ernment have sown the wind, and of a certainty will reap the whirlwind, and no man possessing a sense of responsibility can dare approve of the attack made upon the independence of the Judges in the exercise of their judicial functions. A measure which reduces the Judges to the level of mere servants of the President, who shall have the right at any time to interpellate them on pain of instant dismissal, even when a case may be pending against the Government, endangers the liberty of the citizen and the State. This, we repeat, is the issue, and it behooves all men who have interests in this country, or wish well to the Republic, to avoid being led away by the shallow defences made by the apologists of the Government for an attack upon the sacred liberties of the people.

Pretoria, Transvaal.

EXHIBIT 14.

Chief Justice Kotzé's reply to Mr. Kruger's Assertions.

MEMORANDUM.

Saturday, 7th September, 1895.

This afternoon. at 5 o'clock, I had, together with Messrs. P. W. T. Bell, E. F. Bourke, and Dr. Engelenburg (members of the Celliers Memorial Committee), an interview with the State President at His Honour's house. When this interview was over and we had bid the President good-bye, His Honour said, “Judge. I wish to speak to you privately for a few moments." The other gentlemen then left the room and I remained behind, when the following took place between me and the State President. I have thought it necessary, immediately upon reaching my house, to place in writing the following memorandum or notes, which as nearly as possible contain the very words of our conversation:

President: Look, I wish to speak to you a little about the Volksraad resolution concerning the proclamation and lottery of ground. I don't wish to enter into the case itself, but I am told that they have, after lots had been drawn for the ground, again proceeded to peg over the ground, and that they will again bring the matter before the Court. Now, how can this happen, for the

law says a Volksraad resolution is law, and if I have published it then everyone must respect it as law. What is now your view on the subject?

Chief Justice: I do not know anything of the particulars of the case, and of what has taken place on the ground, with regard to the lottery or subsequently, I can in no event speak about that, for if the case should come on there is but one course open to the Court, and that is to enforce the law.

President: Yes, I know, and therefore I speak to you about it; not upon the facts, for possibly my information may not be quite correct, but on the resolution of the Volksraad. What has happened at the lottery, and how the people came up there in numbers and rushed each other, proves that I could not do otherwise than withdraw the proclamation, or murder and manslaughter would have occurred in the land. But, never mind that for the present. What I wish to speak to you about is that the Court must respect the Volksraad resolution. I hear you stated in the Hess case that you had changed your opinion expressed in the case of Doms, and that the Court is not bound by a resolution of the Volksraad. How can this be? The law clearly says that all laws and resolutions, published by me, are of force, and cannot be questioned, only the people can in the following year petition against these, and then the Volksraad can decide whether it will alter the resolution. You must now tell me that you also think that this is so, and strengthen the bond of brotherhood, so that no conflict may arise, otherwise the members and the people will rise against the Court, and I will be in a difficult position. The country may get into great difficulty, rebellion may be occasioned, and you must set my mind at ease. Now tell me what you do think?

Chief Justice: I did not say in the Hess case that a resolution of the Volksraad cannot, under any circumstances, have the force of law. This entirely depends upon the circumstances. I said that I had altered the opinion expressed by me in the McCorkindale case in certain respects. Everything proceeds from the people. The Court must inquire whether a given law be indeed law, and whether a law or a resolution is in conformity with the Grondwet. President: Oh, Now you speak too indistinctly. How can you say so? The Volksraad is the highest authority, and every

no.

one must respect the resolutions and laws of the Volksraad, as published, and submit thereto; otherwise there will be discord and conflict. You may be sure of that, and I can take an oath to that effect, that if the Court does not respect the Volksraad resolution, then there will be trouble. The Volksraad will rise up against the Court. Look, when the other day the case for an interdict came on, several of the Volksraad members told me the Court would reject the resolution, and I defended the Court, and said the Judges would act according to the law and do justice, and not reject the resolution. Now, you see, I always stand up for my Judges, but if you (i. e., the Judges) reject the resolution of the Volksraad, then I fear for the consequences. I will then be obliged to suspend you. (Chief Justice smiling.) Yes, you laugh over it. It is a serious matter. A conflict will surely happen, and such is discord and danger to the State. How will I get the people satisfied again?

