which would not only have dealt a heavy blow to existing
rights, but also have plunged the administration of Justice in great
uncertainty and doubt.
By this law the Judges, instead of being brought under the influence of
the Executive Council, were really placed in the same constitutional
position as any Judge in the Supreme Court of England, who is unable to
question the validity of any law.
This Government has now traversed the various contentions of Her
Majesty's Government, which have been submitted in order to prove that
the policy of this Government, with regard to the Uitlander population
and the administration of the laws, especially on the gold fields, are
the causes of the strained relationship at present existing between the
two Governments.
This Government believes that this explanation and answer will clearly
show that these causes are in no way sufficient to have resulted in the
aforesaid tension. It is of opinion that the source of evil must be
sought for elsewhere, and it trusts that Her Majesty's Government will
not take it in bad part if it now proceeds to explain what the real root
of the evil is from its point of view; and in the first place it remarks
as a very noticeable and prominent fact that although there are
thousands of subjects of other Powers in Johannesburg, there are few
complaints heard from them or from their Governments about the so-called
grievances of the Uitlanders. If these grievances existed in reality,
and if they pressed equally on all so-called Uitlanders (and Her
Majesty's Government does not contend that in this respect a difference
is made between British subjects and subjects of other Powers), how does
it happen that the complaints always come from British subjects, and
that the subjects of other Powers, as a rule, express their sympathy
with this Government and promise it their support?
But this Government wishes to go further. Even in regard to those
Uitlanders who are British subjects, it is a small minority which, under
the pretext of imaginary grievances, promotes a secret propaganda of
race hatred, and uses the Republic as a base for fomenting a
revolutionary movement against this Government. Ministers of Her Majesty
have so trenchantly expressed the truth about this minority that this
Government wishes to quote the very words of these Ministers with the
object of bringing the actual truth to the knowledge of Her Majesty's
Government, as well as to that of the whole world, and not for the
purpose of making groundless accusations.
The following words are those of the Ministers of the Cape Colony, who
are well acquainted with local conditions and fully qualified to arrive
at a conclusion:--
"In the opinion of Ministers the persistent action, both beyond and
within this Colony, of the political body styling itself the South
African League in endeavouring to foment and excite, not to smooth and
allay, ill-will between the two principal European races inhabiting
South Africa is well illustrated by these resolutions, the exaggerated
and aggravated terms of which disclose the spirit which informs and
inspires them.
"His Excellency's Ministers are one in their earnest desire to do all in
their power to aid and further a policy of peaceful progress throughout
South Africa, and they cannot but regard it as an unwise propagandism,
hostile to the true interests of the Empire, including this Colony as an
integral part, that every possible occasion should be seized by the
League and its promoters for an attempt to magnify into greater events
minor incidents when occurring in the South African Republic, with a
prospect thereby of making racial antagonism more acute, or of
rendering less smooth the relations between Her Majesty's Government or
the Government of this Colony and that Republic."