Thus the majority judgment of the High Court against the Reformers on this principle of evidence happened to be formulated by the two judges who had been appointed to negotiate with the Reformers’ deputation on behalf of the Government.

The impossibility of obtaining justice in the Courts of the Transvaal under the then conditions was thus brought home to the prisoners.  An appeal from the decision of the Lower Court on Judge Ameshof’s interpretation of privilege, which had been seriously discussed, was then abandoned as being worse than useless, and calculated only to provoke more extreme measures against the prisoners by placing the Bench in a ridiculous position.  It could not be expected that the Chief Justice, who was himself a member of the Government Commission which Judge Ameshof had claimed to be privileged, would take any other view than that favouring the policy and convenience of the Government which he showed himself so ready to befriend.

In the Schumacher appeal case before the full Court, Dr. Coster had made no secret that he intended to disregard the rules and precedents governing the treatment of witnesses, and even claimed that he should receive no opposition from the prisoners’ counsel, since he was only ‘fishing’ for evidence and not actually accumulating it against the prisoners, and had no intention of using the evidence given at this examination.  Mr. Wessels asked him whether he would pledge himself to this effect, and what, for instance, would be done in case a witness who had been heard at the preliminary examination should die before the main trial came off.  The reply was, that in such a case of course the Government would be bound to use some of the evidence, but would use it with discretion and not unfairly.  This undertaking provoked smiles even in court.  The wisdom and fairness of Mr. Wessels’ contention were fully justified when the trial actually did take place, for the whole of the evidence of the preliminary examination was handed in for the guidance of the judge in determining his sentences against the accused.  It may be added that each witness was called upon to sign the notes of his evidence as taken down in Dutch.  When required, the official reporter read a free translation of the notes to the witness before they were signed.

At the conclusion of the examination all the prisoners were committed on the same charge—­that of high treason—­no distinction whatever being made in the references to them from the Bench.  By this time Mr. Hammond, who had been ill, was released on bail of L20,000 in order to go to the seaside.