Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1899-10-20

their institution of slavery with then
and maintained it until its abolition
was enforced by Great Britain in tht
lands river convention.
A great deal of ignorance, this gen
tleman says, exists in this country re
garding the convention of 1884, from
which the present controversy must
date, and it is a curious circumstance
that that convention was signed or
February p. the anniversary of Ma
juba Hill. Editorial writer's of the
United States have asserted that Great
Britain in that convention relinquished
all right of interference in the internal
affairs of the South African republic
The same assertion was made by John
Dillon in parliament last Tuesday. Dill
! lon, of course Mas familiar with the
+ terms of the convention and his argu-
ment must be taken only as that of a
nationalist politician.
The convention, Il copy OF which has
been furnished The Republican, con-
sists of twenty articles, every one of
which bristles with England's claim Of
suzerainty over the TransvaaL The
first defines the boundaries of the re-
public. The second provides for the
maintaining of those boundaries and
the adjustment of relations with the
a
for the appointment of a British con-
sular officer to be protected and sup
ported by the republic.
BY article four the republic is forbid
den to conclude q treaty with any state
or nation. save the Orange Free State,
without the consent of her majesty's
government. Articles five and six re-
late to the debt of the republic, and ar
ticle seven guarantees protection to
those who had been loyal to Great
Britain in previous disturbances The
prohibition OF slavery is renewed in ar
ticle eight.
Article nine guarantees religious lib
erty and freedom from oppression on
account of creed. This article is now
being violated by disqualification for
holding office, placed upon the Jews
Article ten relates to the care of the
graves of British soldiers who died in
the Transvaal. Article thirteen places
the fixing of import duties by treaty
Under the provision of article four re-
lating to treaties. The following arti-
Gle, fourteen. is the one upon which the
British right Of Interference in the in
ternattonal affairs of the TransvaaI is
based, and the one which, it is claimed.
that the Beers have persistently vio-
lated:
All persons not being natives. who
subject themselves to the laws of the
South African Republic (a) shall have
full liberty, together with their fami-
lies, to travel or reside in any part of
the South African Republic, OBJ shall
have the right to hire or possess houses. +
manufactures, stores and properties.
(c) shall be allowed TO carry on their
business in person or by such agents
as they may think fit to appoint;
Cd they shall not be subject to taxes in (
regard to their persons or properties,
either general or local, except those i'm 7
posed or which shall be imposed upon
the burghers of the said Republic"
This article was so favorably re- (
garded at the time of the adoption of
the convention that it was described .
by the London Standard as the sheet /
anchor of the UitIanders."
The succeeding articles relate to the
relations of the republic to the native
tribes. tho cxtraditiou of criminals and .
7eserters from her majesty's forces.
and the whole was signed by the gov
arnor of Cape Colony. Sir Hercules
Robinson. and S. J. P. Kruger. S J.
III Toit and N j. Smit
The republic seemed to be pretty
We'll bound down by this convention.
out the facility with which the govern
3lent could rid itself of restrictions
vas shown in the celebrated Brown
,ase, in which suit had been begun
lgainst the government for damages.
Judgment vas obtained for a large
ON, whereupon the raad undertook to
1ass a law declaring that the govern
nent could net be sued. This was
plainly IN cOntraventiOn of the rights
njoyed even by the burghers at the
inle OF the signing of the convention,
Which guaranteed clual rights of prop
rty to the Uitlanders. A desperate
truggle between the high court and
he Rad ensued. but the law w3s
'assed. This was KrUger's law. and
n support of it he made a violent at ;
ack upon the high court, accusing it ,
+ being in league with the arch en-
my. Cecil Rhodes. The members
f the court who had been chosen for
fe. were forced to resign. Thus it was {
learly declared that there could be no
rejection by law of the rights Of Citi- I
ems. The law was rassed inRFebruary ;
f 1897. While it was pending the Jo- 7
annesburg Star said Of the situation: ]
1t all comes to this that if the gov {
rnment and vOlksraad pursue their I
atuous policy to the bitter end. no I
viii longer exist for regular {
gal. proper administration, inasmuch :
5 the demand of the raad-actuate by I
he ezecutive-is that the government /
hall he immune from all effects of !
IS acts, no matter how unlawful I'M I
institutional, even criminal, they I
layi be- Most happily the judges !
ave resolved to stand between simple /
espotism and the sacred rights of the I
eople as laid down in the constitu- I