the Government submitted a measure to the Volksraad, passed also in defiance of Grondwet provisions, which was broadly to the effect that all persons who considered that they had claims for damages against the Government in regard to the farm Witfontein and the proclamation thereof, had none, and that the Government was absolved from all liability in this respect.  This enactment was only passed after several persons had signified their intention to sue the Government.  The Raad was in fact becoming familiar with the process of tampering with the Grondwet and members appeared ready to act on the dictates of their own sweet will without regard to consequences or laws.

On several occasions the President and Executive had treated with contempt the decisions of the High Court, and had practically and publicly reversed them.  There are many instances which it is not necessary to quote but among the best-known and most instructive ones are the two cases known as the ‘Rachmann’ and ‘April’ cases.  Rachmann was an Indian and a British subject, well educated, far better educated indeed than the Boer of the country.  In following a strayed horse he had trespassed on the farm of one of the members of the First Raad.  He was arrested and charged with intent to steal, tried by the owner’s brother, who was a Field-cornet (district justice), and sentenced to receive twenty-five lashes and to pay a fine, the same sentence being meted out to his Hottentot servant who accompanied him.  Rachmann protested and noted an appeal, stating (which was the fact) that it was not within the power of a Field-cornet to inflict lashes, and at the same time he offered security to the value of L40 pending the appeal.  His protests were disregarded and he was flogged.  Not being a native in the sense in which the law uses the term—­i.e., a member of the aboriginal races—­he could plead that he was not within the jurisdiction of a Field-cornet, and there is no doubt that the punishment was inflicted with full knowledge of its illegality.  Rachmann sued Mr. George Meyer, the Field-cornet in question, in the Circuit Court and obtained judgment and a considerable sum in damages, the presiding judge, Dr. Jorissen, animadverting with severity upon the conduct of the official.  Meyer shortly afterwards obtained from Government the amount of his pecuniary loss through the affair, the President stating that he had acted in his official capacity and that they should protect him.

The ‘April’ case was one in which an unfortunate native named April, having worked for a number of years for a farmer on promise of certain payment in cattle and having completed his term, applied for payment and a permit to travel through the district.  On some trivial pretext this was refused him, his cattle were seized, and himself and his wives and children forcibly retained in the service of the Boer.  He appealed to the nearest official, Field-cornet Prinsloo, who acted in a particularly barbarous and unjustifiable