The Transvaal "Republic."

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 9299, 29 July 1901, Page 5

The Transvaal "Republic."

Facts to be Remembered. Pro-Boerism every now and again raises its head in the vain endeavor to show what a fearfully unrighteous war thi3 is, and what a violation of all the principles of eternal liberty it was to interfere with the so-called Transvaal Republic. In view of this fact, it may be as well to republish a letter that appeared some time ago in the J\ T civ ) orlc Jribune, written by a lady in Capetown, and afterwards reprinted in the London Times :—■ Sir, —It is with grief and disappointment that an American in the Transvaal reads the extract in the Tribune of Dr. Park hurst's Thanksgiving Day sermon. That a n;an who lias been so conspicuous far clear thinking, who has rendered such signal service to the present generation of younger clergymen in the great deco ninatio i lie represents, should have lapsed into such confusion of thought in regard to the Boer-Britieh war is JamentabJe. He says, " If the Americans of today felt as the Americans of 1776 felt, the great body of American citizenship would rise in grand protest against the snuffina out of republican independence in South Africa." "Republican independence" — two words dear to every true American heart;. but in the case of the Transvaal controversy absolutely misleading. In name only does a republic exist in the Transvaal. Does a republic persistently disfranchise 'two thirds of its male white population, keep them disfranchised, and frame laws for disfranchising their children? Does republican independence permit the arbitrary imposition of taxes on this two-thirds majority of unrepresented citizens, taxea which are cunningly contrived to fall on this class alone, which ore so excessive as to render all but the richest mines unworkable, which render the necessaries of life dear beyond all reason, and which enonnoua taxes, worst of all, do not benefit the Transvaal, but go into the pockets of a few people ? Was that the American spirit of 177b ? Does a republican minority tax a republican majo-ity tor an enormous secret service fund ? Does a republican minority tax an unfianchised majority, forbidcen to carry arms, to build and equip huge forts, which at a moment's notice can be used against a defenceless people ? Does not republican independence include the freedom of the Press and the right to hold public meetings ? Does it not ensure trial by a jury composed of ontj's peers ? Can a true republic permit its President to dismiss its judges, reverse their decisions, and command its Legislature to pass a law declaring that the judges were not entitled to test the validity of a law by its agreements or conflict with the Gonstituiion ? Can an agglomeration of 100,000 people —American, English, ofermans, h rench— endure for any length of time impositions like these ? Is not the righteous intuition of the civilised world against it V. And when, in the face of facts like these, a clergyman of keen thought talks about "snuffing out republican independence " doea he not thereby put aside something of his directness of thought ? For one does not " snuff out" great forta, vast armaments, splendid cavalry and artillery, and the strategic skill of Borne of the finest mercenaries in the world (who, Br. Parkhurst should know, are this time vrith the Boers, not with the British). One attacks them and takes them slowly, painfully, and eolely and only in the name of truth, righteousness, and justice. A sufficient answer to many people is fieeident Kruger's oft-repeated assertion, "We do not waut the uitlandere, we did not ask them to come; this is our country, let them leave it if they don't like our ways." True enough. He does not want them now, but he did want them juat after the London Con-

vention, when, wishing to raise money, his secretary was instructed to write from the Albemarle Hotel on December 21, 1883, " This Government will view with satisfaction the development of properties on which concessions have been granted," and he assured the companies that they could count on Government protection. Then the penniless President desired the uitlander. Now the millionaire President would like the uitlanders to leave the mines they have fairly bought and fairly paid for, ( which they have spent tens of millions sterling in developing, and which have made Mr Kruger and his oligarchy rich in millions; he would like them to leave these mines to his and their further delectation. And this a Christian minister describes as a " sanctified mulishness inherited from Dutch ancestors who fought the Spanish Inquisition." Is there the slightest parallel between fighting for liberty to worship God according to the dictates of one's conscience and fighting for extortionate taxation without representation? And is fighting England at the close of the 19th century the same as fighting Spain at the close of the 16th century! Stella M. Seymour. j