The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-12-16
Scots emulsion.

! condition of affairs in South Africa
| and then took up the second claim of
/ the tfirlnative-whether England has q
/ right to interfere. He said:
"Engiand's claim to interference rests
upon two gqounds-first, on her special
! relations with the South African repub-
lie, and second, on the general princi-
pies of international law.
I Taking up the first point, historically
the rights of self government enjoyed
by the South African republics are
based on the conventions OF 1881 and
1884, England having been completely
| sovereign in 1877. The conventions
were grants to the Transvaal on certain
| specified conditions. The South Afri
can republic has broken these conGi
tons, and therefore England is no long
er vigorously restrained by the terms
of the conventions.
Now, to take up the second basis
of my argument, that England has a
right to interfere on the ground of in
ternational law. This right is support
ed by three reasons first, her subjects
| have been maltreated by the admins
trative agents of the South African re-
public, and legal redress has been
sought in vain; secondly, there has beer
distinctly unfair administration OF
laws; and, thirdly, the laws themselves
have constituted grievous expressions. .
Joseph H. Hill. '00 second speaker on
the negative side, spoke in part as fol-
| lows: "A broad view of the question in
wolves the consideration of the Outland-
! err issue not as an isolated case, but in
| its entire historic setting when it ap-
pears as the logical consequence of
Great Britain's own policy. If the
Beers treatment of this majority of
aliens who come from a country which
| they had every reason to distrust and
fear was neither sl1illful nor statesman
! like, we think that in the last analysts,
the responsibility rests with Great Brit
ain.
THE problem was one of the most
difficult that any nation could be called
upon to solve. A solution Of the diff
Guilty was being slowly worked out
when the Outlanders rose in rebellion
in 1893 This naturally reused once more
Boer suspicion which was intensified by
| the revival in 1897 of the claim to the
suzerainty Of the Pretoria convention
and a natural supervision of Boer legis-
lation. This claim was not only legally
untenable, but was untimely and i'm
polite. Indeed, had the object of Great
Britain been to prevent a peaceable set
Element she could not have chosen a
better course than insistence on the
suEerainty.'
Wilbur Moore, 1900, was the third
speaker for Harvard. He pointed out
that his colleagues had shown that the
condition of affairs in the South Afri-
can republic demanded interference
and, secondly, that England had the
right to interfere. The third claim of the
affirmative remains to be proved-that
England's method of interference was
justifiable. In other words, England's
,a1a ~ L.
existing conditions in the Transvaa
was the grant of an adequate fran
chise to the Uitlanders.
1.-THE grievance Of the Uitlander!
might well be summed up in the phrase
Inequality of rights and privileges.
Schools were provided, but the adYan
tages and benefits of education wer,
for the Boer children only; a police
service was established, but police pro
lection was given Beers only; courts
were open to all, but court justice wal
solely in the interest of the Beers; tria
by jury was state institution, but tn,
Beers alone were impanelled.
BY giving the Uitlanders a place il
the government, you enable them t
remedy such grievances permanent,
by their own peaceful efforts. In tn,
second place, England's attitude ha!
not been, as is often urged, one threat
ening the independence of the Boer re
public. On the contrary, the franchise
would have maintained the integrit,
of and secured the prosperity of tn
Transvaal government itself Max
your Uitlander a true citizen of tn,
republic, give him his political rights
let him know that the strong arm o
the South African republic is for hi
protection as well as the Beers, ant
Uitlander viii work side by side will
Boer for the development of their com
mon government"
Joseph A. Jones, 90, the last Prince
ton speaker, said in part: THE justifi
ability of the English claims can not b
based on the ground that the polio,
pursued by the Boer government ha
| been a standing menace to British i'm
perial interests in South Africa. TIL
Beers have been abundantly able t
suppress all native uprisings; the coun
try has not been subject to internal in
surrection or anarchy They have no
Disseminated against the English il
favor OF the Dutch. British power /
so strongly established in South Afrc
that any danger from Dutch disaffec
ton is more imaginary than real. TIL
attitude of the Dutch majority in tn
Cape assembly and of the Dutch popu
lation throughout the Cape Colony
one of loyalty to imperial interests.
If the Transvaal admitted England
right to interfere in such dlstinctivel
domestic concerns as naturalization
franchise and official language, it woul
lose the measure of internal independ
ence granted under the convention o
1884"
The first speaker in rebuttal was Hi
for the negative. He took up the nego
tiations between the two countries
showing England's inconsistency. Bruc
began the rebuttal for the affirmative
England, he said, did not bring on tn
war. Jones' the next speaker elaine,
that England has no right to interfere
but his argument had little weight
Mayer of Harvard replied to the las