On this subject I can well understand that you do not wish to take upon your shoulders the responsibility of speaking and acting for the whole of the new population.  It was more your personal opinions as men of position that we wished to know.  Then again, according to your assurance at the aforementioned meeting, you do not take any personal interest in the franchise question, and that you would rather leave the question to the public; your answer is therefore perfectly fair.  His Honour has therefore already acted in accordance with your idea, for he has brought the question of the franchise very prominently before the public, not only at Heidelberg and Rustenburg, but also at Johannesburg.

In conclusion, I wish to refer to one matter which has caused me much pain.  It was clearly and distinctly agreed and understood by you all as well as by us that both sides would treat this matter as confidential and secret, as discussions of such important matters cannot be carried on with any results on the tops of houses.  What has happened?  On the 28th of March I received your letter, and on the 3rd of April, whilst I was yet giving it earnest consideration and had taken all the measures to keep it secret, the contents of the same appeared in the London Times, while some days later your answer appeared in full in the Cape Times, the Diamond Fields Advertiser, and other papers under the influence of the capitalists.  The manner in which these papers favourable to you, or controlled by you, have dealt with me in this matter has caused me (I admit it with regret) to doubt for one moment your good faith.  Thinking, however, of the great interest as it were in the balance, and believing, moreover, that you never for private or party purposes intended to play with the true and lasting interests of all sections of the community, I cannot help thinking that the reply has been published through one of your subordinates, and regret that the publication has not been immediately repudiated by you publicly as a grave breach of faith.  I would regret it, while there exists so few points of difference between us, that these things should bar the way through careless and wrong tactics to a permanent understanding, and trust that the hand extended to the Industry in absolute good faith will not be slighted purposely and wilfully.  Owing to the publication of your reply, there exists no further reason for secrecy, and I shall hand my reply to the press.

Your obedient servant,
F.W.  REITZ,
State Secretary.

The repudiation of Mr. Lippert’s “official” character; the contention that the State Secretary, State Attorney, and Dr. Leyds could divest themselves of all responsibility in negotiations such as these, and claim to have been acting in their private capacity only; and the extraordinary anxiety to keep secret matters which deeply affected the public, and to the settlement of which the Government designed that the public should be committed, compelled the negotiators to produce evidence that the statements and conclusions of the Government were not warranted by the facts.  The following letter, which was formally acknowledged but never answered, practically concluded the negotiations:—­