New-York tribune., 1900-03-14
BRITISH TERMS OF PEACE.

The British Government speaks plainly. There
can be no mstaking the purport of its answer to
the BOer plea for peace. 1t will give peace on
one condition, and on that alone That cOndi-
ton is unconditional surrender. The Beers
must yield themselves up to British authority
and to British sovereignty without reservation.
They must give back all the independence they
have enjoyed to the Power which originally con-
ferred it upon them, and must trust themselves
TO the clemency of that Power for such rights as
they are henceforth to enjoy The only thing
they are assured of is that they are no longer to
have even the semblance of independence. Such
is Lord Salisbury's uncompromising answer to
Messrs. Krjger and Steyn's appeal. We shall
see how Ii is received. The Boer Presidents
have intimated that such an answer would be
the signal for continuing the war ito the last
ditch" But it is conceivable that other coun-
sells will prevail.
The phrase unconditional surrender'-which
by the way, Lord Salisbury does not use, though
he means and implies it-sounds q bit harsh.
But it is by no means unfamiliar to American
ears. nor Americans in a position to con-
denim it without condemning themselves. 1t
has been a favorite formula with our best gen.
erals, in several wars, great and small. Nor are
sure that 1t is harsh as ii sounds. Not
only in our own wars but In those of other ma
tons the terms imposed by the victor have been
more just and in the end more satisfactory TO
both parties than those agreed upon by way of
compromise Certainly the result of the COM
promise by which the last TraDsvaal war was
settled was not such as TO encourage repeti-
ton of the experiment. The British assume
that any compromise would be misunder-
stood and its opportunities misused, just as in
1851. Then the Beers thought the British had
given them terms not through magnanimity but
through weakness and fear. 1t is suspected
that they would take the same view of the case
now, and seek in restored independence only
opportunity for further plotting against British
supremacy at the Cape.
Whether that be a justifable suspicion or not.
ii is held by the British and 1t has moved the
British Government to make this reply, in which
the Government will be sustained by the nation
with practical unanimity, the foremost man in
the Liberal party having said that any repeti-
ton of the Majuba compromise would be impos-
sible 1t remains TO consider on what grounds
Great Britain takes action against Boer indie
pendence. So far as the Transvaal Is concerned
Great Britain will be merely maintaining its old
contention that that State is not and never has
been independent. That being so, the conven-
tions of 1884 and 1881, and even of 1852. are
automatically vacated by the war, and the State
reverts 10 its original condition of British col
ony pure and simple. The Orange Free State is,
however on a different plane. 1t has since 1854
been an indisputaby independent international
sovereign State. 1t would be straining a point
10 say that such independence is necessarily for
feited by the war or that the treaty by which it
was granted is automatically vacated by the
war 1t is possible that the British Government
may find justification in the fact that the Orange
State before the formed a federal union
with the Transvaai. That was done on the part
of the Transvaal, in order that-among other
things-the Transvaal might thus participate in
the Orange States international independence