The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-01-12


ment. To gain time was the scheme for the
present until the British government had
su1nclent army landed, SO as to dictate
to the Boers its own terms. The gov
eminent at Pretoria waited for Mr.. Cham
berlain's new proposals until Oct g. after
which they demanded a withdrawal of
the troops from the borders Of both re-
a the OF
should stop. Again the government of
the South Afrieanrepublic offered arbitra-
ton and was ready to name the govern
ment of the United States or the repub-
lie of Switzerland as the arbitrator, but
1t was ignored, Does it not convince ev-
cry impartial person of the justice Of the
cause of the Beers, that they were willing
to arbitrate and let others decide the
question who was in the wrong? Would
that not have been the honest way out of
the difflculties?"
PrO-British Answer.
Why is England at war with the Beers?
Because when England gave back the
TransVaal to President Kruger it was
upon two conditions:
First-That the British should be treat
ed on equal terms with the Beers.
Secondhand England should be the
Suzeratn or paramount power.
Yet, Notwithstanding these promises and
the conventions of 1881 and 1884, our fellow
subjects. to whose industry, skill and
capital the Transvaal owes its prosperity,
and who pay most Of the taxes, have been
treated by President Kruger and his gov
eminent with every tndignity, and refused
equal civic rights.
Because the Beers have declared their
intention Of ousting England from that
position, as paramount power, In favor OF
themselves.
Because President Kruger has addressed
an insolent ultimatum to England, prac-
tically ordering her out Of South AFRICA.
Sooner or later there will be fedora
ton of South African states. and the
1,a, 90 %1o TX
depend on the Briton, and not on the
Boer, being the ruling power.
England is at war to protect our felloW
subjects from ignominious oppression; to
country; to insure to all equal political
and civil rights, and to lay the foundation
of lasting peace.
What, is England going to fight about?
This Is the question that Sir II. Camp
bell-Bannerman put in his speech at Maid
stone, on Friday, the 9Th of October,
1t is a question that might fairly be
asked the Boer government, that has
ment.
What the British government have done
Is to ask, as it was their duty to ask Qn
terms SO moderate that they have even
met with the approval of such men as
Mr. Morley, for redress for grave in
Engagements Of the convention Of 1884, and
for wrongs inflicted on their subjects ever
since the Transvaal was made a semi
1881.
The record of unredressed grievances
is by no means a short one.
The following outline Of the history of
the Beers in South Africa shows how
their complete inability to govern justly,
which has brought about the present
crisis, has been the cause of almost con-
slant trouble ever since England's appear
ance at the Cape.
So serious was their misgovernment of
the Transvaal that Englands fellow sub
jects in that country We're living, as Sir
Alfred Miner has said, in the position Of
helots or serfs
1874 Cape Colony ceded to Great Brit
ain. ii
to the determination of the British gov
eminent not to allow them to ill-treat the
natives.
= 1888 Act for the abolition of slavery;
5000 slaves liberated In Cape Colony; re-
sentiment of the Beers. who were the
chief slave owners.
1885, The Great Trek Dissatisfied with
"vexatious laws" in the interests of the
natives, the Beers leave Cape Colony,
and trek north to Natal.
1913 Annexation Of Natal rendered nee
essary "for the peace, protection and sal
utary control of all classes of man The
few years that the peace of the whole of
South Africa was menaced.
1852 The Sand River convention re-
nounces, on the part of Great Britain, all
rights in the Transvaal. A special article
of the treaty bipds-the Beers not to prac-
tice slavery.
1860 Revolt of natives and collapse of
government in the Transvaal, owing to
faction fights and, slaye-raiding.
1877. Annexation of Transvaal to save
Beers from Zulus. Weakened by a severe
defeat by the Bechuanas, the Transvaal
was in danger of being overrun by the
Zulus To avert a general rising on the
part of the natives, and to save the
Transvaal, Great Britain stepped in and,
- ya1
the country.
1879 The Beers, free from pressing
danger, demand independence once more.
which is refused by the Conservative gov
1880. Mr. Gladstone comes into office,
and decides that under no circumstances
can the queens authority in the Trans
wall be relinquished.'
dictate the authority of the crown and
sends out an expedition.
British defeats at Bronker's Spruit,
Laing's Mex, Ingogo and Majuba Hill:
Convention of Pretoria signed by the
Liberal government, granting the Beers
complete self-government under British
suzerainty" During the negotiations,
Mr.. Kruger declared that the Transvaal
so far as burgher rights are concerned
between British subjects and Beers:
There were to be equal rights for al
white men.
Encouraged by their success. the Beers
began to agitate for absolute independ-
ence, free of all control, external as we'll
as internal. These demands are rejected.
but
1884 New convention signed by the Lib
eral government. Though the word "su-
zerainty" does not occur, the Beers agree
by article to enter into no engagement
with any foreign state or tribe, without
the consent of the British government.
Bv article A. complete liberty is given to
aliens to live and trade in the country,
and they are placed on exactly the same
footing as the Beers in respect of taxa
ton. ,o,.
In spite of the conventions, since 1884,
the position of British subjects In the
Transvaal had gone from bad to worse
Far from having equal rights with the
burghers, as promised by Mr.. Kruger In
1881, they were treated as subject, al
most as a conquered, race. While the
Dutchmen at the cape may, ana at TINS
colony. the British in the Transvaal had
no voice of any kind in public affairs.
Their trade was hampered, Justice was
refused them, they were openly insul.eu,
longer secure In spite of the protests Of
the British government they could get no
redress, and they appealed to the mother
country for that protection and justice
which they could not obtain from the
rulers of the country in which they re-
side.
Sir H Campbell himself
SUMS them I'D as follows:
''The Uitlanders have not the municipal
government, the police protection. the Or
ganized maintenance of order, the even
handed administration Of justice, which
as the very elements of civil right and
civil freedom DAILY News, Oct. 4,
1899. This would seem enough answer
to Sir H. Campbell Bannerman's question a
ish government in going to war; But it
Mr Gladstone stated in his letters TO
the ''Loyalists' Uitlanders Of that
dafe-that what was contemplated by the
conventions of 1881 and 1884 was Ito Sc
cI1ra To The settlers. of whatever origin,