ZULUS AND NATAL.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 263, 30 July 1908, Page 7

ZULUS AND NATAL.

DINIZUIII'S saurycolonial AND HOME GOVERNMENTO. , ' ■>. . / NATIVE INFERENCES. (by TELECiRArn—I'RIiSS ASSOCIATION —COPY iII.HIT.) Durban, July 23. With regard to tho. differences between. Natal and the Imperial Government (which proposes to pay Dinigulu's salary, payment s .of wl)ich 'was, stopped "by Natal), Sir Jas. L. Hulett.(ex-Speaker..of the Natal Legislative Assembly, and head of a tea-planting firm) . has .given; noticb 'in ilio Natal Assembly to. movfl aa follows:— "That tlio Imperial Government's .decision, to pay pinwilus salary is • ; : .fraughtwith serious daiigbr to Natal and South Atrica, and may tend to > :' , ; defeat tho -ends .of justice, through ; ;. : the natives..drawing., ail : inference ~ that .Great Britain is, backing Diuiisiilu against Natal." . , , London, July .20. The/Secretary, of State,for.War (Mr. Huldane) ..states'that- there aro. 9,00 regulars in JiataL ■ . ■ ... • ' BRITISH CRITICS. ' ' / ' HOME GOVERNMENT AND INDEMNITY. ■ When the Imperial, Government ''criticised Natal's paction in stopping Dinizulu's salary as a Government-appointed Natal replied that' his arrest ou a* criminal charge' (treason and incitement to murder) implied suspension froiii :the\ civil service, and therefore stoppage of . .his salary.. Recently . the Under-Secretary . for,the Colonies (Lieut.-Col. Seely) stated that the .-Imperial government had 'decided to pay Dinizulu's salary. The; passing'by the Natal Legislature a few days, ago of the: Indemnity Act. which ratifies actions committed, under lnartial law in con-' 1 noction with the Zulus, marked apparently the • conclusion of martial law, the "rolonged exist-, erico of. which Has aroused .so much criticism .at Home.;-. ', A recrudescence 'of unrest would niean piore martial'law, and the above cablegram makes, it clear that, |n : that-ease, Natal ..is preparing. to blame the Imperial • Govern- .. ment. r .The letter's assent.is necessary to the . Indemnity Act. . . . .. •In , January a memorial; was / forwarded hy soiile peoplo at Home to the then Premier, Sir Henry .Campboll-Bannerman, 'condemning resorts to martial law," and. suggesting that tho Government should indicate to Natal that their assent .'to-the Bill of .Indemnity would only be given upon v most "stringent reasons he- , irig shown;- In the , course ot' his 'reply,- Sir ■ : Henry Camp'uiill-Bahnerman said: , "Iu your protest against any habitual' resort to. martial law, which ought , nover to be extended to any district .where there is .not.farmed resistance ! to; the authority of the Crown, which cannot be dealt with by the. military acting merely in did of .the civil power.-in the ordinary manner, :you have my entire sympathy and that of all my . colleagues. . .• .Under these circumstances, I prefer not to discuss" the; proposition ■ that.'it' could ,be' necessary fpr his. Majesty's Government to -take sd. serious , a .stofe as that ; , of' advising his,* Majesty to signify his 'disal.' lowance .of an'act- of indemnity, after it has received the; approval of, such a Colony, as Natal, 'which, is -fully responsible for. peace, , order, and good government. within : its, own. borders." ' ■ ' '' • ■.' ,

Following -on -this statement' by the Prime Minister,, Sir,' Frederick Pollock, constitutional lawyer, declared, in a letter, to, "The Times," that "the! proposal that the. Home Government should disallow; an Act of Indemnity passed by an " autonomous Legislature, .can '"only appear, monstrous to any one who.'lias seriously studied.the, vo.xed,problem of ' martial'law. 1 > The .'cortaiji; effect of such disallowance,Jn the present, 'doubtful state of the common 'law on the subject,'would bo to expose, competent person's, who had acted in good faith in circumstances of. reasonably apparent 'emergency, to vexatious 'actions and prosecutions."

The attitude of the present : Government is perhaps best indicated by a statement in the Hoiise of; Commons on May ; 11,,.by the. Undei> Secretary for the Colonies (Col.;' Seely), who said he feared he could not' make any an»nouncement as. to jflie .termination of martial law in ,the colony,'because martial law could not'come to an end until' the Legislature had passed", the usual .'Act. of Indemnity, without' which' acts done under martial daw .were -liable to actions in the Courts. It would be mani-. festly ; unfair to the humble instruments of Government, who, of course, acted under the orders of superiors, not .to pass such an Act of .Indemnity, because in . its. absence . they would be'liable to suffer pains and. penalties under the ordinary law, and for that reason ..it. was the universal practice to. maintain mar- ■ tial law until the Act of Indemnity was passed. Mr. ; Byles .(Liberal) ;asked whether it was proposed;to draw a wet sponge over, all their wrongdoing. Colonel Seely said he could not accept that statement. 'It opened up the larger question of, the methods of martial law in, general. The Parliament of NataL would meet in' the course ■ of the next'two or three weeks, ,and : the Act of Indemnity would then : be presented, and it .was hoped then that -martial . law would come to an end. Although martial law existed ' nominally, * yet, fn the • words '.. of Mr. Mooi\ .the Prime Minister, it was "practically not in existence." The Governor, who objected at the start against martial law, said that dufing his ; tour in Zululand. lie; saw ' practically. no trace of martial law,.and the natives di.d not complain of martial law, although they com'plained of a good many other subjects.