uilty, and take a short cut on
the best terms possible to what was realized to be a pre-arranged
conclusion.

The second alternative was rejected, because it was found to be
impossible to secure unanimity of action. In the course of the
discussions upon the other alternatives, certain negotiations took
place between the State Attorney Dr. Coster and Mr. Wessels, the
result of which was that Dr. Coster made the following offer: If the
leaders (the signatories to the letter of invitation) would consent
to plead guilty to count 1 of the indictment, he would agree to
withdraw as against them counts 2, 3, and 4; and in such case he
would agree that the rank and file should plead guilty to counts 3
and 4 only, he withdrawing as against them counts 1 and 2. The matter
was discussed by the prisoners, and objection was taken to that part
of the indictment in which it was stated that the Reform Committee
had acted 'with a hostile intention to disturb, injure or bring into
danger the independence or safety of this Republic.'

Another meeting took place between the State Attorney and Mr.
Wessels, at which Dr. Coster agreed to eliminate from the indictment
against the rank and file the words objected to, provided that the
leaders would plead guilty to count 1. Having arrived at this--to
him--satisfactory conclusion, Dr. Coster remarked that they (_i.e.,_
all except the four) were now charged with a merely nominal offence.
Mr. Wessels endeavoured to obtain the same alteration in the
indictment of the leaders, but this was refused on the ground that it
would make the indictment ridiculous; and, _apropos_ of the
concession to the rank and file, Dr. Coster even expressed doubts as
to whether, if the hostile intention were eliminated, any crime could
be said to remain under the indictment. He however agreed to allow
the four leaders to qualify their plea by a statement in writing
which they were to put in at the same time. He stated that he would
have _pro forma_ to put in some evidence of the offence, but
undertook not to press for exemplary punishment, and moreover
promised that he would not dispute or question the statement to be
put in, provided that it contained no material error in fact.

A discussion then followed as to the law under which the trial would
take place. Mr. Wessels urged that, as there was specific provision
in the statute law for cases of this nature, the statute law would of
course apply in preference to Roman-