at first
smiled superciliously, then turned and addressed a remark to one of
his colleagues, shrugging his shoulder at the same time, and at the
conclusion of the reference looked across the room to where the
jurymen sat, still smiling and shaking his head slowly and
continuously for half a minute. To men accustomed to the decencies of
British Courts of Justice this incident was rather revolting. When it
is remembered that the Government refused to produce the minute
referred to, and that through their representatives they claimed
'privilege' for the interview at which it was given, in order to
absolve themselves from appearing in Court, and that Mr. Wolmarans
himself sent the message to the Rand that the Government by the
withdrawal of its police gave practical evidence of holding out the
olive-branch, his conduct appears the more unprincipled.

The State Attorney in a purely formal address, in consonance with his
promise to Mr. Wessels not to seek exemplary punishment, asked for
punishment according to law. Mr. Wessels in reply made an eloquent
appeal on behalf of the accused and recited the circumstances which
led to their seeking redress in the manner in which they did. He
referred to the negotiations with the Government, to the part played
by the Reform Committee in the maintenance of order, to the fidelity
with which they had fulfilled their undertakings with the Government,
and to their attitude towards Dr. Jameson. His references to the
Government and to the existing abuses were made as judiciously as
possible. He referred candidly to the relationship with Dr. Jameson,
especially alluding to the efforts made to protect him from the
results of his own action and to stand by him even at the cost of
personal sacrifice, and claimed that such action towards their former
colleague within the limits set by them did not necessarily imply
treason against the independence of the State, but should fairly
entitle the prisoners to sympathy for their efforts to save a quondam
colleague, however wrong he might have been. On the point of law, Mr.
Wessels claimed that the Thirty-three Articles formed the basis of
the State's law, that there was specific provision for such cases as
this in those Articles, and that the punishment to be meted out to
the prisoners should be in accordance with these statutes, modified
as the Court in its judgment might deem fit. No sooner had Mr.
Wessels resumed his seat than Dr. Coster, as was the