to procure what is necessary to their wants by levying taxes and contribu-
tions in the occupied departments, and even outside of them, should their
resources not be sufficient.'
1 Hague Convention, Articles LII. and LIII.
2 South Africa, Army Order, 245.5.
3 Between July and December, 1902, the sum of i;l, 600,000 appears to
have been paid out against military receipts.
250 THE AFTERMATH OF WAR
The payment of receipts was, however, not the only liability
incurred by the British army during the war. On March 14
and 15, 1900, Lord Roberts issued two proclamations, which
have since become notorious, in which he promised, with
certain exceptions, protection of person and property to those
burghers who should lay down their arms at once, and bind
themselves by oath to abstain from further participation in
the war.^ In consequence of these proclamations a number
of ex-burghers desisted from further hostilities. During the
war also a number of ex-burghers voluntarily surrendered,
whilst many others rendered material aid to the British forces,
and suffered in consequence of their adhesion to the British
cause. It was urged on behalf of these classes that they had
merited some appreciation of their services beyond participating
with all other ex-burghers in the benefits provided by Article X.
The plea was felt to be a just one. In recognition of their
services, these burghers were granted a special gratuity, and
they became known as ' protected burghers.'
On the conclusion of peace, officers were appointed in
different centres of both the Transvaal and the Orange River
Colony to pay out military receipts. But in January, 1903,
arrangements were made between the War Office and the
Civil Government whereby the latter, in consideration of the
payment of a sum which, together with the amount already
paid out by the army since the cessation of hostilities in satis-
faction of military receipts, amounted to i^4, 500,000, undertook
all the work of paying the military receipts still outstanding,
in addition to recompensing the protected burghers. It was
decided that the balance remaining after the payment of
military receipts out of the fund of i64, 500,000 should be
devoted to the remuneration of protected burghers ; but, as a
matter of fact, both the payment of receipts and the distribu-
tion of the gratuity were carried out concurrently.
It will possibly be gathered that under the circumstances
described, the number of candidates for ' protected burgher-
ship ' was considerable. The principle which guided the
^ These proclamations will be found quoted in Cd. 3028.
COMPENSATION 251
Claims Commissioners in determining who was to share in
this much-coveted fund was whether the claimants had any
special claim upon the generosity of His Majesty's Govern-
ment, whether they were entitled to something more than the
substantial relief granted to all our former enemies, whether
they had shown any grounds for special consideration. In
order to insure that the fund should not be abused, the
services of certain military officers were placed at the disposal
of the Civil Government, and every claim against the Protected
Burgher Fund was investigated by the Kesident Magistrate of
each district in conjunction with one of these military officers.
The protected burgher claims, after being investigated and
assessed in this manner, were revised and finally adjudicated
by the Central Judicial Commission. As in the case of
repatriation, the relief contemplated by the grant of the pro-
tected burgher gratuity to be effective had to be prompt.
Yet it was impossible to determine exactly the amount of that
relief until all military receipts had been paid, and all the
claims under this fund had been assessed.
While, however, years might have elapsed before data which
would give mathematical accuracy could have been obtained,
it was soon discovered that the fund was sufficiently large to
pay protected ex-burghers 10s. in the £ upon the amount
of their assessed claims. This amount was paid, and was ac-
cepted by the burghers in question in full satisfaction of their
claims. In order to facilitate the method of distribution adopted,
the sum of £7,850 8s. 6d. was provided out of colonial funds.
The payment of military receipts was carried out by the
Civil Government on the lines previously laid down by the
military authorities. It was concluded in October, 1904, and
the amount paid out was £2,563,623 16s. 7d.
It was considered that the costs of investigating and paying
the military receipts and claims against the £4,500,000 were
a proper charge to be made against that fund. The balance
remaining after paying 10s. in the £ on the assessments to
protected burghers was sufficient to pay only part of such
costs and expenses.
