New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-09-21
INTERVENTION N THE rRANSrAA1.


Talk is renewed Of intervention in the Trans
vaal. Or. Leyds. the chief diplomatic and secret
service agent Of the Pretoria Government In
Europe. IS reported 10 have approached or
sounded several Powers with a view 10 in
ducing them 10 tender their good Offices to
Great Britain for a settlement Of the dispute
There is no indication. however that he has
prevailed upon any Power to make such ten
der. On the contrary the impression seems 10
prevail that no intervention will be attempted.
and that the TWO disputants will be left 10 settle
their differences between themselves
II would, beyond doubt be particularly
delicate thing for any Power 10 offer or 10 sug-
gest mediation, FOR the reason that I'm tho very
act Of doing SO it could scarcely avoid preiudg-
ment Of the case As We have hitherto cx-
planned. the real crux Of the whole matter Is
the question of suzerainty Practical agree.
ment has twice been reached on the franchise.
once on a seven years and once on five years
basis; hut No approximation 10 such agreement
has been made on the suzerainty Great Britain
insists as sine qua non. upon retaining super
vision of the foreign relations of the Transvaal.
according 10 the conventions Of 1881 and 1851
while tie Transvaal just as strenuously de-
mands that she shall renounce il and erect the
TTansvaal into "a sovereign international
State Each of these contentious has, OF
course. It's natural and inevitable corollary con-
corning mediation or arbitration. Great Britain
Insists that as the Transvaal is her vassal. no
outside Power has any business to intervene or
70 arbitrate between them, while the Trans
vaal. asserting its right 10 full independence.
urges that such mediation would he right and
proper If. therefore. sn outside Power should
offer mediation it would by that very act come
dangerously near 10 prejudging the case in
favor Of the Transvaal II would be express.
ing it's opinion that on that vital point the
Transvaal was right. II would be Offering
Great Britain something-the very thng-whch
she had said in advance she could not and
would not accept. And that. we repeat would
be something so delicate and embarrassing 10
do that any Government and any diplomat
might well hesitate to undertake it,
Americans remember how strongly thi:
Government resented all suggestions Of alier
intervention in our Civil War. II would have
gone 10 war with the whole world rather thar
accede TO such a proposition; and properly. be
cause by the very act OF accepting nterven
ton It would have acknowledged the inde
pendence and sovereignty OF the insurgen
States We do not say the two cases are ex
actly parallel In all details. British authorit,
over the Transvaal is certainly not as full n
Englishman claims II is-as that Of our Fedora
Government over the States. But the differ
ence. according 10 the British view, is o
degree rather than Of kind. so that the genera
principle Is the same Our Government did no
insist upon the preservation Of the Union NOR
positively than Great Britain insists upon III
maintenance Of her suzerainty: and our South
ern States were just as strenuous IN their dc
mand for independence as Is the Transvaal e
day European sympathies with the Confed
eracy were more pronounced and general tina