he had been admitted to the Pretoria Bar during the British administration, and had failed to comply with a subsequent rule of Court which required some sort of registration; and permission was refused to him to address the Court.  The objection was maintained, and Mr. Innes was obliged to limit his participation in the affair to sitting at the counsels’ table and consulting and advising with the Pretoria barristers employed to defend the prisoners.

The examination was, as Dr. Coster the State Attorney announced, of the nature of a fishing examination, and he claimed to be permitted to conduct it in a manner which, he alleged, is popular in Holland, but which is entirely unknown in the Transvaal, and certainly does not obtain in any British possession.  The chief feature of this system appears to be a total disregard of the rules applying to evidence.  A few instances will suffice.  One of the first witnesses called was Judge Ameshof, who with Chief-Justice Kotze and Mr. Kock formed the Government Commission appointed to meet the deputation from the Reform Committee on January 1.  Judge Ameshof was duly sworn, and was asked to identify a list of the members of the Reform Committee.  He did so.  He stated that it was the list supplied to the Government Commission at the meeting of January 1 by the deputation of the Reform Committee, and he regarded it therefore as authentic.  The deputation had stated to the Commission that it was so.

This was the first revelation of the tactics about to be pursued by the Government, in using information which had been given under privilege and in good faith by the prisoners themselves, when negotiating with the Government prior to any question of arrest being raised.  Mr. Wessels, counsel for the accused, rose to obtain from Judge Ameshof the official account of the meeting, desiring to prove this very important negotiation by means of witnesses on the Government side.  He got no further however than saying to the witness, ‘You said you were a member of the Government Commission?’ when Judge Ameshof replied, ’Yes, but if you are going to ask me about anything that took place at that meeting, I cannot answer, because the meeting was a privileged one.’  Mr. Wessels did not lose his opportunity, ‘You have stated,’ he said, ’that you are a Judge of the High Court?’ The witness signified assent.  ’And you mean to tell me,’ Mr. Wessels continued, ’that you feel yourself free to divulge so much as it suits the Government to reveal, but that as soon as I wish to prove something to my clients’ advantage the interview becomes privileged?’ The witness did not answer, and Mr. Wessels appealed to the Court.  Judicial Commissioner Zeiler, however, upheld the witness’s contention.  Mr. Wessels urged in reply that if it was a privileged interview he objected to any evidence whatever being given in connection with it, and protested vehemently against the admission of the list of members just sworn to.  The objection was overruled, and it was thus laid down that the interview was privileged as far as the Government was concerned, but not in so far as it could benefit the Reformers.