The Republican journal., 1900-02-15
A French View OF the War.
England Not Engaged in Work Exclusively
Her Own.


Translation from LIE Steele of Paris
Sgismund Lacroix writes in the Radi-
cal:
"Ah. if Gladstone were still living He
found himself 20 years age in an analo-
geouS situation; he had allowed the war to
begin, war, it is true, less serious than
the present one; but, when the English
troops had had three revelses, he began
to think the matter over, and, on ret1ec
ton, resolved to stop
Well, ii Gladstone We're alive to day he
! would talk differently; chat must be recog
nized. The responsibility for actual
events must be placed upon Gladstone's
incoherent policy in the Transvaal.
| In 1876, the Transvaal was threatened
| ty kat1irs and Zulus at the same time; it
was bankrupt and in a state OF utter
anarchy. England feared that it might
become nest of agitation, where the
native element might become pledomi-
nant. Theophilus Shepstone, the Eng
| ish high commissioner, annexed the
Transvaal, without protest from the
Boels, and without firing shot Tie
English freed the Beers from all fear of
Katfirs and Zulus. Relieved from appre-
| hension on this side, a Boer party rose
against the English in December, 1880,
and Gladstone signed the convention OF
1881, after tn, defeat of Majuba on Feb.
IS From military point of view the
defeat was insignificant, for there had
been only % killed, 1874 wounded and 50
prisoners; from moral point of view,
the effect was disastrous, inasmuch as
| England had owned herself defeated.
Those who have not studied the facts
form an priori conception of the Beers
which is very curious. They look upon
the Boer as an inotfensiye agricuiturist,
the peace of whose home has been DELHI
erately troubled by the English. But the
Boer is not an agriculturist; he is herds
man, which is something entirely differ
ent. The Boer is not man who is re-
signed and devoted to peace; he is a ma
rauder and a grim destroyer. His most
ardent advocates have been obliged to ad-
nit that he has been hard and cruel to
the natives.
Even the Beers themselves, in their
manifesto of 1881, acknowledge that the
''great trek was a consequence of the
abolition of slavery in English colonies.
! The iI5, 900 square miles of the Transvaal,
representing about the area of Italy, and
about three tifths that of France, do not
give enough room for the ambition of the
30, O0C OF &C, 900 Boer burghers. In 1881,
they adopted as their platform: Africa for
| the Afric anders, from the Zambesi to ST.
| mon bay.
Mr.. Kruger went to Europe in 1884,
| and succeeded in substituting the conven-
ton of 1854 for the convention Of 1881.
! Put aside, if you like, the question OF SUI
erainty. :. But the convention OF 1854
created two binding engagements between
the Beers and the English, BY art. 4, the
Beers can conclude no foreign treaties
without the ratification of England; by art.
II, foreigners are to be secured in the
possession of their property and allowed
to work without hindrance.
England has assumed the responsibility
toward all foreign nations of seeing that
the Beers respect this last clause. The
Beers themselves have constantly violated
it, and the curious thing is that the pres
ent conflict has been brought about be-
cause the Uitlanders themselves have
loudly demanded that it shall be re-
spected AS matter of fact England is
acting for every nation which has citizens
and interests in the Transvaal. She is not
engaged in a work exclusively English; it
is international work. She intervenes be-
cause, by art. IA, she is responsible for
the security and freedom to work of the
Uitlanders.
l received, last October a letter from
and English Liberal, who had been sup
porter of Gladstones policy in 1881 and
1884. "We believed" he wrote me, Sin
the loyalty of the Beers. We supposed
that they would Loyalty carry out this
convention. We were mistaken
If the ambition of the Beers was great,
it was limited by their reforms. These
gold fields h ID, it is true, been worked TO
some extent, but from 1878 to 1884 the
| aoft ho inf had haan 40
$500, 600; in 1886 it came to nearly 500,
600; in 1888 it was over 81, 800, 900; in
! 1889 more than I, 400 600, and in 1890 it
reached S9,34S, 600.
Just as fast as the wealth of the coun-
try increased through the work of the
Uitlanders their rights were curtailed by
the Beers, who have shown great ingenui-
ty in keeping for themselves a good part
of this new wealth by taxation. while
they have refused to allow the Uitlanders
any voice in appropriating the revenue SO
raised. In violation of art. II of the con
vention of 1884, they have established
/ monopolies.
Now, in 1890, the working of the deep
| levels had given greater stability to gold
mining enterprises. The Uitlander set
tiers in the Transvaal, growing in num-
bers all the time and increasing their per-
| HlduCuC hsCoClHCulSs UOSatAS iiioiO hSCHiy
conscious of the Importance of the rights
which were denied to them. In 1894
petition with $4,000 of their signatures
was addressed to the Volksraad, but it
was received with mockery and sneers.
''They ask for rights" answered Kruger;
''they will get them only over my corpse.
In presence of this refusal, toward the
close of 1895, the ''reform committee
appointed by the Uitlanders lent itself to
conspiracy, which was rather short
sighted, since the Uitlanders were with
out arms. Then came the Jameson raid.
Cecil Rhodes had been substituting Jane
son, but it has been proved that none of
the directors of the Rhodesian Chartered
Company we're in the secret. The raid
was not an English expedition; it was
stupid gamble. But if it profoundly af-
fected public opinion, it showed the truth
of remark made by N. Vigonroux, in
his article on colonization companies,
published in the Journal des Economistes.
elm spite of its reluctance, the British
government has found it necessary, dur
ing the 10Th century, to annex in success
sion most of its African and Oceanic de-
tendencies. The energy of their fellow