points:—That the grievances of the Outlanders were only
imaginary since life and. property were not in constant
danger, and that the-taxes were not so exorbitant as to keep
English mining companies from paying. dividends of from
5 per cent. to 400 per cent.; that the monopolies .were not
injurious;, that international law does. not concede a right of
paramountcy; that the growth of the Dutch did not endang
er-the welfare of South Africa;. that the oligarchical govern
ment was not injurious; that there was violation of the
treaties by England; that the Dutch are capable •of govern
ing;, that the Outlanders do not want the franchise required
of the Boer government by England; that the parallel drawn
between the :United States and England was an assumption
as the condition in the two cases are entirely different.
The rebuttal for the affirmative embraced the following:
That England has a right, to. interfere in the external af
fairs of. the government; that the Boers are the aggressors
in 'the struggle; that the domineering policy of Kruger is
dangerous to England's welfare; that the Boers broke the
treaties as well as. the English; , that the negative must prove
the whole course unjust; that.the Jameson raid was not sanc
tioned by England; that crime prevailed in the Dutch. repub
lic; that the franchise was unjust; that England's position
required action such as she took; that the English were re
sponsible for the peace of South Africa; that greed was sen
timent not injustice; that England was not suzerain in
South Africa was granted by' the affirmative; that the fran
chise as required by England was the best; that. there was
no law , proiection; and that civilization required that she
The Free Lance.