I have related the story of my trial briefly and as accurately as I
could. I do not wish to comment on the justice or injustice of the
proceedings. It is for others to judge whether an officer, who was a
burgher of the Orange Free State, and _not_ a rebel, should have been
court-martialled, and while the war was still in progress, on such
unfounded charges. I shall not say whether I consider it just and fair
that, tried as a prisoner-of-war and acquitted as such, I should have
had to pay a bill of £226 for my defence. What if a prisoner does not
possess the means to secure legal defence? Must he then be condemned
without it? Has this not been done in certain cases? I shall ask no more
questions. I did not mind the money, but was only too glad to inhale
once more air not pregnant with death and destruction.

Our object in mentioning these details is to illustrate the nature of
some of the charges brought against Boer officers and burghers when
court-martialled by the British. These charges of murder were, as a
rule, associated with Kaffirs who had been shot, either in fair fight or
as spies. Our officers were held responsible for the acts of their men.
Moreover, by proclamation, any officer or burgher convicted of shooting
a Kaffir or Hottentot, after having surrendered, could be charged with
murder and condemned to death. The principle laid down in this
proclamation, that the life of a surrendered foe should not be taken,
must be endorsed by every right-minded man. The burghers, however,
argued that, since the war had not been declared against the coloured
races, they had the right to deal with armed natives in the most
effectual manner possible, especially if these natives were not British
subjects, but belonged to the Republics. Besides, some of these natives
gave no quarter to our men. We could cite several instances where
burghers had been murdered and mutilated in a ghastly manner. To mention
one instance, while peace negotiations were going on, 56 men were