the area which they cover, they refuse to admit any other people
upon equal terms, but claim to be a privileged class who shall
dominate the newcomers completely. They are outnumbered in their
own land by immigrants who are far more highly educated and
progressive, and yet they hold them down in a way which exists
nowhere else upon earth. What is their right? The right of
conquest. Then the same right may be justly invoked to reverse so
intolerable a situation. This they would themselves acknowledge.
'Come on and fight! Come on!' cried a member of the Volksraad when
the franchise petition of the Uitlanders was presented. 'Protest!
Protest! What is the good of protesting?' said Kruger to Mr. W. Y.
Campbell; 'you have not got the guns, I have.' There was always the
final court of appeal. Judge Creusot and Judge Mauser were always
behind the President.

Again, the argument of the Boers would be more valid had they
received no benefit from these immigrants. If they had ignored them
they might fairly have stated that they did not desire their
presence. But even while they protested they grew rich at the
Uitlander's expense. They could not have it both ways. It would be
consistent to discourage him and not profit by him, or to make him
comfortable and build the State upon his money; but to ill-treat
him and at the same time to grow strong by his taxation must surely
be an injustice.

And again, the whole argument is based upon the narrow racial
supposition that every naturalised citizen not of Boer extraction
must necessarily be unpatriotic. This is not borne out by the
examples of history. The newcomer soon becomes as proud of his
country and as jealous of her liberty as the old. Had President