Chief-Justice Kotze and Mr. Kock
formed the Government Commission appointed to meet the deputation
from the Reform Committee on January 1. Judge Ameshof was duly sworn,
and was asked to identify a list of the members of the Reform
Committee. He did so. He stated that it was the list supplied to the
Government Commission at the meeting of January 1 by the deputation
of the Reform Committee, and he regarded it therefore as authentic.
The deputation had stated to the Commission that it was so.

This was the first revelation of the tactics about to be pursued by
the Government, in using information which had been given under
privilege and in good faith by the prisoners themselves, when
negotiating with the Government prior to any question of arrest being
raised. Mr. Wessels, counsel for the accused, rose to obtain from
Judge Ameshof the official account of the meeting, desiring to prove
this very important negotiation by means of witnesses on the
Government side. He got no further however than saying to the
witness, 'You said you were a member of the Government Commission?'
when Judge Ameshof replied, 'Yes, but if you are going to ask me
about anything that took place at that meeting, I cannot answer,
because the meeting was a privileged one.' Mr. Wessels did not lose
his opportunity, 'You have stated,' he said, 'that you are a Judge of
the High Court?' The witness signified assent. 'And you mean to tell
me,' Mr. Wessels continued, 'that you feel yourself free to divulge
so much as it suits the Government to reveal, but that as soon as I
wish to prove something to my clients' advantage the interview
becomes privileged?' The witness did not answer, and Mr. Wessels
appealed to the Court. Judicial Commissioner Zeiler, however, upheld
the witness's contention. Mr. Wessels urged in reply that if it was a
privileged interview he objected to any evidence whatever being given
in connection with it, and protested vehemently against the admission
of the list of members just sworn to. The objection was overruled,
and it was thus laid down that the interview was privileged as far as
the Government was concerned, but not in so far as it could benefit
the Reformers.

Another case was that of Mr. Schumacher, a witness who testified,
_inter alia_, that he did not know what the objects of a certain
Development Syndicate were. His evidence showed that he had not been
informed upon this point. He was very hard pressed by the State
Attorne