THE KRAUSE CASE.

SENSATIONAL EVIDENCE AT BOWSTREET.

REMARKABLE LETTERS.

CHARGES OF TREASON AND INCITING TO MURDER.

The case for tho prosecution by the Crown of Dr. Frederick Edward Trangott Krause on the charges of high treason and inciting to murder was stated in detail at Bow-street on October 8, before Sir Franklin Lushington. The magistrate took his seat a few minutes after 11 o'clock, and the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Earl of Desart, occupied a position on the Bench. Mr. 11. D. Muir, as counsel for the Treasury, at once begar his opening statement. Dr. Krause, attired in a " reefer" suit of pale striped blue, had a moment before been conducted from the cells of the Court to the dock. Accused, exhibiting a cheerful air, smiled when recognising individually a group of ladies who occupied prominent places among the privileged spectators. Ol of these was Mrs. Williams, the sister of exPresident Steyns and another was Mrs. Dixon, prisoner's own sister, accompanied by her daughter. Dr. Krause stood at the bar for a few moments, and then sat down. Accused took notes, which were, from time to time, passed to Sir George Lewis, the solicitor instructing Mr. Rufus Isaacs, K.C., Mr. Mackarness, and Mr. Noad foi the defence. His manner was calculated, occasionallv, to convey the impression that he was amused at the interpretation which counsel for the prosecution sought to place upon statements contained in the letters now produced in Court. These documents will, altogether, make up a very considerable batch of exhibits—many more than are, as a rule, necessary in criminal proceedings — but the course of the inquiry showed that the list was not completed by those which arrived at Southampton afew days ago from the Cape. The case preferred against Dr. Krause nests very largely upon documentary evidence which has on different occasions come into the possession of the military or civil authorities, and it will not be closed until all available testimony of the kind is , at hand. Presenting the facts, as advanced by the Crown, in the clearest and most concrete form, Mr. Muir endeavoured, as far aspossible, to divide the correspondence into two parts—one intended to establish the first charge, that the prisoner, when on parole in England, engaged in a treasonable' conspiracy with a view of aiding the Boers and abetting them in the prolongation of the war; the other directed to prove that the prisoner, in letters which he wrote while resident in England, incited certain persons to murder Mr. John Douglas Forster, the President of the South African League in Johannesburg. The first part of the case Dr. Krause appeared to view with a light heart; but his manner was more serious when Mr. John Douglas Forster stepped into the witness-box in personal support of the charge of incitement to murder. In the correspondence introduced as relating to this part of the case the name of Forster is rarely, if ever, mentioned, but the letter "F" occurs in connection with the language which forms the basis of the second allegation. Counsel for accused has, at the outset, challenged the assumption that "F" meant Forster, and Mr. Muir is called upon to furnish other testimony on the point. Mr. Muir. in opening the case, explained that'the prisonei was charged with committing two offences in the Transvaal, which since September 1 in last yea* had been a part of the British Dominions. He was arrested in London on August 31 last on a provisional warrant, charging him with being guilty of high treason in the Transvaal. In addition to high treason the prisonei was now charged with inciting to murder. These proceedings were taken with the object of having the prisoner sent bad to the Transvaal. Prisoner was a burgher of the South African Republic while that Republic was in existence. He was the first Public Prosecutor in Johannesburg prior to the outbreak of hostilities, and continued to act in that capacity, and also as c special commandant, until the 29th of May, 1900. On that day the British forces under Lord Roberts reached the outskirts} of Johannesburg, and a message was sent into the town demanding its immediate and unconditional • surrender. One of the messengers was Mr. Douglas Forster, a British subject, and a member of the British forces, who had been in Johannesburg for some time before the outbreak of hostilities, and left because he was aware that warrants were out for the arrest of himself and other persons on account of the legitimate agitation going on about that time. Mr. Forster was summoned from Capetown to proceed to join the Headquarters Staff, and was with the Headquarters Staff when Lord Roberts arrived at Johannesburg. Prisoner was in charge of the town, and *te obtained from Lord Roberts an armistice of 24 hours, on the ground that it might prevent serious fighting in the streets. Lord Roberts afterwards wrote and thanked him for having preserved order and tranquility. Mr. Muir went on to state that detendant reported t. Dr. Leyds, at Paris, that ho utilised the 24 hours' armistice by adding, as he described it, to the ariaed forces in the Transvaal, and claimed credit for having done so. While he was in Johannesburg prisoner took an active part on behalf of the burghers and ex-burghers in advocating their rights against the military. He obtained permission to appear before the military tribunal. Douglas Forster was acting as legal adviser to the Military Governor, and on his recommendation it was decided that no one who had not taken the oath of allegiance should be allowed to practise in the Military Courts. Prisoner protested unsuccessfully against this nile, and, as he declined to take the oath, his practice ceased, and he left Johannesburg on parole. Prior to this he had been selected, as one of the prominent inhabitants of Johannesburg, to ride on trains entering and leaving the town, to prevent their being wrecked, and had unsuccessfully pleaded bad health as an excuse. In October, 1900, prisoner was in Paris. ' On the 23th of that month he wrote to D.. W. J. Leyds, who then represented the South African Republic in Europe, and received » reply that., as he was not in a good monetary position it would not be necessary fo. him to gc to Marseilles to a demonstration upon the arrival of ex-President Kruger, which took place there. Prisoner afterwards sent a long report to Di. Leyds, in which he sought tc justiiy himseli for surrendering Johannesburg, and said he consulted a number of Republican generals before doing so. He said he might have handed over to the enemy an orderly town, but it was an empty one, "for he sent in gold and money from Johannesburg to Pretoria £180,000. He said that there were othe* subjects on which he could report, but could better do so by word of mouth. That was probably one of the objects with which the letter had been ' sent. Counsel proceeded to read other letters, in which prisoner said he was practically ruined by the war. On the Bth of December prisoner applied to the War Office for an extension of his leave, and was told that his parole would be extended until further orders, but on no account was he to return to South Africa. He wrote from Woburn Place, Russell Square, protesting against the order as to his no* returning to South Africa, and said he was placed in a very peculiar position, as, judging by the utterances of several public men, he had become a British subject. However, he was told that he must not go back. On February 25 there appeared a letter in the Times signed Markham, but it would be proved that it was written by the prisoner. It described Mr. Douglas Forste M who had been with defendant in Johannesburg, as a man of doubtful character. It would be proved that prisoner was in constant communication with a man named Broeksma, who was his colleague ir Johannesburg!. The latter obtained information froir burghers who were fighting the" British forces in the Transvaal, and forwarded it to the press, who in turn sent it to the representatives , of the South African Republic in Europe, and be was the channel through which news from Europe was, sent to South Africa. Both prisonei and Broeksma were interested in maintaining the struggle ' against the British forces in South Africa, and each <J them m. in his different sphere doing his ■best on behalf of ■ that object. Information more or less reliable was sen"- by Broeksma to prisoner, in order to be published iin,i England and other European countries, and returned in print to South Africa in order to encourage the people there to prolong their Htruggle against the British forces, and for the purpose of getting some Euro- 1

