The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1899-12-07
BOER AND BRITON.
A COMPREHENSIVE STATEMENT
IN THE CASE
At Issue Between the English and
TransvaaI Observation-Disclosures
Without Representation Pro-
tested Against by the Foreigner
the Question as Viewed From the
Standpoint of the Ducth Republic.
(Ash3ville CitiZen.(

the Question as viewed From the
Standpoint of the Ducth Republic.
(Ashaville Citizen.}
The best statement of the case of
Briton VS.. Boer that we have seen is
an editorial article that appeared in
the Columbia State on October %, in
answer to correspondent who signs
himself Fair Play The article is
too long to reproduce in full, but the
following is summary that we be-
lieve will interest every reader Of
the Citizen:
Our correspondent says that the
State ''conveniently omitted" to find
out the occasion of the "great trek"
of the Beers from Cape Colony. The
State did nothing of the sort. 1t said:
The Beers, disappointed in their
hopes of independence, were restive
under British rule, and in 1885, their
disatfection increased by the abolition
of slavery in Cape Colony, they began
to migrate to the northward." This
was we'll within the mark, as will be
seen by reference to a new book by
the British secretary of the Uitlander
committee at johannesburg, reviewed
in last weeks issue of Harper's Weekly.
According to this writer, who sets
himself to justify British Intervention
in the Transvaal but is fair enough to
give the original causes of the hostil-
ity between Briton and Boer the
Beers were driven to their migration
by long course of stupid misman-
agement and meddling, the particu
lars of which are given. The aboli-
tion of slavery was the climax. The
Beers were almost ruined by it, and
they trekked away. But that they
left to escape vexatious alien rule and
not to preserve slavery is shown by
the fact that when they created their
Independent States they did not re-
establish slavery.
We turn now to British annexation
of the Transvaal in 1877. England
always views with horror the oppres-
sion of the poor African-by others
than herself. She has killed more
negroes and annexed more negro ter
ritory than any other nation; her path
in South Africa has been marked by
negro corpses and her s'wars'' with
the natives can hardly be numbered;
but this was all to bear "the white
mans burden" and therefore was
sanctifed. Her hadbands, however,
have viewed with stern apprehension
the dealings of other peoples with the
negro. In a war between the Orange
Free State Beers and the Griquas-
so we read in the Encyclopedia Britain
nica-the British governor of Cape
Colony, Sir P. Maitland, "intervened
in 1915, assisting the Griduas with
troops and defeating the Beers at
Zwart Koppies, and, to prevent furth-
er collisions, resident was ap-
pointed three years later
by annexation.
England may have had an invita-
ton from some of the Transvaal
Beers to proclaim protectorate dur
ing the Likokuni war, but we do not
find it in the Britannica or any other
of our reference books. Certainly the
request did not come from the Trans
vaal government or the people gen
orally. If it had done so we would
not read in the records of the 'sgreat
opposition to British rule'' which
quickly manifested itself after the an
nexation, and the open revolt of the
Beers which followed within three
years. If England was purely bent
on protecting the Beers against the
negroes and was governed only by
the wishes of the people of the Trans
vaal we fail to see why she did not
recognize the independence of the
country when it was proclaimed in
December, 1879, why Kruger was ar
rested the following month for sign
ing paper issued by the Boer COM
mittee, and why, year afterward,
British troops should have attempted
to invade the Transvaal to crush out
| the republican government. The facts
do not accord with the theory.
s'Let those who now accuse Britain
of greed of gold take particular note''
that England concluded the treaty Of
London recognizing the South African
republic in 1884, while it was not
until 1886 that the great gold deposits
on the Rand were discovered. Had
the discovery been made in 1882
would the republic ever have been
recog nized?
The argument of ssFair Play that
the treaty of 1884 did not supplant
| the convention of 1881 is absurd. To
prove that the Beers were accorded
real independence by the treaty we
quote Lord Derby, the negotiator Of
it, who said in 1884: "By the omis-
sion of those articles of the conven-
ton of Pretoria which assigned to her
majesty and to the British resident
certain specific powers and functions
connected with the internal govern
ment and the foreign relations of the
Transyaal State, your government
will be left free to govern the country
without interference, and to conduct
it's diplomatic intercourse and shape
its foreign policy, subject only to the
requirement that any treaty with any
foreign State shall not have effect
without the approval of the queen
Fair Play" may know more about
treaties and treaty law than Lord
Derby, but we greatly doubt it. Per-
haps Mr.. Chamberlain may be con-
sidered better authority. He said in
1896: ITO 60 to war with President
Kruger to enforce upon him reforms
in the internal affairs of his State, in
which secretaries of state, standing
in their places, have repudiated all
right of interference-that would be
course of action which would be i'm
moral
1t is true that in a convention at
the time of the making of the treaty
of 1884 President Kruger declared the
intention Of his republic to give equal
/ h,,< - -