252 THE AFTERMATH OF WAR
The distribution of the £4,500,000 was as follows :
Amount of fund i;4,500,000
Supplement 7,850 8 6
Total amount for distribution ... 4,507,850 8 6
Paid in discharge of £ s. d.
military receipts ... 2,563,623 16 7
Protected ex-burghers in
Transvaal 640,130
Protected ex-burghers in
Orange River Colony... 1,157,976 6
Protected ex-burghers in
territory ceded to Natal 66,666
Paid to protected ex-
burghers under awards
on their claims by Wes-
tern Districts Special
Commission 80,183 15
Paid to Intercolonial
Treasurer in repayment
of part of costs of in-
vestigating and paying
military receipts and
claims agains this fund 49,270 16 5
^£4,507,850 8 6
From the somewhat bald statement of compensation given
above, it is possible to trace a very rapid development in
British generosity. The Terms of Vereeniging implied re-
patriation, and nothing more. From the restoration of the
ex-burghers to their homes, however, and assisting them to
recommence their former avocations, there sprang the idea
of compensating losses. First, the British subjects, foreign
subjects and natives, had suffered as well as the ex-burghers.
The British taxpayer provided as a free gift .£2,000,000 for
distribution among them. Next, some ex-burghers had a
claim for specially generous treatment. The British taxpayer
was again responsive, and the balance of the £4,500,000
remaining, after payment of all military receipts, was provided
for distribution amongst those ex-burghers. Belief begat
compensation, and the compensation became practically
universal. After being given to British subjects and foreigners,
it was extended to natives, and later to certain classes of
ex-burghers.
COMPENSATION 253
History affords no precedent for compensation under con-
ditions similar to those in South Africa. After the conclusion
of the Franco-German war, France paid compensation to a
portion of her people ; but in no case was compensation paid
to German subjects resident in France, although they re-
mained neutral. The war of 1870-1871 had ravaged some
departments only ; the property of the people resident in the
remaining departments had, generally speaking, not been
injured. It was obviously unfair to cast the greater part of
the burden on only a portion of the citizens. Consequently,
the forced loans raised from, and damages inflicted on, the
citizens of the north-eastern and other departments were
recouped in whole or in part to those citizens out of the public
purse, and thus the burden of the war was distributed over
the whole country. The object of the payment in this case,
therefore, was not compensation, but the equalization of loss.
In Alsace and Lorraine Germany compensated some of the
people out of the war indemnity paid by France. In all
previous cases the payment of compensation has tended to
produce equilibrium in the country concerned. Compensation
payable out of the public purse equitably distributed the
burden of the war over the whole country, and the taxpayers
thereof. Were not compensation payable, the burden of war
would be unequally distributed. This reasoning as a basis
for the payment of compensation is not, however, applicable
to the present case. The funds, the distribution of which
has been described, were in the nature of free grants by the
Imperial Parliament, and were not payable by, or out of the
funds of, the two new colonies. Therefore, the incidence of
the war and the distribution of the war's burdens were borne,
not by the people of the Transvaal and the Orange Kiver
Colony, but by the taxpayers of Great Britain.
The compensation granted in South Africa was not only
generous, but general. Eestrictions and limitations were from
time to time drawn up, but they were repeatedly broken. It
has already been seen that ' large firms ' were originally
excluded from, but later admitted to, compensation. The
254 THE AFTERMATH OF WAR
guiding principle was that every claim, of whatsoever kind, was
carefully considered and assessed on its merits, and thus the
population benefited, not only collectively, but as individuals.
Money was disbursed with no niggard hand and in no grudging
spirit. It was not a case of dispensing justice and holding
the scales between opposed parties, where generosity to the
one might be inj ustice to the other. It was the disbursement
of the bounty of Great Britain to the peoples of the Transvaal
and the Orange River Colony. According to the wording of
Article X., it was clearly intended that the amount of relief
granted to each man from the £3,000,000 fund was to be
determined in a large measure by the amount of his actual
war losses. The substantial assistance given throughout to
the bijwoner class has been described. The majority of
bijwoners would, strictly speaking, have had some difficulty
in proving assessable war losses, because the landowners
invariably supplied plant, seed, and capital for the working of
the land. But the bijwoner's right — even though he could
not prove any assessable loss — to share in the bounty of the
iJ3,000,000 could not reasonably be questioned. No techni-
calities were allowed to stand in the way of rendering assist-
ance to those who really required it.
