The times., 1899-10-15
England nnd the Beers.

As one who has reau The Times constantly iOf
nearly three years and almost invariably with
approval. 4 beg the favor of word of explana-
non regarding your editorial attitude in eonnec-
fion with the differences between the Transvaaf
Republic and Great Britain, which have resulted
in war.
remember distinctly how vigorously and sac
cessfuliy The Times fought the 0iney- -Pauncefote
arbitration treaty, when il before the Senate
for ratification; how earnestly and effectively il
champinned the cause Of Cuba against Spain.
and demanded the American Intervention which
came at last; how Loyalty and feaTlessly it dis
regarded political considerations and supported
AIR. Mckinley's Administration in the war and
M zbe policy OF American expansion the unayoid-
able result OF that war: and now desire to ask
why II IS that The Times apparently faces about
and sides with England against the Beers, who
iniabit and control our little sister republic in
South Africa2
Are they not as much entitled to your syun-
pathy as were the people Of CHbai Is not England
IN assuming the right TO interfere in their domes-
tic affairs, culpable as when she joined with
PrtzSdeRt Cleveland in trying to tie US to her
chariot wheel with compulsory arbitration
scheme? Did not the Beers earn the right to be
left alone, when they broke away from English
colonial authority In 1887, and made their Great
Trek into the African Wilderness? Why are they
not entitled to the good viii and godsPeed OF
all setf-gOTerning peoples eTerywhereg
J. B. H.
We are happy not only to reply to the
above communication, but to give it the
prominence in our columns that its cour-
teous language and the position of its
writer in the State and nation justify. He
is entirely right in his review OF the vari-
GUS exciting public questions upon which
this journal has spoken since December,
1856. The Times has no apologies to
make for its course in regard to eny Of
them. 1t will afford US pleasure to show
our correspondent and any other of our
readers who may feel interested, that our
policy and attitude relatively to the
South African question, are entirely con-
sistent with our views and action con-
eerning the others, to which our attention
is called
We antagonized the British arbitration
treaty because we felt sure that, in the
interests of the international gold syndi-
cate which owned the Cleveland Admin
istration and helped to elect his successor,
the country had been soid out. We be-
lieved then. and believe now. that one of
the hidden purposes of the treaty was to
bring the currency standard of the nation
within the scope of the proposed arbitral
system. We felt satisfied that il the
treaty were ratified, the American people
would once more be overreached by British
diplomacy; and that from an American
viewpoint, the scheme was vicious and
intolerable We did not, and do not, think
that England was to blame in the matter
She was looking out for the better end of
the bargain. she always has done so and
generally secured it at our expense, but
that has been always our own fault, when
IL has not been our misfortune in having
Incompetent or corrupt persons in charge
Of our interests. That we opposed Great
designs Of that Government as wrong, is
no just reason why we should not sympa-
thize with it in case where we are con-
vinced il is right.
The Times fought for The Cuban people
because they were taxed without repre-
sentation, and were oppressed. abused.
looted. and murdered. in principle exactly
in the Transvasl have been The suffering
inhabitants Of the island appealed 10 us 10
interfere 10 save them from brutality, rob-
berry, and ruin, just as the 0utlanders ap-
pealed to the Queen We responded to
that Macedonian cry in manner and form as
England has to that OF the Witwatersrand
residents. In law our excuse was less than
that OF England; for Cuba was colony of
a foreign State with which we were at peace
and on terms of trade and amity, while the
Transyaal is q dependency of Great Britain,
bound by the conditions Of its grant of in
-.
rights to Britisher and Boer.
Our correspondent refers, as is quite
common, to the Great Trek OF 1897, in
which the Beers exiled themselves from
Cape Colony and sought liberty, as they
understood the term, far TO the north A
close analysis OF their reasons for this exc
dus might be productive Of sympathy for
them with some people. but not with US
Never in all the history Of human slavery
have there been more cruel, merciless, and
inhuman taskmasters than the Beers OF
Cape Colony in the old days. They hunted
captured. chained, worked, whipped, tor
tured, and murdered the Kafirs by thou
sands In 1897 England decreed the eman-
cipation Of the latter. paying the Boers
six million dollars for those they owned
The Great Trek followed. The pious Dutch
colonist could not tolerate such tyranny.
They would not live where they might not
enslaye and kill their fellow-men without
impertinent interference.
How would the people OF Philadelphia
like II II, although owning and being taxed
10 maintain their splendid city, none of
ats inhabitants were allowed citizenship. or
the possibility of attaining it; were not
permitted TO have their children taught
English in the schools; were not eligible
for jury duty; had no standing before the
courts; were liable to domiciliary police
visits by day or by night; were forbidden
to carry or own firearms; and, in fact,
aere governed municipality by a few Penn
sylvania man-burgomeister, alder
men and policemen-sent down from Read
ing for the purpose, and with full au-
;hority TO abuse, assess. and loot the COM
munity, Suppose the whole State of Penn
sylvania we're in the political control of a
small minority of persons Of German de-
scent. themselves ruled by a little oil
garchy or their leaders, and that all the
vast industrial and commercial interests
Of the Commonwealth were in the hands
and at the mercy Of this oiigarchyi Would
our sympathies be with the oligarchs. or
with the oppressed people? Well, that is
fair illustration OF the situation in the
IN