The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-11-04
In Reply to "New Highlander. ;


IN A letter to the Standard New
Highlander takes exception to a
statement made by this newspaper
that there is a pronounced resemblance
between the Beers and the sturdy revo-
lutionary heroes of New England. The
identity between the ends sought by
the men Of the American revolution and
those for which the Beers are fighting"
Passing that assertion for the moment,
the Standard would observe that it was
comparing the characters Of the two
peoples, rather than the merits of the
two wars. The New Englanders of 1776,
like the Beers of the present day, We're
a rural people, strong and hardy. of
moral habits, scorning everything sa-
voring of luxury and effeminacy, bold
in battle, famous as sharpshooters, de-
termined to maintain their rights as
they understood them. Like the Beers
too, they were intensely religious, even
fanatically So They no longer burned
witches at the stake or put man in
the stocks for kissing his wife on Sun
day, but they still carried religion into
all their business and social affairs.
they were always constant in prayer"
The principal charge brought against
the Beers is that they heavily tax the
Uitlanders while denying them all polit-
icaI rights. Although much has been
written upon this subject, it is widely
misunderstood. The Beers do desire to
exclude the Englishmen from citizen
ship. Why? Because the Englishmen
are unwilling to become naturalized
fully and completely; to be genuine
citizens of the Transvaal, just as for
eigners under our naturalization laws
become genuine citizens of the United
States. In other words, the English
men residing in the Transvaal refuse to
foreswear allegiance to Queen Victoria.
The official green book" of the South
African republic contains the tran
scribed stenographic notes of the official
interviews between President Kruger
and Sir Alfred Miner, in which Presi-
dent Kruger, after being pressed by the
British commissioner, stated the form
sired. OF course it contained clause
foreswearing allegiance to the native
land of the foreigner. Sir Alfred Miner
replied that he would not agree to this
at all; that the clause foreswearng al
legiance must be left out. To accept
such a form of oath as Miner wanted.
Kruger declared would be to destroy
his country.
AS a matter of fact England has no
right, in any way, shape or manner, to
demand or even to suggest modlfica-
ton of the oath of allegiance of for
eigner who desires to become a citizen
of the South African republic or of any
state. The claim is made falsely that
the treaty between Great Britain and
the South African republic made in
1884, and superseded by the convention
of London in 1884, gave to Great Britain
the ripht thus to suggest and interfere
with the autonomy of the republic
This claim is absolutely false. All that
the convention of 1881 gave to Great
Britain in this respect was the suZer-
ainty over the foreign or outside rela-
tons of the South African republic.
This treaty of 1881 was not ratified by
the congress of the South African re-
public. which sent a commission of
three, including Kruger and Joubert, to
London, refusing to submit to this
claim of suzerainty, and it was stricken
from the treaty. A new treaty, called
the convention of 1884, was agreed uro1
by Great Britain, emitting all claim of
suzerainty, but retaining simply the
right to pass upon or approve or disap-
prove all treaties with foreign powers
| that had been made by the South Afri-
can republic.
The long and short of it is. that the
Englishmen there proposed to acquire
citizenship in the South African repub-
lice while still retaining their English
citizenship. No man can serve two
| masters. That is the secret of the
whole trouble. AS to taxation, the Uit-
landers pay the pro rata taxes levied
by the Boer government. no moreno
less. In an article on THE Case for the
Beers in The Outlook for Oct 81.