The Yale expositor. (Yale, St. Clair County, Mich.) 1894-current, 1899-09-22
Beers NOT CONCILIATORY.
Plain Language Used in the Reply
to Chamberlain.
WOULD WASTE NO MORE TIME
British Colonial Secretary Asked Not
tonSubmit Amy New Propositions-He
Is Practically Accused of Double
Dealing In the Negotiations.

Pretoria, Sept. 19.-The reply of the
government OF the South African re-
public to the latest dispatch, dated
Sept. II, of the British secretary of
state for the colonies, Joseph Chamber
lain, after acknowledging the receipt
OF the British note, proceeds in part
as follows:
1.-The government deeply regrets the
withdrawals the government under.
stands it-of the invitation contained
in the British dispatch Of Aug. 90 and
the substitution in place thereof of an
entirely new proposal.
The proposals, now fallen through,
contained in the Transvaal dispatches
of Aug. 10 and Aug. 81, were elected
from the government by suggestions
made by the British diplomatic agent
in Pretoria (Conyngham Greene) to
the Transvaal state secretary (F. w.
Reitz), suggestions which this govefn-
ment acted upon in good faith ana
after specially ascertaining whether
they would be likely to prove accept
government had by no means an inten
ton to raise again needlessly the ques
ton of its political status, but acted
with the sole object of endeavoring
by the aid of the local British agent to
put an end to the strained condition of
affairs.
This was done in the shape of a
proposal which this government deems,
both as regards its spirE and form, to
be so worded as, relying upon intima-
lions to this government, would satisfy
her majesty's government. This gov
eminent saw a difficulty as to the ac-
ceptance OF those proposals by the
people and legislature of the Transvaal
and also contemplated possible dangers
connected Herewith, but risked max
ing them on account of a sincere de-
sire to secure peace and because as
sured by Mr.. Chamberlain that such
proposals would not be deemed refu-
sal of his demands, but would be set
tied on their merits.
"As regards the joint commission,
the Transvaal adheres to the accept
ance of the invitation thereunto given
by her majesty's government, and can
not understand why such commission,
which before was deemed necessary to
explain the complicated details of the
seven years law, should now be deem.
ed unnecessary, and why it should now
without much injury, be thought pos
sible to declare this law inadequate.
Further, there must be a misap-
prehension if it be assured that this
government was prepared to lay pro-
posals for five years franchise and a
quarter representation of the new pop
ulation before the volksraad for un-
conditional acceptance. AS to the
language, this government never made
any offer such as is referred to, con-
sidering as it did, such a measure both
unnecessary and undesirable.
THE proposed conference,as opposed
to the joint commission of inquiry this
government is likewise not unwilling
to enter upon, but the difficulty is that
an acceptance thereof is made depend
ent upon the acceptance, on the side
Of the Transvaal, of precedent condi-
tions which this government does not
feel at liberty to submit to the volks-
raad; and, moreover, the subjects to be
discussed at the conference remain I'M
defined.
This government ardently desires
and gladly accepts arbitration, as its
firm intention is to adhere to the terms
of the London convention OF 1884"
The dispatch concludes by trusting
that the British government, on recon-
sideration, may not deem it fit to make
more onerous new proposals, but will
adhere to Great Britain's proposal for
joint commission of inquiry, as pre-
viously explained by the secretary Of
state for the colonies to the imperial
narliament"