The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-09-11
The Truth About tho Transvaal.

Ought the nations of the world to give
their moral support to the coercion of tho
Beers said to be contemplated by the
Salisbury Cabinet. or to the protests
OF those Englishmen represented by
ALFRED II. WALLACE, FREDERIC HARRISON
and many conspicuous Liberals. who hold
that the treatment OF the Outlander bv the
Transvaal Government offers no lust cause
for armed interference on their behalf?
The question resolves Itself into two in
qu.iies: First, Has England lawful right
to interfere; secondly, has she a moral
right OF the same kind which warranted
such Intervention as ours between Spain
and Cuba?
1t is undisputed that Great Britain would
ave no right in international law to pre-
''ribc the conditions under which its sub
. cts in tho Transvaal should acquire polt-
.chi rights equal to those OF the Beers IL
the South African Republic wore an entirely
independent State. Is the Independence OF
the last-named commonwealth 30 limited
as to give to England. in express terms or
by reasonable implication. q right to die
tate those fundamental regulations which
Lilo at tho root OF self-government?
The Salisbury Cabinet assumes that
the Transvaal's independence is thus
limited. for in tho Queens speech delivered
at the recent proroguing of Parliament, her
Majesty was made to say that the position
OF her subjects In the South African Repub
lie is Inconsistent with those promises of
equal treatment on which her grant OF
internal independence to that republic was
founded. If such Limitation exists, how
ever 1t must be looked for in the text of the
Convention Of 1884, by which the Conven
tlon OF 1891 was superseded.
In the hrst-named document. the word
"suzerainty." which had appeared In its
predecessor. lie eliminated, and the only re-
naming vestige of the idea OF suzeraintv
will be found in Article w, which provides
that the South African Republic will con-
olude no treaty or engagement with any
state or nation, other than the Orange Free
State, nor with any native tribe to the east
ward or westward Of the Republic, until
the same has been approved by her Majesty
the Queen" This naked right to supervise
the foreign relations Of the Transvaal ia
restricted by the stipulation that. II no
objection Is offered within specified period
treaty or engagement shall acouire
validity.
1t is plainly impossible to deduce from
the article quoted the faintest pretext for
CLAIM t. interfere In tho internal affairs OF
the South African Republic. The Sails
bury Cabinet does not even contend that
the Convention Of 1884 affords anv war;
rant for the attempt to dictate to the
Transvad notifications of ito franchise
law. 1t arrogates the right to 90 back Of
the Convention Of 1884. the assertion in
the ousen's speech being based on certain
promises alleged to have been made YER
bally by President KRroER, when the orig
inal Convention Of 1891 was under dis
QUESTION. Weare told that President KRt,GrR
Was asked by England's representative
what treatment would be given TO British
subjects in tho Transvaal. lie is said to
have answered that "all strangers have
now, and will always have, rights aud priv |
ileges equal to those of the burghers OF the |
south African Republic"
With rAfsrsnce TO this so-csl!sd promise, |