It would be absurd to suggest and it would be unjust to let it be inferred that all those who were drawn into sympathy with the Boers supported or were even cognizant of President Kruger's ultimate aim. It is an everyday experience that the scope of work and ambition expands as one progresses. Whether the strong man really sees his ultimate goal and tackles with magnificent courage the innumerable and seemingly insurmountable obstacles which lie between him and it, or whether in the wisdom and mercy of Providence there is such an adjustment of courage and foresight as prevents him from seeing more than he is able to face, who can say? But what is beyond all doubt is that, given the one strong man who does know his mind, he will lead as the Pied Piper led, and there is no thought in his following to ask the whither and the why.
Given the sympathy and the means, the difficulty of President Kruger's self-imposed task was not so great as at first appeared. To some it was advisable to do no more than point to the Jameson Raid and say: 'We only wish to live in peace and to be left alone.' To some again that act is construed as a sign that the British people wish to upset the two Republics, therefore they must strengthen and be prepared. To others the appeal is made: 'We Dutch are the settlers and owners of the country, we wish for peace, of course, but we must dominate—you under your form of government, we under ours.' To others again it is further advanced: 'Let us negotiate the elimination of the Imperial power; we do not suggest fight, but if we present a united front they must retire peacefully and concede our demands.' And lastly comes the appeal to those who are in sympathy with the advanced republicans: 'Arm and prepare. Some day we shall find England in a difficulty, divided by party or hampered by external complications; it has often happened before and we have always profited. That will be our time to drive them out.'
It would be very unjust to some of the most prominent men on the Dutch side in Cape Colony to leave the slenderest grounds for the inference that they are to be associated with the extreme and actively disloyal aim. All that it is intended to do is to indicate the fine gradations in arguments by which a number are drawn together—under a leadership which they do not realize, and going they know not where! The strongest of these arguments and appeals are particularly popular with the younger generation of Dutch South Africans who entertain a visionary scheme of independence suggested by the history of the United States. But there is something more serious in it than this, as may be deduced from the fact that in December, 1896, the writer was approached by Mr. D.P. Graaff, formerly a prominent member of the Cape Legislative Council and now as always a prominent Afrikander Bondsman, with the suggestion that all the South African born should combine in the effort to create the United States of South Africa, 'upon friendly terms with England, but confining the direct Imperial right in South Africa to a naval base at Simonstown and possibly a position in Natal.' This concession—from South Africa to England—would not, it was argued, involve disadvantage to the former, because for a considerable time it would be necessary to preserve friendly relations with England and to have the protection of her fleet for the coast.
It is of course quite easy to attach too much importance to the opinions of individual politicians of this class, who are as a rule merely shouters with the biggest crowd; but the prominent association of such an apostle of republicanism with the Bond, and the fact that he should have gone so far with a Reformer of known strong British sympathies seem to warrant the attaching of some importance to the suggestion.[{43}] A similar suggestion was made to several of the Reformers at the time of the judicial crisis by one of the judges of the Transvaal High Court, when it was hoped to enlist the sympathies of the Uitlanders with a movement to curtail President Kruger's power and to establish republicanism on a firmer basis in South Africa. In order to forestall an obvious comment, it may be said that discussion was in both cases declined on the ground that it would be participating in politics in the sense forbidden by President Kruger's three years' ban.
The year 1896 was a very bad one for the whole of South Africa. Besides the Raid and the suspense and disorganization entailed by the prolonged trial, the terrible dynamite explosion in Johannesburg,[{44}] the still more terrible rebellion and massacre in Rhodesia, and the crushing visitation of the great cattle scourge, the Rinderpest, helped to produce a deplorable state of affairs in the Transvaal.
Then there was another thing which rankled badly: Messrs. Sampson and Davies were still in gaol.[{45}] The feeling throughout South Africa was reflected in the monotonous announcement which appeared in the Cape Times week by week for thirteen months:—'To-day Messrs. Sampson and Davies complete the—week of their imprisonment in Pretoria gaol for the crime of not signing a petition.' It seemed scarcely credible that the President should still harbour any illusions about his magnanimity; nevertheless, for some weeks before the celebration of the Queen's Record reign it was rumoured that the two prisoners were to be released upon that occasion as a mark of his Honour's sympathy. Opinion had not been unanimous upon the attitude of either the President or the prisoners; but an ugly incident silenced most of the President's apologists. Gold stealing and the purchase of stolen gold were being carried on such a scale and with such impunity that at last, in desperation, the directors and officials of one of the big mining companies (the City and Suburban G.M. Co.), at the risk of being shot by desperadoes, took upon themselves the functions of the detectives and police. They caught 'red-handed' two notorious characters and delivered them over, with the gold in their possession, to the authorities. The thieves actually boasted then that nothing would happen to them as they had 'made it all right;' and a few days later one of them was allowed to escape out of the Court-house buildings which stand in the middle of a large square. The other was convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. He was a criminal of a bad and dangerous type, the head of a gang known to be concerned in gold stealing and burglary as a profession. The penalty was regarded by all parties as most inadequate and the judge himself commented adversely upon the drafting of the law which tended to screen the prisoner. Not one mitigating circumstance was forthcoming! And yet, whilst ignoring a fresh outburst of protest against the detention of Messrs. Sampson and Davies, and whilst the Industrial Commission was exposing the gold thefts and denouncing the complicity of the police, Mr. Kruger decided to remit three-fourths of the sentence and to discharge the thief unconditionally. Is it to be wondered that such ill-advised action called to mind the prisoners' boast, and that it was contrasted prominently with the treatment of the two Reformers?
