Part 4 (1/2)
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.