pean Power to intercede on behalf of the Boers. In amy country in the possession of a law of treason it was obvious that this was treasonable. Mr. Muir went on to read the following letter from defendant to Broeksma, whom he addressed as "Brooks": — "Dear Brooks,—Sincere thanks for your letter. It was really a pleasure for me to hear from you. The position appears to be very miserable, and I hope from my heart that our people will hold out, as I am also now gradually becoming convinced that we shall ultimately obtain the victory. It is regrettable that our people did not fight in this way at the commencement. Now only have they discovered to their regret who and what these miserable wretches are. I can never tell you with' what contempt I look down upon them. Their arrogance and pride appear to know no bounds. I have read your letter to various people here. Here we, of course, hear about nothing else than victory upon victory, and I can give you the assurance that the news is sometimes of such a kind that even I begin to waver in .ny trust and courage. The peace negotiations seem to have ended in failure. They are sure to have proffered such terms as our people could nob with self-respect accept. I quite agree with you that we shall have a bitter Ireland in S.A. The newspapers inform us how that arch-scoun-drel Sir A. M. has arrived in Johannesburg. What do you think of such a person ruling us—the enemy ot our national existence and the willing ' tool' of the Jingoes? What has become of the people of our Department? Which of them has accepted an appointment? Pleas* give hearty greetings to .those only who have remained true to their people. They have again sounded me here as to whet-he I also would accept an appointment. My reply was not very polite. Give my compliments to L. E. and W. van Digglelen, also to Martin, Melcler, Volt, and other friends. lam cornered here, and may not even go to Capetown or Durban. Greetings to the wife, Jacob* Spinnekop, etc. With best wishes.— K." Counsel proceeded to refer to a letter to W J Williamson, which, he said, was obviously Dr. W. J. Levds. the emissary m Europe of the South African Republic. Mr. Kufus Isaacs objected to this bein fe put in, but his objection was over-ruled. "MEDICINE" or AMMUNITION. Mr. Muir explained that the letter referred to alluded to medicine. In some of the letters "medicine" was used in its rational sense, but it was remarkable in this letter that although sugar and clothes and coffee were mentioned there was no mention of ammunition. Other letters showed that defendant wrote several times to Levels for money and received two sums ot £40. In other letters allusion was made to " bottles of medicine" which had been delivered safely without being opened, and appeared to have done some people good. Then came a letter from a Marie Pleydall, who wanted some information respecting a man named Fitzpatnck, formerly at Johannesburg. The nest letter was dated June 14. In this defendant referred to Mr. Douglas Forster. He explained to Broeksma that Mr. Forster had brought an action against him, because in a letter he had described him as a man of doubtful character, and wished to hear if he knew anything about him. The next letter was from Marie Playdall, in which she stated that she translated the Daily News to ex-President Kruger every day, and referred to the '" cruelties" brought to light by Miss Hobhouse. Defendant next wrote to Broeksma a letter, in which he said he had sent medi.-ine to Williamson and Mrs. Pi , who was supposed, said Mr. Muir. to be Mrs. Reitz, the wife of a State Secretary still at wax with England. On Mr. Muir reading a letter from the prisoner, in which he said someone might discover the secret of the " medicine." Mi. Isaacs again objected, but Sir Franklin Lushington said he was sure. Mr. Muir would do nothing unfair. Mr. Muir explained that he was " piecing the case together, and it was difficult to do so without reading the letters." Broeksma used two letter boxes in Johannesburg, in different names, and the defendant sent letters to both boxes. One of the letters from defendant to Broeksma proved three things, laid Mr. Muir. It showed that Dr. Levels was Dr. Williamson, it showed that Broeksma was applying to the Republican Government in Europe for money, and that prisoner.was the (.channel through which communications were made.

