The State Attorney in a purely formal address, in consonance with his promise to Mr. Wessels not to seek exemplary punishment, asked for punishment according to law.  Mr. Wessels in reply made an eloquent appeal on behalf of the accused and recited the circumstances which led to their seeking redress in the manner in which they did.  He referred to the negotiations with the Government, to the part played by the Reform Committee in the maintenance of order, to the fidelity with which they had fulfilled their undertakings with the Government, and to their attitude towards Dr. Jameson.  His references to the Government and to the existing abuses were made as judiciously as possible.  He referred candidly to the relationship with Dr. Jameson, especially alluding to the efforts made to protect him from the results of his own action and to stand by him even at the cost of personal sacrifice, and claimed that such action towards their former colleague within the limits set by them did not necessarily imply treason against the independence of the State, but should fairly entitle the prisoners to sympathy for their efforts to save a quondam colleague, however wrong he might have been.  On the point of law, Mr. Wessels claimed that the Thirty-three Articles formed the basis of the State’s law, that there was specific provision for such cases as this in those Articles, and that the punishment to be meted out to the prisoners should be in accordance with these statutes, modified as the Court in its judgment might deem fit.  No sooner had Mr. Wessels resumed his seat than Dr. Coster, as was then thought, repenting the fulfilment of his promise and casting off all disguise, or, as is more probable, carried away by an over-mastering excitement and strong personal and racial feeling and stimulated by concentration upon one aspect only of the case, claimed the right to address the Court again after the advocate for the defence had spoken.  Dr. Coster has the reputation among those who know him of being a thoroughly honourable and straight-forward gentleman.  As a Hollander no doubt he felt deeply in a matter in which Hollanderism was the casus belli; as public prosecutor it was his duty to prosecute, not to judge; and one prefers to think that in peculiar and trying circumstances he forgot the pledge he had given and remembered only the cause of his party.  In a short but very violent speech he depicted in the blackest terms the actions of the men against whom he had agreed not to seek exemplary punishment, and pointing out the provisions of the Roman-Dutch law, claimed that the Court should apply it in this case in preference to the statutes of the country, and demanded from the Court the severest possible penalty which could be imposed under that law and under the Thirty-three Articles and the Gold Law as well.  With reference to the last-named, Dr. Coster having mentioned the provision regarding the confiscation of property, said that upon this point he would not speak but would leave the matter to the judgment of the Court.  The Court was then adjourned until the morning of the 28th, ostensibly in order to enable the judge to consider the evidence and make up his mind.