Chieftainess, Toeremetsjani, is the present head of the Secocoeni
tribe and the head wife of the late chief, Secocoeni. This tribe, it
will be remembered, was the one which successfully resisted the Boers
under President Burger and Commandant Paul Kruger--a successful
resistance which was one of the troubles leading directly to the
abortive annexation of the Transvaal. The Secocoeni tribe were
afterwards conquered by British troops, and handed over to the tender
mercies of the Boer Government upon the restoration of its
independence.

It is necessary to bear these facts in mind in order to realise the
hideous significance of the unvarnished tale.

Now to the trial.

Mr. Advocate WESSELS, who acted for the natives, gauging pretty
accurately what the defence would be, called two witnesses to prove
the _prima facie_ case. Jesaja, one of the indunas flogged, whose
case was first on the roll, proved that he was flogged by order of
Commandant Cronjé without any form of trial, and without any charge
or indictment being made against him, and that he received twenty-six
lashes, the extra one being given because he declined to say 'Thank
you' for the twenty-five. Commandant Trichard next gave evidence, and
from him Mr. WESSELS elicited that Cronjé had gone through no form of
trial, but handed over Jesaja and the other twelve indunas to be
flogged by Erasmus and Schoeman.

Advocate: Do you positively swear that Commandant Cronjé specified
the sentence of twenty-five lashes each?

Witness: Yes.

Which answer was quite in accordance with the pleas of Erasmus and
Schoeman, who stated specifically that they administered the lashes
in accordance with the orders and sentence given by Commandant
Cronjé. The Court held that a sufficient _prima facie_ case had been
made out by the plaintiff, and that the onus now lay on the
defendants to prove their case. The witnesses called were Commandant
Cronjé and Mr. Stiemens, secretary to the former. Mr. Stiemens in his
evidence fully corroborated Trichard's evidence as to the passing of
the sentence by Cronjé upon the indunas and the absence of any
form of trial; and nothing more need be said about this witness. With
Mr. Cronjé's evidence, however, it is necessary to deal at length.
Mr. Cronjé admitted under cross-examination that he had not observed
any particular form of trial, although, as was pointed out, the law
dealing with native trials stated specifically 'that the rules which
govern procedure in civilized courts shall be followed as closely as
possible.' He stated that as regards the Chieftainess, he called her
up and read over to her 'point by point' 'the indictment under
which she was charged,' which indictment, however, as he admitted,
consisted merely of a letter of complaint written by Field-cornet
Schoeman to him as Superintendent-General of Natives. He claimed
that no form of trial was necessary, inasmuch as he acted under the
authority of the President, who has supreme power over natives, and
was not obliged to observe any particular form of trial. 'Point by
point I read the charge,' to use his own words, 'against the woman,
and point by point I could see by her demeanour that she was guilty.'
As regards the thirteen indunas, Mr. Cronjé admitted that he did not
know whether these were indunas. He considered them guilty, not
because they had done anything, but because in their position as
advisers of the Chieftainess they ought to have advised her better
than they appeared to have done. Instructions had therefore been
given to arrest these indunas, and they had caught as many as they
could. There was no evidence to show that they were indunas, or that
they were ever in a position to advise or had advised the
Chieftainess; in fact, it was admitted that they were a lot of
thirteen caught out of a tribe as one might catch so many sheep out
of a flock. Mr. Cronjé denied that he had sentenced these men, and
repeatedly stated that he had handed them over to Erasmus and
Schoeman, to be dealt with according to law.

Mr. WESSELS cross-examined the witness upon this point as follows:--

Advocate: I believe Commandant Trichard accompanied you on this
commission?

Witness: Yes.

Advocate: He was present throughout the whole proceeding?

Witness: Yes.

Advocate: He had every opportunity of knowing what took place and
what was said?

Witness: Yes.

Advocate: You will be surprised to hear that Mr. Trichard states that
you actually passed sentence upon the thirteen indunas in such words
as, 'I hand you over to the Native Commissioner and Field-cornet to
be dealt with according to law. And you instigators will get
twenty-five lashes each between the shoulders.' Do you positively
deny that you said anything about twenty-five lashes?

Witness: Yes, I deny it.

Advocate: Do you deny that you gave any indication or opinion as to
what ought to be done with these men?

Witness: Yes.

Advocate: Well, Mr. Cronjé, I want to know which of you two the Court
is to believe, you or Commandant Trichard?

Witness: Commandant Trichard has made a mistake.

