Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 08.pdf/131

 110

issue between England and Germany is this : In what position does this convention leave the former " suzerainty " of England over the Transvaal? The official German contention is, it is clearly abrogated, and that the Transvaal is at liberty to " steer her course" — to use classic language — among the nations of the world as an inde pendent state, subject to the single limitation as to treaty making. President Kruger is stated to have recently declared to one of the ubiquitous interviewers through whom so much of our information as to public men is derived, that if he had thought that the convention of 1884 meant anything less than this he would never have signed. On the other hand, English ministers of both parties have consistently interpreted it in a very different sense, so that the argument from intention does not carry us very far. The official English view may be stated thus : The convention of 1884 amends, but does not abrogate, the convention of 1881; there was, therefore, no necessity to repeat the provisions in that convention affirming the Queen's suzerainty, and they remain in full force; the only independence that the Transvaal enjoys is as to her internal con cerns; England has an absolute and ex clusive control over all her foreign relations. The convention of 1884 is, it must be ad mitted, by no means so clear as might be desired. But the English case is distinctly arguable, and there can be little doubt as to the determination of the country that it shall be maintained. Some curious ques tions of construction might be raised inci dentally in connection with this controversy : suppose that the German view is correct,

and that the suzerainty of England over the Transvaal is now set aside. What is the scope of the prohibition of treaty-making? Does it apply merely to formal treaties or arrangements, or would it strike at any" un derstandings" or relations of any kind between the South Africa Republic and a foreign power? It would be very difficult indeed, we should think, to maintain that it did. As a piece of draughtsmanship the conven tion of 1884 is not a document of which we have much reason to be proud. And we have to thank it also for a serious and trou blesome international complication. The only other point to which we need refer is the question as to the effect of Dr. Jameson's raid on the Transvaal upon the convention's obligatory character. It is ex concessis that the Imperial Government, the British high commissioner at Cape Town, and the di rectors in London of the chartered corpora tion of South Africa did everything in their power to stop Jameson's progress, and practically outlawed him and his devoted band. It is also too clear to be disputed that, in spite of this prompt disavowal, the Imperial Government is liable to indemnify, at the expense of its agent, the chartered corporation, if it chooses, the Transvaal au thorities for the losses that the Jameson expedition may have caused them. But the intention of the Imperial Government to maintain the treaty having admittedly never wavered, and every possible step to secure its observance having been taken, it is conceived that England is still entitled to the benefit of the convention of 1884, whatever it may be worth to her. Lex.