The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-09-27

reached us present acute stage, the journal
predicted it would be found that the bottom
question of the whole affair was the as
sertion or one side and the denial on the
other of England's claim of suzerainty.
Even that may be a pretext for Selling the
country and establishing British authority,
text. The British claim of suzerainty is the
gist of the whole controversy. If that is
denied, no matter what else is conceded,
there will be war, while If that be con-
coded everything else goes with it.
Technically speaking, the British claim
Of "suzerainty' Is well founded, but the
trouble is in arriving at a satisfactory def
milton Of the term. 1t is both singular and
unfortunate that in framing the treaty of
1884 with the Beers the British authorities
did not use plain English language instead
Of adopting a vague phraseology. This seems
to ave been done in accordance with Dip
traditions which cling to obsolete
forms and which hold that words should
be used to conceal ideas. The treaty seems
to have been framed with a view Of grant
ing the Transvaal independence with a
string to It," They were to be independent,
yet not independent. The treaty provided
that they should enjoy complete independ-
ence in making and administering their own
laws, but the right to regulate and super
intend their relations with the native popu-
lation, the adjustment OF frontier questions
with the resident and neigh5oring tribes,
and the control Of foreign relations were
distinctly reserved by the British imperial
government. The treaty of 1884 expressly
states: n treaty or engagement with any
state or nation other than the Orange Free
State, nor any native tribes east or west
Majesty or her successors" This condition
of affairs was recognized by the foreign
powers last June, when they declined to
admit the Transvaal to the congress at
The Hague, on the ground that the Boer
republic was subject to British suzerainty.
Under the language above quoted it clearly
is. That language applies only to treaties
with the native tribes and foreign states
and nations, but it is none the less a limita-
ton on Boer independence. 1t established
a sort Of protectorate, a kind Of supervis-
DRY power that was retained by Great
Britain under the name Of suzerainty. The
term could hardly hav been Intended to
cover supervision of the suffrage question
and election laws, which are clearly mat
tiers of internal and domestic policy as far
as the Transvaal government is concerned.
Nothing could partake less of the charac-
ter of a foreign treaty than suffrage
and election laws. But suzerainty carries
other responsibilities. 1t carries responsible
tiles to foreign powers and for the protec-
ton of the lives and property of the sub
jects of such powers within the suzerainty.
A recent writer on international relations
says:
The moment that a paramount power as
sumes the charge and control OF the inter
national relations of a smaller state, 1t vir-
tually becomes responsible for the conduct
and policy of the latter toward other for
eign nations. This responsibility is not mere
ly moral, but also legal, and there is no
doubt that If by reason of misgovernment
in the Transvaal a state of anarchy or civil
war were to ensue, by which the lives and
Great Britain. as controlling the relations
of the Boer republic with all foreign nations,
would be liable to the latter financially and
otherwise for the damage done. If Ameri-
can property in the TranSvaal Is injured
the United States government cannot APP
peal to the Transvaal for redress, since 1t
has no oficial relations with the republic.
The power to whom 1t would be obliged
to look in the. matter would be Great
Britain, precisely in the same manner as
when an American citizen was subjected
some ten years ago to a gross outrage at
Kissinger. the State Department at Wash
or government of Bavaria, but from the
Kaiser. and from the Department of For
eign Affairs at Berlin. as intrusted with the
IS fh4 nn1 af
Bavaria.
1t is by this responsibility toward for
eign nations, on the part or a paramount
power for a subject state. that the limita-
lions and extent Of suzerainty can be best
defined. AS a general rule, the term suZer-
ainty implies absolute autonomy and alb
the country upon which 1t is imposed. This
policy OF noninterventlon, however, ceases
when in the opinion of the suzerain. power
it becomes necessary to interfere for the
purpose of safeguarding its responsibilities
toward foreign nations. For 1t is evident
that where one state represents another in
consequently responsible to foreign govern
ments for the wrongful acts or omissions
of the latter, 1t must be armed with the
right to intervene IN the internal dminis
tration of the subordinate state, for the
purpose of guarding itself against claims
for indemnity on the part OF foreign gov
ernments. That Is why England is fully JUS
titled In insisting that President Kruger
should inaugurate a number OF domestic
reforms in the TranSVaal winch are neceS-
sary for the protection of foreign life and
property there, and which have been
pressed upon the British government by
Germany, France and Italy, which hav ex-
tensive interests in the dominions of the
South African Republic.
This is a technical argument and does not
go to equities of the case, but international
action is not always based on equity. The
real truth of the matter probably is that
the time has come when Great Britain's
policy of imperialism and expansion and her
interests IN Africa require her to wipe out
the Pigment of Boer independence, which is
but another name for Dutch inertia and
the keeping of several hundred thousand
natives in slavery, and establish British
authority on a basis that will remove all
doubt of its paramount and enduring char
acter. From one point of view this would
be a British land-grabbing scheme, but it
would also be part of a broad and %continu-
Gus policy for the extension OF British en-
pire and Anglo-Saxon civilization.
RING RULE AND BOsSIsM.