Advocate: No, no, no, Mr. Cronjé, that won't do; there are no
mistakes in this business. I want you to tell the Court which of you
two men under oath is lying and which is telling the truth.

Witness: Commandant Trichard is lying.

(At this point there was some commotion in Court caused by Commandant
Trichard jumping up and making use of some expressions towards the
witness. The matter ended in a rather fierce altercation after the
Court adjourned.) It is only necessary to add that Mr. Stiemans, who
followed Cronjé, fully corroborated Trichard's evidence. There were
many other interesting points brought out by Mr. WESSELS in his
cross-examination, but it is unnecessary to further detail this part
of the proceedings, as the same ground was covered by Mr. Justice
Jorissen, who took the witness in hand and whose cross-examination
brought out the salient features of the case with extreme vividness
and dramatic effect. The Judge first dealt with that portion of the
evidence relating to the so-called 'trial' of the Chieftainess.

Judge: Mr. Cronjé, in your evidence just now you said that you read
over to this woman the charge that was laid against her. 'Point by
point' you say you read it to her, and 'point by point you could see
by her demeanour that she was guilty.' Is that so?

Witness: Yes.

Judge: Very well, Mr. Cronjé, I will take the indictment, 'point by
point,' as you did. Point the first, Mr. Cronjé. (The Judge here read
the first of the seven clauses in Schoeman's letter which formed the
indictment.) Now kindly explain to me what there was in the woman's
demeanour which conveyed to you the idea that she was guilty on this
point.

The witness became considerably embarrassed and did not answer.

Judge: No answer, Mr. Cronjé? Well, we will take point No. 2. (The
judge dealt with all the seven clauses in a similar manner, the
witness failing to make any answer throughout. After the last point
had been dealt with and remained unanswered, the Judge addressed the
witness again amid a most impressive silence in Court).

Judge: Mr. Cronjé, 'point by point' I have read to you the indictment
as you read it to the woman; 'point by point' I have asked you to
give me certain information; 'point by point' you have failed to make
any answer. Well, Mr. Cronjé, I can only tell you this, 'point by
point' I shall set that down in my notes. (After an interval, during
which the Judge filled in his notes, the examination was resumed.)

Judge: Now, Mr. Cronjé, as I understand it, it was in consequence of
Field-cornet Schoeman's complaint to you as Superintendent-General of
Natives that you were sent by the Government to investigate the
matter?

Witness: Yes.

Judge: You called the woman up before you and read to her the
charges.

Witness: Yes.

Judge: You brought no evidence against her?

Witness: No.

Judge: You did not call upon Schoeman to produce any evidence against
her?

Witness: No.

Judge: His letter of complaint to you seemed sufficient?

Witness: Yes.

Judge: You did not give her any opportunity to bring evidence?

Witness: It was not necessary.

Judge: Oh, dear no; I quite understand that 'you could tell from her
demeanour that she was guilty.' But as a matter of form you did not
hear any evidence on her behalf?

Witness: No.

Judge: You just sentenced her out of hand.

Witness: I sentenced her to pay a fine.

Judge: And then as regards the thirteen indunas, if they were
indunas, as you deny sentencing them we need not refer further to
that point, but I put this to you--there was no evidence brought
against them?

Witness: No.

Judge: There was nothing to show that these men had ever advised the
woman or were in a position to advise her; in fact, as far as the
evidence goes, there was nothing to show that they even belonged to
the tribe, but in your opinion they ought to have advised her
differently, and you therefore sentenced them to twenty-five lashes
each.

Witness: I did not sentence them, but handed them over to the proper
authorities to be dealt with according to law.

Judge: Oh, no, Mr. Cronjé, that is not how the case appears to me.
You came up to these people in the capacity of Judge, to do justice
as between man and man according to your lights, to follow the
procedure that is observed in civilized courts, to represent the
strength, the rights, and the responsibilities of this Republic, and
if we are to accept your evidence as true, you did not try the men
whom you were to have tried. You heard evidence neither for nor
against them, but you handed them over to--to whom, Mr. Cronjé? Not
to the proper authorities, but to Erasmus and Schoeman, the other
parties in the case which you were sent up to try. It seems to me,
Mr. Cronjé, that this is a case without parallel.

There was no answer from the witness.

Judge: One point more, Mr. Cronjé, and I have finished. When you
handed over these men to be dealt with, did you notify them that they
had the right of appeal from any sentence that might be imposed upon
them?

