Mr. Kotze was not at that time popular among the Uitlanders on account of his action in the matter of the Reformers, and especially because he had acted on behalf of the Government in securing the services of Mr. Gregorowski for the Reform trial; but the circumstances of his dismissal and the fact that he was known to be dependent upon his salary as judge, taken in conjunction with the courageous stand which he had made against the President’s arbitrary will, enlisted public sympathy on his behalf, and a purse amounting in all to about L6,000 was presented to him as a mark of appreciation for his past services.  But then followed the ’most unkindest cut of all.’  Mr. Gregorowski, who had resigned a judgeship in order to fill the post of State Attorney when Dr. Coster, in consequence of an insulting reference of the President’s to his countrymen, relinquished it,—­Mr. Gregorowski, who had been foremost to declare that no honourable man could possibly accept the position of judge while Law 1 of 1897 stood on the Statute Book, became Chief Justice vice Mr. Kotze dismissed.  And by way of finally disposing of the subject, the President when questioned in the Raad as to the explanation of his apologist, denied that he had ever made any promise of any sort or description to Sir Henry de Villiers or anybody else!

Mr. Justice Ameshof, who with Mr. Kotze had made a stand against the President in this matter, was also obliged to relinquish his judgeship.  Thus it will be seen that at one swoop Mr. Kruger disposed of three reputable intermediaries whom he had used to great advantage at one time or another.  ‘Something for nothing,’ for Mr. Kruger!  Whether Mr. Kotze acted in haste or whether Sir Henry de Villiers’ plea for more time was justified are questions which it is no longer necessary to discuss, not alone because Mr. Kruger denied ever having made the promise out of which the disagreement arose, but because even up to the present time no measure safeguarding the High Court has been introduced or foreshadowed in the legislature.  And Law 1 of 1897, which according to Mr. Gregorowski made it impossible for any honourable man to sit upon the Bench, is still upon the Statute Book and Mr. Gregorowski sits as Chief Justice subject to its provisions.

No one disputes that the position of the High Court as determined by Law 1 of 1897 is a very unsatisfactory one, but the apologists for President Kruger frequently say that there has been no actual case of hardship, and that the Uitlanders are crying out before they are hurt.  They maintain that it was a measure passed under great provocation for a particular purpose, and that the power granted under it, although very undesirable in principle, has never been used.  This is incorrect; the power has been used, and injustice has been suffered.  Two cases of actual hardship are those of Brown v. Government, the case out of which the whole matter arose, and the case of the Pretoria Waterworks Company.  But there