There was a startling departure from precedents in the
work of compensation as carried out in South Africa. One of
the leading judgments of the British- American Commission of
1871 was given in the case of a claim in respect of plundering
and destruction by General Grant's army while encamped on
the claimant's farm. The unanimous decision of that Com-
mission was that ' the acts done upon which this claim is
based seem to have been the ordinary results incidental to the
march of an invading army in a hostile territory, with possibly
some unauthorized acts of destruction and pillage by the
soldiery, with no proof of appropriation by the United States.
Under such circumstances there is no ground for a valid claim
against the United States. The claim is therefore disallowed.'
Had this important precedent, which was both sound and
just, been followed in South Africa, the area of compensation
COMPENSATION 255
would have been reduced by more than one half. After the
war of 1871 the French Government distinguished claims in
respect of forced loans and contributions raised by the Germans
from claims arising from other causes. The former were paid
in full. With regard to the latter, claimants who could prove
intentional damage ultimately received 54 per cent, of their
admitted claims ; claimants who suffered losses from the
fortunes of war received 30 per cent, of their admitted claims.
No distinction was made in South Africa between the causes
of war losses, except that receipts given by the military
officers in the field were paid the assessed value in full.
In respect of promptitude the payment of compensation in
South Africa constitutes, so far as I have been able to discover,
a record. Under Article XII. of the Treaty between Great
Britain and the United States of America, dated May 8, 1871,
a Commission was appointed to inquire into and settle certain
claims which arose out of the Civil War of 1865. The first
meeting of that Commission was held on September 26, 1871.
Its last meeting was held on September 25, 1873, exactly two
years later. The number of claims dealt with by that Commis-
sion was 497 ; the total amount of awards made was £390,000.
The South African Deportation Commission, which sat in
London, to deal with the claims of subjects of the friendly
Powers who had been deported, held its first meeting on
April 30, 1901, and it completed its labours on November 13,
1901. During that period it adjudicated upon 227 claims.
In France, after the war of 1870-1871, the first Act dealing
with compensation was passed in 1871. The last payments
were made in 1879. The Central Judicial Commission was
appointed on October 30, 1902, and its final report was dated
February 28, 1906. During a period of three and a third years
it investigated and adjudicated upon 63,079 claims, and
disbursed sums amounting to ^£9,500,000.
And yet the task of compensation, excessively heavy in the
first instance, was not rendered less difiicult by the circum-
stances under which it was undertaken. The difficulties of in-
vestigation were increased by the disturbing factors due to the
256 THE AFTERMATH OF WAR
unsettlement of the people by the war. It would probably be
impossible to find any white people so oJ)Solutely illiterate as
the Boers. Some claimants, indeed, carei'ully prepared their
claims and submitted reasonable evidence to support them ;
but the vast majority of claims were sent in in a most slip-
shod manner. They were not specific, but vague and indefinite,
and unsupported by sufficient evidence. This conduct on the
part of claimants was due in many cases to carelessness and
ignorance, in many more to dishonesty. The commissioners
had to prevent exaggeration ; they had to defeat fraud.
Identification, again, was frequently far from simple. Amongst
the population very many bore the same Christian and family
or surnames. In very many cases, too, the addresses and the
names of the farms of claimants were the same. To give but
one instance, in one district alone there were seventy- six persons
of the same name.
With regard to the mode of payment, the convenience of the
claimants was the first consideration. The area of the two
colonies was great ; the means of locomotion were both difficult
and expensive. It was, therefore, evident that, if the people
were to derive the full benefits of the generosity of the
Imperial Government, payment could not be centralized.
The payment of all claims was made at the principal centre
of each district in both the Transvaal and the Orange River
Colony. Thus, no claimant was subjected to expense, hard-
ship, or delay in receiving payment of his claim. Claimants
were paid, so far as the conditions of the country allowed,
practically at their own door by cheques cashable at the
local bank, without deduction for exchange or any other
charges.
In some cases the claims for compensation were fairly put
forward and reasonably supported by evidence, but in very
many more the term fair and reasonable could not be applied.
