amation 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. O