The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1901-08-18
new ROCK CAUSES
. A LIBERAL SPLIT.
Lord Kitchener's Proclamation Re-
veals the Serious Diver
gence of Opinion.
POWER TO BANISH ARGUED.
Sir William Harcourt Opposes the
Government, While Mr.. AS
quith Follows Mr.. Cham
berlain for the Time.
BY HERBERT PAUL

SPECIAL By CABLE.
London, Aug. 17.-tCopyright. 1901. by the
New York Herald Company)-Lord Kitch-
ener's proclamation has again brought out
the divergence of opinion existing among
Liberals concerning the war
In the House OF Commons on Thursday.
Sir William Harcourt. supported by Mr..
Bruce. strongly condemned it. while Mr..
Asquith. following MIR. Chamberlain as a
sort of parliamentary Junior. argued with
all his legal ingenuity in favor of the
proclamation. justifying it mainly. though
not solely. on the ground that IT will bring
the war to an end by September Is
Those Boer leaders who have not sur
rendered by that date will he banished
from South Africa for life. and will be
further charged with the maintenance OF
their wives and families.
This somewhat undignified piece of paper
warfare appears to have originated with
the Government Of Natal. who. like many
other people. are tired Of the war.
Observation which naturally suggests it.
self is that even at the end of the war all
South Africa will not be British. Some OF
IL will still be German, some of it Por-
tuguose.
Denies Rights as BeliiGerents.
Moreover. as Mr.. Asquith pointed out in
the Commons the executive Governments
have no power to Danish people by their own
authority. Legislation would be required
in the Cape Assembly and IL that body
still existed it might not assent to it.
Sir William Harcourt roundly declared
that the proclamation refused to the Beers
the rights of belligerents.
II, he said. they were belligerents. as he
contended they were, they had the right
which belongs to all prisoners of war Of
returning to their own country and re-
siding there at the conclusion OF hos
tilities.
Even II they were not beIligerents they
could not be banished without some form
of trial.
OF IesisIation. els though even % an ' act of Par
lament could not keep the Beers out Of
German territory.
Mr.. Chamberlain's Denial.
Mr.. Chamberlain entirely denied that the
proclamation deprived the Beers of any
rights due to beiligerents. His denial is i'm
portant as evidence of his intention.
whether II is well founded or not.
More than year ago, Lord Roberts pro-
claimed all the Inhabitants OF Orange Col
ony taken In arms liable to be shot. This
certainly deprived them of belligerent rights.
but II has never been carried out in prac-
tice.
At that time the war was virtually over.
1t now hardly deserves the name. but II
SOutiuucs.
Mr.. Asquith cannot. OF course. claim to
speak upon this subject for the Liberal
party as a whole.
Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman had an
the end Of the session and gone to
Marienbad.
This was unfortunate. as 1t left the oppo-
sition in a most important debate without
its head.
Oppose War by Proclamation.
I think there can be no doubt that, though
Mr.. Asquith has a following. a large ma
jority Of Liberals throughout the country
agree-I do not say with Mr. Lloyd-George
or Mr.. Bryn Roberts-but with Sir william
Harcourt and Mr.. Bryce
They do not believe in making war by
proclamation at all. and they recognize that
there are only two ways Of establishing
even q temporary peace in South Africa.
One II 70 oner such terms as the Boer
leaders Will accept The other is to COM
pei their submission by force Of arms
For that purpose II seems probable that
large re-enforcements would be required,
while the Government, on the other hand,
eaatsmSlate bringing home . condiserahae