Going on to refer to the second charge, Mr. Muir explained that when Mr. Douglas Forster was at Johannesburg he was president ot a society for upholding the rights of 'he Uitlanders, and consequently came into conflict with prisoner. A British subject, named Edgar, was killed by a policeman named Jones. Jones was charged with manslaughter, and the prisoner admitted him to bail in £200. The depositions wero carelessly taken, and Mr. Forster saw the witnesses and took down theh evidence, which was afterwards published in the Johannesburg Star. He protested, too, against the smallness of the bail, on the ground that English subjects often had to find £1000 bail for less serious offences. There was, therefore, friction between prisoner and Mr. Forster before they left Johannesburg. On June 14 prisoner wrote to Broeksma for information to justify his statement about Mr. Forster. Broeksma wbote that Mr. Foister had been living with a lady- Then prisoner, referring to Mr. Forster, wrote saying : "In some legal manner this man must be got out of the way, cost what it may. His influence is damaging." . .In another letter respecting Mr. Forster the prisoner wrote: — " Everything is going on here in the same old way. The lies published here are unbelievable, and the person " F," of whom 1 wrote is the cause of this. ... 1 want our people to be kept aware of this, so that be can be shot dead in some lawful way, or otherwise put out of the way. It. is absolutely necessary. The sooner the better for our cans2."