Chief Justice: I smile because the President speaks of suspension. A conflict between the Volksraad and Court is certainly a serious matter. I do not think lightly of the consequences resulting therefrom, and I do not fear it. The Court never acts hurriedly or precipitately. The Court will do its duty and maintain the Grondwet and other laws. Why should this cause discord? The people are too sensible for that.

President: Now, yes; but set my mind at ease that you Judges will respect the resolution of the Volksraad. You can do nothing else, for you, too, stand under your oaths. Is, then, a resolution of the Volksraad, the highest authority, not binding on every one?

Chief Justice: I can say no more than that a law properly passed, and a resolution taken according to law, may be of force as far as it goes.

President: But how must I now understand you?

Chief Justice: Say, for instance, that eleven members of the Volksraad pass a resolution, while the law prescribes that twelve members form a quorum, will now such a law or resolution have to be respected? Certainly not.

President: But in that event I would not publish such a law or resolution.

Chief Justice: Yes, but suppose that after all you do publish it? Or, suppose the Volksraad, without any inquiry, takes a summary resolution to dismiss you from office?

President: No, no. You know this is not what I mean. I merely want the Court to recognize and respect a resolution taken in the usual way by the Volksraad. The resolution of which I am speaking is also as the First Volksraad wishes to have it. Look, there can be no doubt, and you must do your best so as to regulate matters that no conflict and disorder can arise. This can alone be done by acknowledging the resolution and obeying the voice of the Volksraad, which is the highest power.

Chief Justice: I cannot say anything else than that the Judges will act carefully according to the laws of the land. The Judges dare not do anything else.

President (rising): Now, yes. I trust you will think well over what we have here been talking about privately with each other.

This terminated our conversation, and I left the President. On coming outside I found Messrs. Bell, Bourke and Engelenburg at the street gate waiting for me. The conversation between me and the President lasted from about eight to ten minutes.

(Signed) J. G. Kotze,

(Endorsement.)

This memorandum was shown me in September, 1895, by Chief Justice Kotze when I was chairman of the Grondwet Revision Commission of the First Volksraad, whereupon I also read the

same.

me.

(Signed) PAUl Mare.

Certified a true copy of the original as read and compared by

(Signed) FRED. J. LUNNON, Notary Public.

EXHIBIT 15.

Opinion of Rooth and Wessels, Solicitors.

PRETORIA, March 5th, 1898.

Re BROWN VS. THE GOVERNMENT.

MESSRS. HULL & HOFMEYR,

Johannesberg.

Dear Sirs: As promised to your Mr. Hofmeyr we have had a consultation with Mr. Wessels, and we can do no better than quote his words as dictated by him:

"The legal position of the case is as follows:

Brown by his original judgment was entitled to demand 1200 licenses from the Mining Commissioner with a further right of pegging out 1200 specific claims on the farm Witfontein.

In its judgment the Court refrained from expressing any opinion as to what amount of damages Mr. Brown would be entitled to should he not be able to obtain the 1,200 claims and in its judgment the Court stated that notice should be given to the Government of the intention of Mr. Brown of raising the question of damages before the Supreme Court.

Mr. Brown contends that he has not been able to obtain the licenses contemplated in the order of the Court, that he therefore has not been able to peg off 1,200 specific Claims. When I say that Mr. Brown contends that the licenses issued to him are not those contemplated by the Order of the Court, I mean that the order of the Court entitled Brown to have substantial and definite right under the Gold Law. The license which has been offered to Mr. Brown is a worthless bit of paper being no license under the Gold Law and of no value for any practical purposes.

Mr. Brown then contending rightly or wrongly under the order of Court had not been granted to him returned to the Court by virtue of the judgment of the Chief Justice and gave notice to the Government that he would now raise before the Court the undecided question of the amount of damages to which he was entitled.

I must here now digress-A case running simultaneously with the case of Brown was brought before the Court by the Elias Syndicate against the Government of the S. A. Republic