New-York tribune., 1900-12-15

theology and their inconvenientIy modern
rifles; and the subsequent pages furnish ample
evidence Of the correctness of this opinion. He
might also have added that the Beers still re-
garded themselves unconquered and
cOnquerable when his book went to press
OF his discussion of the events which led up
to the war and OF the negotiations which pre-
ceded it il is needless to speak in detail. He
adds nothing 10 our knowledge Of these matters
and has nothing to say about them that es-
pecially suggests criticism. Partisans OF the
Boer will not, doubtless. accept without qualifi-
cation some OF his statements, but his views
seem TO US to be for the nest part markell by
fairness and truth. His general conclusion, that
while the conduct Of the British Government
toward the Transvaal Beers was occasionally
unjust and often stupid there was no deliberate
intention 10 oppress them, and that IL the Beers
themselves had shown desire TO do ordinary
Justice to the outlanders. whom Great Britain
was bound TO protect. the war need never have
occurred, is, we believe. sound one. The truth
OF the matter probably is that. as Dr. Doyle
maintains. with the increase of their strength
and wealth. after the discovery OF the gold
mines, the desire Of the Beers TO revenge them
selves upon England and to dominate South
Africa became irresistible, and that they delib-
erately allowed matters TO come to a point
where a conflict inevitable. They believed
that they could whip the British; they wanted
20 whip them; they tried it. and they nearly
did it. And why. as DR.. Doyle very fairly says,
should they not try il? why should they not
have their own views as 10 the future of South
Africa? Why should they not endeavor to have
one universal flag and one common speech?
Why should they not win over our colonists If
they can. and push us into the sea-" From
their point Of view there was nc reason why
they should not. But from the British point Of
view there was every reason why they should
not This is the gist of the whole matter. In
the future historians. imagine, will place less
emphasis than we do now upon individual acts
Of Injustice on one side the other, and more
upon this fundamental race antagOnism. 1t
was another case of ''irrepressible conflict"
Dr. Doyle's account of the marching and fight
ing and besieging is not only. as have said.
clear and graphic; il is also marked by sound
understanding Of the strategicaI ana tactical
questions involved. This was hardly to be looked
for in a writer of his literary antecedents. He
makes, OF course, no pretence of soec,al tecAni-
cal knowledge but even military specialists will
find some of his comments instructive. ON the
whole. he emphasizes the criticisms OF British
tactics which were made while the struggle
was in progress. and increases ones respect for
the military skill as well as bravery OF the
Beers. He makes il clearer than ever that the
British officer, superior and subordinate, was
totally unable to adapt himself TO the con-
ditiOns with which the clever defense Of the
Beers. with their modern weapons. brought him
suddenly face 10 face. The wooden precision
with which the British walked into trap efter
trap would be amusing II II not pitiable
from the loss OF life which IT entailed. In the
single matter Of frontal attack under obviously
impossible conditions the needless loss OF life
must have been D per cent OF the total for the
war. Even Kitchener could not keep his hands
OF this sort OF butchery, and II is interesting
10 note that DIR. Doyle censures him as sharply
as he does Butler, or Methuen. Gatacre. or
the useless and bloody attack on cronje on
February IS he says:
There was only thing which apparently
should not have been done and that was 10
attack him. IL must be a bold soldier
and far bolder civilian, who would venture 10
question operation carried out Under the i'm
mediate personal direction OF Lord Kitchener;