Witness: Yes, I did.

Judge: Right! Now, Mr. Cronjé, did you notify Erasmus and Schoeman
that they should stay execution of the sentence pending the hearing
of any appeal?

After considerable pause the witness was understood to say "No."

Judge: You did not tell these officials to stay execution?

Witness: No.

Judge: Then you merely gave these natives the right to appeal against
the sentence of lashes after they should have received the lashes?

There was no answer from the witness.

Judge: That will do, Mr. Cronjé. I do not think that these people
have much reason to thank you for the leave to appeal.

Cronjé was followed in the witness-box by Stiemens, whose evidence is
already referred to, and the Court then adjourned.

The next morning, shortly before the opening of the Court, the State
Attorney came down on behalf of the Government and arranged with
Plaintiffs' Counsel to adjourn for the day to enable parties to try
and settle the three cases out of Court. The Court thereupon
adjourned at the request of parties, and during the day the three
cases were settled on the following basis: The Government refunds
Toeremetsjani the £147 10s. with interest at 6 per cent, from the
date of payment by her to Erasmus, and pays her costs, to be taxed as
between attorney and client.

The Defendants Cronjé, Erasmus, and Schoeman, pay each of the
thirteen indunas who were flogged £25 as compensation, and pay the
costs of Jesaja and Segole, to be taxed as between attorney and
client.


POSTSCRIPT.

One last touch of irony is needed to complete the story of the suits
brought by the Chieftainess Toeremetsjani and her indunas against
Messrs. Erasmus, Schoeman, and the rest. It seems that these same
gentlemen have actually been appointed by the Government to
'investigate matters' in the district where these Kaffirs live. Poor
Toeremetsjani and the unfortunate indunas, as a contemporary remarks,
may be expected to give a grovelling welcome. No more High Court for
them.

The natives, by the way, interviewed since their return to the
kraals, state that they have not yet received the settlement
arranged.

In connection with the above sample of justice to the natives it is
as well to recall another recent incident which has lately taken
place. Some natives being severely mishandled by the local
authorities, and being in consequence destitute of means to proceed
against them in law, applied to Court for leave to sue _in forma
pauperis_. This leave was granted. Immediately upon this becoming
known petitions were got up among the Boers, with the result that the
Volksraad some six weeks ago took a resolution instructing the
Government to immediately bring in a law forbidding the judges to
grant such leave, and making it impossible for a native to sue
Government or any white person _in forma pauperis_. Comment
(concludes the correspondent who sets out these various facts) is
superfluous.




APPENDIX L.

59, HOLBORN VIADUCT, LONDON, E.C.
_6th May, 1897._

REPORT ON THE LETTER WRITTEN ON A TORN TELEGRAM FORM SIGNED "F.R.",
BY MR. T.H. GURRIN, EXPERT IN HANDWRITING.

Mr. THOMAS HENRY GURRIN, of 59, Holborn Viaduct, London, E.C., is a
professional expert in handwriting, recognized and employed by the
Director of Public Prosecutions, the Home Office, and the authorities
at Scotland Yard, and is constantly engaged by them in that capacity.
He is also frequently engaged in the same capacity by the Bank of
England and other public bodies.

He has acted as handwriting expert in a very large number of civil
and criminal cases at sessions, assizes, and before the High Courts,
for over twelve years past, and can conscientiously say that his
experience in the identification of genuine handwriting and the
detection of forged and altered documents is very extensive.

Mr. Gurrin begs respectfully to submit the following report:--

'Having been instructed by Mr. Braunstein, solicitor, of 27, Great
George Street, Westminster, I have examined a photograph of torn
portions of a letter written on a telegram form of the South African
Republic.

'My attention has been directed to the evidence of Major Sir J.C.
Willoughby, appearing at page 302 of the Minutes, in which he has
given his version of the missing portions of this document.

'I have compared this version of the missing words with the vacant
spaces, and I find that the words supplied in question 5,571 would
occupy, as near as can be estimated, the missing spaces, judging from
the other writing in the document.

'I read the first portion of the document as follows:--

'"Dear Dr.,
"The rumour of massacre in"
"Johannesburg that started you to our"
"relief was not true. We are all right;"
"feeling intense; we have armed"
"a lot of men. Shall (not 'I shall') be very glad"
"to see you. We are not in possession of"
"town."

