New-York tribune., 1899-10-07
RAD FAITH IN SOUTH AFRICA.


The Irausvaal Government In its latest note
to the British Government, fortnight or more
AGO. made against tho latter pretty explicit
charges of bad faith The British Government
had. il said. intmated that proposal of five
years franchise coupled with abolition OF the
suzerainty would be acceptable, and thus en-
couraged the Transvaal Government 10 make
that offer. as II did on August 10, and then. in
It's reply Of September II, the British Govern
mcnt declared the abolition Of the suzerainty TO
be altogether inadmissible. That was the STORY
It seemed incredible. and it was pretty promptly
denied by the British Government
Now. however, the 1ransvaal. or one OF IFS
most fervent advocates and champions, returns
to tho attack with a moro explicit rene"al OF
the charge The new and enlarged version Is
supplied by the Transvaal correspondent OF
THE Manchester Guardian" which Is about the
only thick and thin supporter of the boers III
the important press Of Great Britain, ana the
most conspicuous survivor Of the Manchester
poace a. any price school Before the TransvaaI
Government made It's proposition OF August 10
for p five years franchise and abolition OF the
suzerainty It inquired Of Mr.. Greene the Brltisn
agent Mt Pretoria. whether such an oHer WIS
likely TO be acceptable. Mr. Greene In turn
asked Mr. Chamberlain. That Minister rephed
that if such a proposal were made II wouid DC
considered on It's merits, and would not pe re-
gardcd rs fiat rejection OF the brlusn pro-
posals So far so good In promising 10 con
slider the offer Mr.. Chamberlain was not proh's
irg TO accept It. But the correspondent goes
further and declares that Mr.. Greene addeu Oh
his own account to the Transvaal Government
the extraordinary statement that the brl'ish
Government would never have promised to con
slider the offer unless It was prepared 10 ac-
cept It..
That IS an explicit charge, and most serious
one Mr. Greene Is the diplomatic representa-
tive Of the British Government. lie has author-
itv to sneak for it, When he docs speak as ne Is
said 10 have done he is properly TO be resarueu
as speaking with authority. IT, therefore, he
did mako that statement to the Transvaal Gov
eminent the latter was justified in feeling as
sured that its proposition would be accepted 1t
was justified in feeling aggreved ana betrayed
vvhon the proposition was rejected. AND II was
justified in saying. as It did. that bad talth had
heon exercised toward It. All that, we repeat
| ,c Mr. Greene really did say that. OF course,
even then the inputation Of bad faith would moi
necessarily rest against the British government
hut merely against Mr.. Greene personally un'
! less there were evidence that the Government
instructed him 10 say II, of which there Is no
hint Rut the matter ought TO be cleared up
rarfectlv at the earliest possible moment The
difficulty IN doing so will arise from the tact
that Mr.. Greenes astounding declaration Is not
alleged TO have been made in writing, but mere
IL nv word Of mouth No documents in the
case" can therefore he produced. But we ought
to have from the Boers-~if they can produce
them-the names Of those who heard him say IL
and all the details OF the utterance, ana we
ought 10 have from Mr. Greene. if he did not
say It. prompt and unequivocai DENIAL ana
| from the British Government. If he did say It,
an equally direct population OF responsibility
! for the uttcrance. II would he unspeakab'y de-
| plorable for the two governments 10 go To war
over a petty trick or n mere misunderstanding
| That II was n misunderstanding we are con
strained to believe. That II was n dehnerate
niece Of bad faith on the part OF the Brltlsh
! Government is simply unthnkable