New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-09-19
THE TPANSTAAL'S REPLY.

1ranSVaaJ
matte gun. It's reply to the latest BRUSH pro-
posal is the stiffest and shrewdest paper lssueu
thus far from Pretoria in this controversy, ana
nrobablv that can be issued. IT is not merely
defensive. II is aggressive. It carries the
vordy war into Downing Street, or INTO 'he
African branch offices thereof In erect IL
answers the charge that the Transvaai mas re-
undated its own offer by declaring categorlcahy
that it is Great Britain that has done so. III
the Transvaal can substantiate that charge II
will. Of course. greatly strengthen its case, at
least from moral and legal point OF view. IL
will he Interesting, therefore, to refer TO the
British PROPOSALS which it declares have been
renudiated. and see what they were and what
is the present attitude Of the British Govern
ment toward them.
The Transvaal first refers to the British
Governments withdrawal from its letter or
August %. which, it says. was accepted by the
Tronsvaal The date is obviously an error for
Auoust oe as the record shows. That British
note was IN answer to the Transvaal notes of
August 10 and 81 which offered five years
franchise on condition of Great Britain's re-
nunciation of the suzeranty. The British note
practically accepted the Transvaal offer, with
the exception of the condition OF remuneration,
IN which point il referred TO former British
note IN which the present British attitude on
the suzerainty was Enthusiastically set forth. III
added moreover, three things First, IT SAID
that while the British Government hoped there
would be no further need for Intervention IN
the Transvaa it could not bind itself not to In
tervene if need should arise. Second, IT onered
to discuss with the Transvaa the question OF
tribunal OF arbitration, from which foreigners
and foreign influence should be excluded, ana
TO that end suggested an immediate conference
at Cape Town. Third, It reminded the Trans
vaal that there were other points at issue, be-
sides the franchise which could not be submit
ted TO arbitration, and which must be settled
concurrently with the franchise. Such was the
British letter which the Transvaal Government
now saws It accepted, and the withdrawal Of
which in favor Of an entirely new proposal 1t
deenlv regrets II will be, we fancy. news 10 the
world that the Transvaal Government ever &C.
cepted that British proposal. And II will puzzle
the world TO discover wherein the later British
proposal differs so widely from that earlier one
As 70 be entirely new" We cannot see on
present evidence that the Transvaal establishes
that point. To us the two British proposals
seem substantially identical. the salient points
being five years franchise, with the suze-
rain1y question to he left in statu quo. save
that the later one introduces the minor Ques-
ton of language It cannot be that the Trans
vaaI would 90 10 war rather than let English
men speak English in the Legislature.
Again. the Transvaal Government says Its
proposals Of August 10 and 81 including the
renunciation Of suzerainty, were made on the
strength Of suggestions Of the British agent In
the Transyaal and Of an assurance that they
wopld be acceptable TO the British Govern
mpnt. We arc asked, then, to believe that the
British agent at Pretoria suggested that Great
britain would be willing to renounce the sue
rainty and that other assurances to that effect
were given TO the Transvaal. That is a
serious charge 1t requires answer, which ought
to be AT once forthcoming from the British
agent in question, and from the British Govern
ment itself. II they do not both deny in the
strongest manner that any such suggestions or
assurances were made we shall be much sur
prlsed That either Of them ever limited that
entire Remuneration of the suzerainty would be
satisfactory 10 Great Britain would be 10 the
world at large the most astounding revelation
| in the whole case
We can scarcely at this time review all the
details of this remarkable Boer document The
portant The general effect of the publication
| Of the document is beyond doubt. If we may
! continue the smile used above. this great gun
has recOiled upon those who fired IT. Increduli-
! ~. amazement and CONSERVATION are feelings
widely entertained among the best friends Of
the Beers The Daily Chronicle" of London,
the Transvaals foremost friend advocate and
champion IN Europe, declares that the Beers
have rejected fair offer made in fair Ian
guage" aud have given fresh point 10 the con-
tention that President Kriiger is A shifty and
"impractcable politician, fit only 10 be spoken
| "to across n line Of hayonets" That Is strong
language, but II is used by the journal which
only few days ago was as outspoken In behalf
Of the Transvaal and In criticism Of the British
Government. Less belligerent, though perhaps
not less 10 the point, Is the tone Of THE London
Standard" That uncompromising Conservative
and Imperialist paper reckons the Boer reply &c
be unsatisfactory and dangerous, but 1t does
not think the last hope OF peace has vanished
or that diplomacy has spoken It's last word
No, not even though "the rulers of the Trans
wal have brought their country very close Il
"the brink Of disaster which the British
Government has done its best TO avert" Witt
those sentiments and with the peaceful hope
expressed in the closing lines Of the Boer re
ply itself will all right thinking American
agree 1t is In crises like this that the creates
greatness OF a great nation Is clearly shown, II
it's ability TO endure acute irritation, 10 repres
impulses and to exalt sober judgment and 4
speak another diplomatic word even when tn
click OF its enemys gunlock is heard. As 70
the Outlanders. they have only 10 ask them
| selves which would be the worse, TO endur
J even the worst of their present grievances