'Major Sir J.C. Willoughby reads line 6, "We (or the Boers)." It
cannot possibly be "the Boers," as the first letter is clearly a
portion of a capital "W," and corresponds with the first portion of
the "W" as made at line 3; and further, there would be no room for
the two words "the Boers," between the portion of the letter "W" and
the word "not."

'Again, I am of opinion that the last word in line 6 was "of," as
there is still visible an ascending curved stroke corresponding to
that with which the writer terminates the letter "f."

'With reference to the rest of the version as contained in question
5,573, I respectfully submit that the missing words supplied are
absolutely inconsistent with the spaces which these words would
occupy if written naturally by the same writer.

'The words "I will bring at least three hundred" do not correspond
with the still existing marks on line 7. The portion of a letter
appearing in the middle of the line would not, as far as I can judge,
be a part of any of the words suggested which would come at the
centre of that line. It might be a part of a capital "W," or an
initial "p," or it might be a final "d" turned back to the left, and
the last letter in the line looks as though it was intended for an
"e." In support of this theory, I compare it with the "e" at the end
of the word "true" in line 3, and the "e" at the end of "intense,"
line 4. The writer, when making a final "d," makes the latter
portion of the letter something like this, but in the instances in
this document he exerts more pressure than we find here, see, for
instance, the "d" in "started," at line 2, the "d" in "glad," in
line 5, and "d" in "armed," line 4. Besides, I cannot think that this
can be the end of the word "hundred," as, judging from the length of
the word "started," the word "hundred" would have occupied from the
third vertical line, and this would certainly leave no room for
the other words suggested in the version given by Major Sir J.C.
Willoughby, viz.: "We will bring at least, or about three." If the
words "will send out some," or "we will send out some," are written
in line 7 after the word "town," adopting, as nearly as possible, the
space that would have been occupied by the writer for these words,
they will just fill the line. In like manner, with regard to line 8,
there is just room after the words "men to" for the two words "meet
you," and the small mark appearing before the full stop might
have been the terminal of the letter "u," but it would have been
impossible to get into this small space the words "meet you at
Krugersdorp," and even if the words "meet you at" were omitted, and
if it be assumed that the word which originally stood there was
"Krugersdorp," then the mark appearing before the full stop could
not by any theory be construed as having been a portion of the
letter "p," as I have examined various specimens of Colonel Rhodes'
handwriting, and have seen him write specimens containing the letter
"p" and find that he does not terminate a "p" with any stroke of this
description, but that he terminates it inside the oval portion of the
letter near the downstroke. With regard to the rest of the line, the
last two letters appear to have been "ne," and there is a dot just in
the position that would apparently have been occupied by the dot had
the previous letter been "i." Consequently, I am of opinion that the
theory that the words "will send," or "we will send out some men to
meet you," "you are a fine fellow," is perfectly consistent with the
spaces left in the torn document, but that the theory that the words
which were originally in the spaces were "I will bring at least or
about three hundred men to meet you at Krugersdorp, you are a gallant
fellow," is not only inconsistent with the amount of space available,
but does not fit in with the letters and portions of letters still
visible.


'T.H. GURRIN.'

Contents of the letter according to a statement signed by Dr.
Jameson, Sir John Willoughby, Major Robert White and Colonel Raleigh
Grey:--

'The rumour of massacre in Johannesburg that started you to our
relief was not true. We are all right, feeling intense. We have armed
a lot of men. I shall be very glad to see you. We (or the Boers) are
not in possession of the town. I will bring at least, or about, 300
men to meet you at Krugersdorp. You are a gallant fellow.'

According to Colonel Francis Rhodes and Mr. Lionel Phillips, the
contents are as follows:--

'The rumour of massacre in Johannesburg that started you to our
relief was not true. We are all right, feeling intense. We have armed
a lot of men. Shall be very glad to see you. We are not in possession
of the town. We will send out some men to meet you. You are a fine
fellow.'

'We, the undersigned, were present in the Reform Committee's room
when Colonel Rhodes despatched the letter to Dr. Jameson, which
commences, "Dear Dr.--The rumour of massacre." We read the letter,
but cannot now recall the exact words on the missing fragments; but
we do hereby declare on oath that there was no offer of 300 men, nor
of any other specific number of men, nor was the word Krugersdorp
mentioned. The spirit of the letter was to suggest that a few men
should or would be sent in the character of a complimentary escort to
show Dr. Jameson his camp.

'GEO. W. FARRAR.
'S.W. JAMESON.

'As witness--
'J. Percy FitzPatrick.
'Johannesburg, _10th April, 1897_.'