202 STATE PAPEES— TEANSVAAL. [1899.
doreed by the judge, is that four policemen breaking into a man's house at night without a warrant, on the mere statement of one person— which subsequently turned out to be untrue— that the man had committed a crime, are justified in killing him there and then because, according to their own account, he hits one of them with a stick. If this is justifi- cation, then almost any form of resistance to the police is justification for the immediate killing of the person resisting, who may be perfectly innocent of any offence. This would be an alarming doctrine anywhere. It is peculiarly alarming when applied to a city like Johannesburg, where a strong force of police armed with revolvers have to deal with a large alien unarmed population, whose language in many cases they do not understand. The emphatic affirmation of such a doctrine by judge and jury in the Edgar case cannot but increase the general feeling of insecurity amongst the Outlander population and the sense of injustice under which they labour. It may be pointed out that the allegation that Edgar assaulted the police was emphatically denied by his wife and others, and that the trial was conducted in a way that would be considered quite irregular in this country, the witnesses for the defence being called by the prosecution, and thereby escaping cross-examination.
Some light upon the extent to which the police can be trusted to perform their delicate duties with fairness and discretion is thrown by the events referred to by the petitioners, which took place at a meeting called by British subjects for the purpose of discussing their grievances, and held on January 14 in the Amphitheatre of Johannesburg. The Government were previously apprised of the objects of the meeting and their assent obtained, though this was not legally necessary for a meeting in an enclosed place. The organisers of the meeting state that they were informed by the State Secretary and the State Attorney that any one who committed acts of violence or used seditious language would be held responsible, and in proof of the peaceful objects of the meeting those who attended went entirely unarmed, by which it is understood that they did not even carry sticks. So little was any disturbance apprehended that ladies were invited to attend, and did attend. Yet, in the result, sworn affidavits from many witnesses of different nationalities agree in the statement that the meeting was broken up almost immediately after its opening, and many of the persons attending it were violently assaulted by organised bands of hostile demonstrators, acting under the instigation and guidance of persons in Government employ, without any attempt at interference on the part of the police, and even in some cases with their assistance or loudly expressed sympathy. The Government of the South African Republic has been asked to institute an inquiry into these disgraceful proceedings, but the request has been met with a flat refusal.
It would seem, indeed, that the Outlander is not only deprived, by provisions introduced into the Constitution since the Convention of 1884, of any effective political representation, but that he has also been placed by recent legislation under new liabilities, unknown when the Convention was signed, if he appeals to public opinion or attempts to bring his complaints to the notice of the Government. Q
