The Chief Justice, who had advised Judge de Korte in his
decision however in a most extraordinary judgment now reversed it,
and in this view he was supported by Judge Ameshof--himself a witness
in the case against the Reformers.

Thus the majority judgment of the High Court against the Reformers on
this principle of evidence happened to be formulated by the two
judges who had been appointed to negotiate with the Reformers'
deputation on behalf of the Government.

The impossibility of obtaining justice in the Courts of the Transvaal
under the then conditions was thus brought home to the prisoners. An
appeal from the decision of the Lower Court on Judge Ameshof's
interpretation of privilege, which had been seriously discussed, was
then abandoned as being worse than useless, and calculated only to
provoke more extreme measures against the prisoners by placing the
Bench in a ridiculous position. It could not be expected that the
Chief Justice, who was himself a member of the Government Commission
which Judge Ameshof had claimed to be privileged, would take any
other view than that favouring the policy and convenience of the
Government which he showed himself so ready to befriend.

In the Schumacher appeal case before the full Court, Dr. Coster had
made no secret that he intended to disregard the rules and precedents
governing the treatment of witnesses, and even claimed that he should
receive no opposition from the prisoners' counsel, since he was only
'_fishing_' for evidence and not actually accumulating it against the
prisoners, and had no intention of using the evidence given at this
examination. Mr. Wessels asked him whether he would pledge himself to
this effect, and what, for instance, would be done in case a witness
who had been heard at the preliminary examination should die before
the main trial came off. The reply was, that in such a case of course
the Government would be bound to use some of the evidence, but would
use it with discretion and not unfairly. This undertaking provoked
smiles even in court. The wisdom and fairness of Mr. Wessels'
contention were fully justified when the trial actually did take
place, for the whole of the evidence of the preliminary examination
was handed in for the guidance of the judge in determining his
sentences against the accused. It may be added that each witness was
called upon to sign the notes of his evidence as taken down in Dutch.
When required, the official reporter r