The fixing of exorbitant values was the rule rather than the
exception. A large number of claims were fictitious and
dishonest. It was markedly apparent that the ordinary
reliance placed upon testimony on oath could not in the cases
COMPENSATION 257
of many of the claimants be given. ^ Many claimants dis-
played the greatest ingenuity in framing their claims. Claims
which were inflated, not bond fide, or fantastic were numerous.
An amusing list will be found in the report to which I have
previously referred, and on which this chapter is mainly
based. I can only here give a few examples.
One claimant asked compensation for war losses. On
investigation it was found, and claimant under examination
on oath admitted, ' I started the war with nothing, and I lost
nothing.'
One spinster claimed compensation for ' loss of honour,'
because the man with whom she was cohabiting had during
the war been deported by the military authorities.
Another claimant asked that he be paid £500 compensation
for war losses because he was captured and was detained as a
prisoner of war. The sum of £500 he arrived at by asking
payment at the rate of 10s. per diem during the whole period
of his detention and maintenance by the British authorities
as a prisoner of war.
Another claimant asked that he be paid compensation for
war losses for clothes worn and food consumed while he was
on commando.
Another claimant asked that he be paid compensation for
certain fowls which appear to have been killed and eaten. He
also asked that a sum of £45 be paid to him for the value of
the eggs which the fowls might have laid had they not been
destroyed. He also asked that, in addition to the value of
the fowls and the value of the eggs which those fowls might
have laid had they not been turned into an article of diet, he
^ 'All colonists are agreed that the Boers are hospitable. They are also
agreed that they are double-faced liars ' (' A Subaltern's Letters to his
Wife,' p. 104).
' Tlie Boer, who will perjure himself deeply to save a shilling, will part
with a pound's worth of entertainment without a thought' ('The African
Colony,' p. 73).
' There seemed such a cheery readiness to help one another by giving
evidence as to the possession and value of the stock that one could not but
be suspicious. If any number of the affidavits we took were accurate,
then the Boers have the finest memories in the world ; if inaccurate, they
have the makings of a nation of novelists ' (Senekal Eeport).
17
258 THE AFTERMATH OF WAR
be paid the sum of .^509 for ' moral indemnification ' for the
loss of the fowls.
In another case, which is typical of a class wherein values
were grossly exaggerated, the claimant, a resident in the
country, asked that he be paid i'900 for two wardrobes with
dresses, iilOO for one arm-chair, and i^25 for one stool. ^
In another case, which is typical of a numerous class, a
claimant submitted as evidence in support of his claim for
war losses receipts signed by officers of the Boer forces, and
purporting to have been signed on various dates during the
period of the war, and on oath gave evidence that such receipts
were signed and given to him during the war. On investiga-
tion it was proved, and claimant subsequently admitted, that
the receipts were signed after peace was declared and ante-
dated, and that his previous evidence on oath was untrue.
In another case a Boer officer submitted in support of his
own claim for compensation receipts in his favour signed by
himself.
In another case, which is typical of many others, claimant
asked that he be paid a large sum for compensation for the
value of crops which he might have been able to raise had he
been able to plant his market-garden with vegetables during
the war.
The reader may wish to know what effect this vast expendi-
ture had upon the Boer mind, and the British taxpayer may
reasonably inquire if the distribution of his bounty has done
anything to reconcile the Boers to their new government.
The answer is that the payment of compensation produced
more dissatisfaction and ill-feeling than probably any other
measure.'^ The Boer, instead of accepting his defeat like a
1 ' The more the magistrates cut down the claims for compensation, the
more claims not already sent in tend in the direction of extravagance,
because the idea goes abroad that the claimant will get at least some pro-
portion of what he asks ; therefore the more he asks the more he is likely
to get' {Contemporary Bevietv, November, 1903).
^ 'The process of distribution has already taken four years, and has
begotten endless heart-burnings, wholesale laziness, and a portentous
amount of perjury ' {The Times, September 4, 1906).