Three events of importance marked the year 1897 in the history of the Transvaal. The first was the High Court crisis in February; the second, the appointment of the Industrial Commission of Inquiry; the third, the Queen's Record Reign celebration.
The High Court crisis arose out of the case of Brown v. The State, already referred to.[{46}] Brown had acted within his legal rights according to the terms of a proclamation. That proclamation had been illegally withdrawn, and the Government realizing that they would have to stand the consequences of their action in the courts of the country, introduced a law which was immediately passed by the Volksraad, absolving them from all liability, and practically non-suiting all claimants. Mr. Kotzé in his judgment declared this law to be improper and in conflict with the Constitution, and gave judgment in favour of Brown, but left the amount of damages to be determined later after hearing further evidence.[{47}]
The first Volksraad was then in special session, and the President promptly introduced a law known as Law 1 of 1897, which empowered him to exact assurances from the judges that they would respect all resolutions of the Volksraad as having the force of law and declare themselves not entitled to test the validity of a law by its agreement or conflict with the Constitution; and it further empowered the President in the event of his not being satisfied with the character of the replies to summarily dismiss the judges. The judges protested in a body that they would not submit to such treatment. The High Court was adjourned and all legal business was stopped. Particularly emphatic was Mr. Justice Gregorowski. He stated that no honourable man could possibly sit upon the Transvaal Bench as long as Law 1 of 1897 remained upon the Statute Book. At this juncture Sir Henry de Villiers, Chief Justice of Cape Colony, came to Pretoria for the purpose of effecting a compromise and averting a crisis. The compromise was practically an armistice. The judges promised not to exercise the testing right pending the speedy introduction of a measure safeguarding the independence of the courts. Mr. Kruger on his side promised to refrain from enforcing the provisions of Law 1 of 1897, and undertook to introduce as speedily as possible the required new law.
The position in which the President found himself was undoubtedly one of some difficulty, but he chose a very bad way out of it. High-handed arbitrary methods cannot effect a permanent and satisfactory solution of a question of that character, but Mr. Kruger was unwilling to go to the root of the evil and to admit what Mr. Kotzé's judgment had brought home with perhaps too sudden force, namely, that the laws and system of Government were in a condition of complete chaos. The sequel can be told in a few words. In February, 1898, Mr. Kotzé considered that ample time had been allowed by him for the fulfilment of President Kruger's promise. Sir Henry de Villiers thought it proper to allow more time. The point of difference between Mr. Kotzé and Sir Henry de Villiers was the interpretation to be placed upon the expression 'this session,' which had been used in the previous February when the President had said that if he did not introduce the proposed measures this session, the judges might consider that he had failed to keep his promise. Mr. Kotzé contended that as the Raad was then in session it meant that session, and that in any case that session and another had passed, and a third was in progress and there was still no sign of the promised measures. Sir Henry de Villiers stated that in his opinion the reasonable construction would be that Mr. Kruger meant the following ordinary session, and that only ordinary sessions could be considered (for in each year there are one special and one ordinary session), so that the President might be entitled to claim the whole of the year 1898 within which to fulfil his promise, but that this would be the extreme limit of forbearance, after which failure could only be regarded as a breach of faith. Sir Henry de Villiers in fact defended Mr. Kruger. Mr. Kotzé, however, held to his opinion; he wrote to the President reminding him of the undertaking, charged him with failure to keep his promise and withdrew the pledge which he had given. The President promptly exercised his right under Law 1 of 1897, and dismissed Mr. Kotzé, who had served the country as judge and chief justice for over twenty years. Whatever the merits of the particular case may be it appeared to be a shocking exhibition of arbitrary power to dismiss without compensation, pension, or provision of any sort, a man no longer young, whose services had been given for nearly a quarter of a century, who in the extreme dilemma of the Raid had stood by the President, and who, from some points of view, must be admitted to have served him 'not wisely but too well.'