On August 24 Broeksira was arrested, and afterwards letters from prisoner, addressed in the names of Brooks and Broeksma, were found at his house. One advised him to get " F'' shot or legally put out of the way. After the man was in custody one of prisoner's letters was received, in which he said "F" should be put out or the way. Afterwards a letter, addressed to Broeksma, was received at Johannesburg from prisoner, in which he asked for particulars as to the woman paid to have been living with Ml". 1 Forster, but saying he only wanted to know if the " other business" with regard to " F" had not been carried out. " The latter," he said, "I should of course prefer.'*?' That, said M.. Muir, was certainly an incitement to mnrdei. On May 16 defendant sent a letter, signed "F," saying: "I hear that all our turncoats have got the sack. How delightful. Serves them bally -well right. You can have no respect for such people. About three weeks ago 1 was in Belgium and Holland. The old boss is livelv and wel His eyes are practically cured."

In one letter from Broeksma to accused the latter acknowledged the receipt of a copy of the La,. Journal, which was said to be used as a cover for treasonable documents. Mr. Muii, after stating that in his opinion the letters as to shooting Mr. Forster were an incitement to murder, lead copious extracts from a pamphlet entitled "Faithful Afrikanders," in which a parallel was drawn between the position of the Boers now r.nd that of the Americans a: the American War of Independence. The writer of the pamphlet contended that shooting was too good for; a traitor, and suggested that he should be hung up. In conclusion, counsel said that he proposed to submit such evidence as would induce the Court to order thai accused be sent to prison to await his return to South Africa.

The firs' witness was Mr. H.i B. Cox, barrister-at-law, and Assistant Under-Sec-retary of State for the Colonies, who formally proved that since September 1, 1900, the Transvaal had been ■ British colony, and produced the Proclamation of annexation issued by Lord Roberts on that date. Cross-examined : Broeksma had been tried by Military Law, and shot. Mr. John Douglas Forste,, a membei of the English Bar, and a Justice of the Peace for Johannesburg, stated that he was called to the Bar in 1871. He went to the Cape in 1876. After living at Kimberley he went ; to Johannesburg. He did not practice there, except as a Jurist. After the Raid he took an active part in South African politics, and was a member of the South African League, of which he eventually became president. It was an association for upholding South African supremacy, and to give equal political rights tc everyone in the Stateeveryone, that- was to say, who had political rights in his own country. He manifested his political opinions in many ways. Witness bore out Mr. Muir's statement as to the loose way hi which a police-

man who had killed a British subject was prosecuted. Ho poniridered that Whe bail offered was ridiculously low, and took care to have the evidence, as taken by himself, published. While he was in Johannesburg he wrote for the Pall Mall Gazette, and expressed his opinions fully, as he held strong views. Mr. Muir: Was it on the Boer side? Witness : No; I wanted to end the war as soon as possible. Witness went on to explain he was in the Rand Rifles, but was only once called out, Mr. Muir: I think you were then too late. Witness: Yes. (Laughter.) Mr. Forster, proceeding, said that when Lord Roberts sent Major Davies into Johannesburg to demand the surrender of the town he accompanied him. Prisoner was in charge of the town, and on being told that Lord Roberts wished to see him he said, "And suppose I refuse?" Major Dalies said, "I think you had better come," and he went.

Questioned with regard to the libel action, witness said the paper had apologised, and he had accepted the apology. The ac tion against prisoner was still pending. Witness was shown the letters relating to what was proposed to be done with " F," and said that to the best of his belief they related to him.

Prisoner was remanded on the understanding that the case would not be gone into again until the remaining evidence reaches England in about a month from the present date.