' All the people are waiting to hear how much compensation they are
COMPENSATION 259
man and trying to make the best of a bad job, proceeded to
whine over British perfidy. Dissatisfaction was rife ; and it
was freely stated that Great Britain, after cajoling the Boers
to lay down their arms by certain promises, proceeded
deliberately to break those promises. The whole scheme of
compensation was generally misconstrued. In the Boer mind
war had always been associated with gain ; it had meant free
farms, unlimited loot, and innumerable herds. It was a rude
awakening for the Boer to find himself worse off in 1902 than
he had been in 1899. By a process of reasoning which is not
quite clear to the ordinary mind he came to the conclusion
that his late enemy was morally and legally bound to recoup
him in full for what he had lost. Starting with this assump-
tion, he proceeded to put a wholly inexplicable and unjustifiable
interpretation upon the Terms of Vereeniging.
The idea was generally prevalent among the ex-burghers,
who have seldom found any difficulty in arriving at a conclu-
sion favourable to themselves, that the £3,000,000 mentioned
in the Terms of Surrender w^ere to be paid in compensation for
war losses, that the moneys expended by the local commis-
sions on repatriation and relief were not compensation, and that
£3,000,000 still remained untouched. All classes in the com-
munity entertained the erroneous belief that they were entitled
to compensation and indemnification which would place them
in as flourishing, or even more flourishing, a position than they
occupied before the war. The Boer expected, or pretended to
expect, that any exorbitant claim which he, with the aid of
his attorney, might think fit to submit would be met in full,
and when this w^as not done he complained bitterly. The
inevitable delay in the payment of claims, which was largely
due to the fact that many of the local Dutch commissioners
likely to get before they start sowing or doing anything to put their
property in good order again. If the Compensation Board had never
existed, this district would now be in a far more prosperous condition than
it is, and the sooner the burghers receive what is due to them and become
disappointed, the sooner will they find out that they must put their
shoulders to the wheel and do a little work ' (extract from Fauresmith
Report for July, 1903).
17—2
260 THE AFTERMATH OF WAR
could neither read nor write, was very generally confounded
with niggardliness of intention. Accustomed under a previous
regime to see funds disappear into the blue, the Boer press
did not hesitate to suggest that the funds devoted to com-
pensation were being pocketed by the Claims Commissioners,
and that the transaction would later be covered by a ' fairy-
tale Blue-Book.' The system of allowing protected burghers
to obtain prompt relief by giving them at once 50 per cent, of
their assessed claims was generally regarded as a swindle.
In fact, it is generally true to say that Boer discontent may
be relied upon to increase pari j^clssu with British generosity.
How long Great Britain will continue to pursue towards this
much overrated race a policy of conciliation and magnanimity
which has repeatedly failed, which has tended to depress her
friends and to inspire her foes, which is antagonistic to the
true interests of South Africa, and which threatens the
integrity of the Empire, still remains to be seen.
I
APPENDICES
A. CIRCULAR AS TO METHOD OF KEEPING ACCOUNTS.
B. TERMS FOR LAND SETTLERS.
C (l.). CLOSE OF REPATRIATION AND INSTITUTION OF RELIEF.
C (II.). CLOSE OF REPATRIATION AND INSTITUTION OF RELIEF.
D. EXTENSION OF RELIEF.
E. 'ACKNOWLEDGMENTS OF INDEBTEDNESS.'
F. STAFF EMPLOYED.
G. STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURE.
H (l.). INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED REGARDING CLAIMS.
H (II.). INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED REGARDING CLAIMS.
261
APPENDIX A
(Origiual Circular H.)
Government Offices,
Bloemfoxtein,
21st June, 1902.
Circular as to Method of Keeping Accounts.
To the Chairman of District Repatriation Commission.
With reference to Paragraph 10 of the Regulations already
communicated to you, I have the honour to request your attention
to the following instructions as to keeping the accounts of the cash
and stock transactions of the commission in your district. It is
imperative that a uniform system should be in force in all districts
of the Orange River Colony, and that you should not depart from
the lines therein laid down unless specially instructed to do so by
the secretary or chief accountant of the Central Board.
1. To record the cash transactions, it will be necessary for you to
employ a cash book and sales book (day book) and a ledger, in
which to post the entries of the other two. This ledger should