(Signed) JOHN HAYS HAMMOND.
Pretoria, April 27, 1896.
An incident which occurred during the reading of this statement enabled the prisoners to realize how poor would have been their chance of a fair trial before a Boer jury. On the right hand of the judge seats had been reserved for higher officials. Several members of the Executive were present in this quarter, and amongst them in a very prominent position and facing the quarter reserved for the burghers sat Mr. Wolmarans, a member of the Executive Council. When Mr. Wessels came to that portion of the statement referring to the negotiations with the Executive Council, Mr. Wolmarans at first smiled superciliously, then turned and addressed a remark to one of his colleagues, shrugging his shoulder at the same time, and at the conclusion of the reference looked across the room to where the jurymen sat, still smiling and shaking his head slowly and continuously for half a minute. To men accustomed to the decencies of British Courts of Justice this incident was rather revolting. When it is remembered that the Government refused to produce the minute referred to, and that through their representatives they claimed 'privilege' for the interview at which it was given, in order to absolve themselves from appearing in Court, and that Mr. Wolmarans himself sent the message to the Rand that the Government by the withdrawal of its police gave practical evidence of holding out the olive-branch, his conduct appears the more unprincipled.
The State Attorney in a purely formal address, in consonance with his promise to Mr. Wessels not to seek exemplary punishment, asked for punishment according to law. Mr. Wessels in reply made an eloquent appeal on behalf of the accused and recited the circumstances which led to their seeking redress in the manner in which they did. He referred to the negotiations with the Government, to the part played by the Reform Committee in the maintenance of order, to the fidelity with which they had fulfilled their undertakings with the Government, and to their attitude towards Dr. Jameson. His references to the Government and to the existing abuses were made as judiciously as possible. He referred candidly to the relationship with Dr. Jameson, especially alluding to the efforts made to protect him from the results of his own action and to stand by him even at the cost of personal sacrifice, and claimed that such action towards their former colleague within the limits set by them did not necessarily imply treason against the independence of the State, but should fairly entitle the prisoners to sympathy for their efforts to save a quondam colleague, however wrong he might have been. On the point of law, Mr. Wessels claimed that the Thirty-three Articles formed the basis of the State's law, that there was specific provision for such cases as this in those Articles, and that the punishment to be meted out to the prisoners should be in accordance with these statutes, modified as the Court in its judgment might deem fit. No sooner had Mr. Wessels resumed his seat than Dr. Coster, as was then thought, repenting the fulfilment of his promise and casting off all disguise, or, as is more probable, carried away by an over-mastering excitement and strong personal and racial feeling and stimulated by concentration upon one aspect only of the case, claimed the right to address the Court again after the advocate for the defence had spoken. Dr. Coster has the reputation among those who know him of being a thoroughly honourable and straight-forward gentleman. As a Hollander no doubt he felt deeply in a matter in which Hollanderism was the casus belli; as public prosecutor it was his duty to prosecute, not to judge; and one prefers to think that in peculiar and trying circumstances he forgot the pledge he had given and remembered only the cause of his party. In a short but very violent speech he depicted in the blackest terms the actions of the men against whom he had agreed not to seek exemplary punishment, and pointing out the provisions of the Roman-Dutch law, claimed that the Court should apply it in this case in preference to the statutes of the country, and demanded from the Court the severest possible penalty which could be imposed under that law and under the Thirty-three Articles and the Gold Law as well. With reference to the last-named, Dr. Coster having mentioned the provision regarding the confiscation of property, said that upon this point he would not speak but would leave the matter to the judgment of the Court. The Court was then adjourned until the morning of the 28th, ostensibly in order to enable the judge to consider the evidence and make up his mind.
The majority of the prisoners, utterly unsuspicious of what lay before them, made all necessary arrangements to return to their homes and avocations upon the conclusion of the trial, believing that a nominal fine would be the penalty imposed. Many of them had taken return tickets from Johannesburg available for two days. The public throughout the Transvaal and South Africa anticipated nothing more than a nominal punishment upon the majority and a fine of a few thousand pounds upon the signatories to the letter of invitation.
