and, sir, by men who belonged to Wessels, because whoever did the shooting it was done by men belonging to the commando who took these natives prisoners.  Now, sir, it is unfortunate that the witness who was with Kritzinger on the kopje, and who could also have heard the shots, is not here.  I know it is not the fault of the Court that he is not here.  It is unfortunate, though, that this man is in St. Helena.  But Kritzinger is already corroborated by his other witnesses, and against them is only a single native witness.  There is, of course, this story of a conversation between Kritzinger and the boy Jan Louw.  Kritzinger is supposed to have said to the boy:  ’Did you see those boys?  They are to be shot.  Put down your billies, and go and be shot also,’ and then at once to have changed his mind:  ’Never mind, my boy, get the water.’  It is an improbable story.  Jan Jonkers does not appear to have heard the conversation at all.  None of Kritzinger’s men appear to know of it, and I submit it was not said by Kritzinger, if said at all.  Then on the prosecution’s side one native witness is contradicted by all the other witnesses.

“Before I close the case for the defence, I would like to refer to the character of the prisoner.  In this case I am well aware that character is not a ground of acquittal.  I know, sir, that good men of excellent characters have committed crimes, and I would not for one moment appeal for an acquittal because Kritzinger has behaved so well in other instances, and has shown himself a humane man, and a man of honour.  I do not ask for mercy on the ground of Kritzinger’s character, we can only ask for a fair and just verdict.  But character is of importance when there is any doubt in the case.  I ask the Court to bear in mind the character of the accused.  Is a man who bears such a character likely to have committed the crimes charged against him?  The character of Kritzinger, if we put aside the charges in his case, is an excellent one.  The prosecution has brought out in cross-examination a certain proclamation.  I am glad it has been brought out, for it goes to show nothing against the character of the accused, but it tells in his favour, for, what do we find?  That a draft proclamation was drawn up at a meeting of commandants, at which Kritzinger was chairman.  He opposed it by every means in his power, but he was in the minority, and, as president of the gathering, he had to sign it.  He then asked for some postponement before that proclamation was circulated, and that was agreed to.  He still fought against this proclamation, for he asked that before De Wet approved of it nothing should be done in the way of circulation.  He never circulated it himself.  If it was circulated, it was done by the other commandants against the agreement.  It was not approved of by De Wet, and never became a proclamation.  This shows that Kritzinger disapproved of the harsh measures contained in it, that he tried to get it done away with, and that at last he succeeded