KRUGER

AND

ARBITRATION.

Some people say that Kruger offered Arbitration and that England refused it. What are the facts?

On June 9, 1899," his State Secretary Reitz made "the following proposal to Her Majesty's Government."

"1. All future differences between the two Governments shall, subject to what is set forth under paragraph 3...be referred to

Arbitration tribunal, on the understanding, however, that no matter of trifling importance shall be submitted to arbitration."

"3....Each (Government) shall have the right to reserve and exclude points which appear to it to be too important to be submitted to arbitration, provided that thereby the principle of arbitration be not frustrated."

Everything that is of trifling importance, and everything that is of the greatest importance, excluded! By these two "conditions" Kruger excludes every single item the English Government contended for! The grievances of the Uitlanders, and the treatment of the Indian natives, were excluded by Clause 1 as of "trifling importance." The examination of the Franchise Laws

passed by the Volksraad, offered by Kruger himself as a way out of the dispute, was excluded by paragraph 3 as "too important to be submitted to arbitration!"

The whole proposal was a trick to deceive the ignorant into a belief that he offered to submit to Arbitration, and that England refused it. It was as if a man owing a sovereign offered to pay it on condition that he should not be asked for any small silver up to ten shillings, and that he "should have the right to reserve" a half sovereign out of the rest, "provided that thereby the principle of paying debts. be not frustrated."

When two parties in a dispute are really agreed on a principle, but not on the details by which such principle is to be made operative, arbitration is applicable. Thus, after seemingly endless negotiations, in which England had to make all the advances, Kruger last summer, for the first time approached the British Government with an offer. This was of a Seven Years' Franchise. The British Government at once accepted it, provided the law were free from the pitfalls and steel traps, and barbed-wire entanglements that were made "conditions" of every preceding franchise law. They very reasonably asked-they could not possibly do otherwise than ask-for an examination of its details: and were met by the shuffling and evasion and falsehood already pointed out. Paul Kruger, the first and only time that he approached the British Government with an offer (other than counter offers) was met by a prompt acceptance of it, subject to this Arbitration in the form of a Joint Commission, and he point-blank refused it.

Printed and Published by McCorquodale & Co. Ltd., "The Armoury," London, S.E.

Franchise Negotiations.

36.

KRUGER'S INSINCERITY. 79288

T

The negotiations about the Franchise were the result of offers met by counter-offers of Kruger himself as a means of escape from dealing directly with the taxation.

These counter offers were accepted by England, subject to their being straightforward; but every one of them was tangled into knots by "conditions" so complicated that even Kruger himself disputed the time it took to get the full rights, till his own Chairman silenced him. When, therefore, he offered the British Government a Seven Years' Franchise in settlement of the points in dispute, the Government at once closed with it. Of course, if it were genuine, it would bear examination; and the British Cabinet therefore asked that Commissioners should be nominated on each side, to report whether the new law would answer its purpose.

This was arbitration,* and Kruger recognised it as such, and refused it. On August 12th, 1899, [Blue Book C 9530, p. 29] he wrote: "The right of full internal government cannot otherwise than suffer a serious blow, if, as a matter of fact, deputed Commissioners are officially admitted or instructed to decide as judges about the efficiency of a law, passed and promulgated by the highest legislative power in the land, and either ratify it or not."

“Assuming it is merely the intention of Her Majesty's Government to get information with regard to the efficiency of that Law... the end... can be equally well attained by Her Majesty's Government asking questions and obtaining information... in which the [Transvaal] Government proposes

*

"Her Majesty's Government agree to a discussion of the form and scope of a TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION, from which foreigners and foreign influence are excluded.-Telegram Aug. 28th, 1899."-Blue Book 9521, p. 50.

itself willing to assist in order to ascertain the actual effect of these measures, and, if desired by this Government, to offer advice about these subjects."

"In connection with this subject, it conceives itself bound to notice that a judgment can only be proved as to whether a law answers its purpose or not, if it has been in operation some time and suggests whether an enquiry to be set on foot now would not be premature.”

In the next despatch he slips in one of his wily "conditions": "That Her Majesty's Government will agree . . that in future no interference in the internal affairs of the Republic shall take place."

First, he says that he will not accept the Joint Commission, because by deciding either for or against the new law it would strike "a serious blow" at the Independence of the Transvaal.

Next he says any enquiry to prove whether the law "answers its purpose or not" would be "premature," if set on foot until the law had been "in operation some time," which means that later such an enquiry would strike no blow at all at the Independence of the Republic, or he would not, of course, suggest it.

Lastly, he slips in a "condition" which will bar the British Government from stepping in, when the time does come for making the enquiry which is now "premature," inasmuch as it will then relate to "a law passed and promulgated by the highest legislative power in the land," and therefore such an enquiry will be an "interference in the internal affairs of the Republic."

If this is not a sleight of hand of shuffling and deceit carried to its farthest limit, what is?

As soon as the law was passed and it was too late to alter it, the Transvaal Government stated its willingness to permit the enquiry, while significantly hinting that it could do no good. As this would simply have permitted the British Cabinet to offer criticisms for the amusement of Kruger and the Raad, while every abuse complained of would remain untouched, the offer was of course refused, and the Ultimatum followed almost immediately afterwards.

Printed and Published by McCorquodale & Co., Ltd., "The Armoury," London, S.E.

The Uitlanders and the Franchise.

THE CAUSE of the JAMESON RAID.

As the Jameson Raid is alleged by some people to have been the cause of the "Unrest" in the Transvaal [much like saying that it must have been the start caused by the explosion that made the man who fired the gun pull the trigger], let us see what was the treatment of the Uitlanders four months before the Raid, and four years after Kruger had selected the site for his fort for destroying Johannesburg, and several years after he had plainly told the deputation from that town that they would get nothing by "protesting." "Protest! Protest! What is the good of protesting?" said Kruger. "You have not got the guns! I have!"*

DEBATE ON THE FRANCHISE IN

THE VOLKSRAAD.

The Johannesburg Star, August 17th, 1895 [Four months before the Jameson Raid] gives a report of the Debates in the Volksraad on the presentation of the great petition for an extension of the Franchise to the Uitlanders, which bore the signatures of 35,384 persons. In the debate

"The President [Kruger] said those persons who signed the monster petition were unfaithful and not law-abiding These persons should be kept back. They were disrespectful and disobedient." Applicants for the franchise should first prove themselves worthy of it by being naturalized, which they could do by "going on commando "-[that is, serving in the army].

In reply to this "Mr. R. K. Loveday said, I have used the same argument; but what became of such arguments when met with the objection that the law requires such persons to undergo a probationary period extending from fourteen to twenty-four years before they are admitted to the full rights of citizenship, and even after one has undergone that probationary period he can only be admitted to the full rights by resolution of the First Raad? Law 4, of 1890, being the Act of the two *The Transvaal from Within," p. 302.

Equal to a special resolution of the House of Commons being required before anyone could become even a candidate for Parliament. Besides the delays, the simple law costs in getting the vote, said to be £2, were in reality from £10 to £20.-Blue Book C 9518, p. 52.