Some of the prisoners however were better informed. News had been obtained some days before the trial commenced that extra accommodation was being prepared in the gaol, avowedly to provide for the Reformers. Two of the accused visited the gaol and verified this. Others of the accused, few in number, were informed by personal friends who had special means of getting information in Pretoria that imprisonment would be the lot of all and that the punishment on the leaders would be extremely severe; and they provided for this contingency accordingly. The manager of the Government newspaper in Pretoria informed two or three of those interested that the sentence of death would be passed upon the four leaders, as this had been arranged; and men closely associated with the leaders themselves had been confidentially informed beforehand that it was the intention of the Government to pass sentence of death, and that the matter was a cut-and-dried one. The information was given with a view to preparing the prisoners for what awaited them.
On approaching the temporary Court-house (the Pretoria Market Buildings having been altered for this purpose) on the morning of the sentence, it was perfectly evident that some serious development was afoot. The town was thronged with mounted burghers, State artillery, and mounted and foot police. Every approach to the Court was guarded and the streets were patrolled. Most of the population of Pretoria were gathered in the Market Square, endeavouring to gain admittance to the Court. The prisoners were arranged in their former places in a special quarter of the building railed off for the purpose, with the exception of Messrs. Phillips, Farrar, Rhodes and Hammond, who were separated from the rest and placed in a special movable dock, which had been carried in over the heads of the people after the hour appointed for the sitting of the Court. The appearance of this dock was recognized by all to be ominous, but some relief from the feeling of foreboding was experienced when Judge Gregorowski after taking his seat was observed to smile several times and to make some jocular remark to one of the officials of the Court. The faces of the officials however damped any hopes that were built upon the judge's genial appearance.
Many of these gentlemen were personal and intimate friends of the prisoners: some were connected by closer ties; and one of the most trying experiences for the prisoners was to witness the complete breakdown of the minor officials employed in the carrying out of this tragic farce. The judge's first order was for the removal of all ladies. The wives and relatives of many of the prisoners had been warned by them beforehand of what was likely to happen and had accordingly absented themselves, but there were nevertheless a good number of ladies present. Judge Gregorowski then took the case in hand, passed in review the circumstances, and dealt with much of the evidence, including that taken at the preliminary examination and the documents put in by Government which had not yet been seen by the prisoners' advisers. He made no reference to the statement of the principal accused, subject to which their plea of guilty had been made and accepted. He reviewed the law, and by a method of reasoning which has not commended itself to others he justified himself for setting aside special statutes and applying the Roman-Dutch law instead. In conclusion, he stated that he held the signatories of the letter to be directly responsible for the shedding of the burghers' blood at Doornkop, that he would therefore pass upon them the only punishment possible under Roman-Dutch law—namely death, and that whatever hope there might be in the merciful hearts of the Executive Council and in the President's great magnanimity, they should remember that in no other country would they have the slightest grounds for hope. The usual question as to whether there were any reasons why sentence of death should not be passed upon them having been put and the usual reply in the negative having been received, in the midst of silence that was only disturbed by the breaking down of persons in various parts of the hall—officials, burghers, and in the general public—sentence of death was passed, first on Mr. Lionel Phillips, next on Colonel Rhodes, then on Mr. George Farrar, and lastly on Mr. Hammond. The bearing of the four men won for them universal sympathy and approval, especially under the conditions immediately following the death sentence, when a most painful scene took place in Court. Evidences of feeling came from all parts of the room and from all classes of people: from those who conducted the defence and from the Boers who were to have constituted the jury. The interpreter translating the sentence broke down. Many of the minor officials lost control of themselves, and feelings were further strained by the incident of one man falling insensible.
Sentence was next passed upon the other prisoners. They were condemned to suffer two years' imprisonment, to pay a fine of £2,000 each, or as an alternative suffer another year's imprisonment, and thereafter to be banished from the State for a period of three years. It was added that the question of confiscation of their property would be one for the Executive to deal with.
The action of Mr. Gregorowski has been variously described, but at no time more graphically than at the time of the sentence, when a sergeant of police who was guarding the prisoners exclaimed in the peculiar Dutch idiom: 'My God! he is like a dog: he has bitten and chewed and guzzled!'