Republic, there is nothing to prevent the insertion of such a clause. These guarantees are necessary for the independence of the Judiciary. In the hope that these suggestions may prove of some service to your Commission, I have, &c. J. G. KOTZE, Chief Justice. A. D. Wolmarans, Esq. Chairman of the First Volksraad Commission for Revision of the Grondwet. No. 68. Div. B.R. 1633/97. Your Honour, BB. 335/98. Government Office, Pretoria, 16th February, 1898. I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, dated 5th February last, in which you state that you, especially also after the decided expression of opinion of the Honourable the First Volksraad on this point, would not test the existing and future laws and Volksraad resolutions by reference to the Grondwet, as having lapsed and no longer existing. This, your declaration of 19th March, 1897, cannot and may not be considered as a contract. No agreement can be entered into by a Judge with regard to the laws which he shall or shall not apply. The declaration required by the law must be absolute, and cannot be subjected to conditions. Seeing that your answer to the letter of the State Secretary, dated 4th March, 1897, wherein, on my behalf, the question mentioned in Article 4 of Law No. 4 of 1897 has been put, is now declared by yourself as no longer existing, I must consider that you wish it to be understood that there is no answer from you. Seeing that Article 4 of Law No. 1 of 1897 empowers me to dismiss those members of the High Court from whom I receive either a negative or, in my opinion, unsatisfactory reply, or no reply within the stipulated time, and seeing that your answer must now be considered by me as not existing, or if existing, as insufficient, I am, to my deep regret, obliged to proceed to the last step with regard to yourself, and you are hereby, in terms of Article 4 of Law of the South African Republic, to take effect from this date. I have, &c. S. J. P. KRUGER, State President. DR. W. J. LEYDS, State Secretary. His Honour J. G. Kotze, Chief Justice, Pretoria. No. 69. Your Honour, High Court of the South African Republic, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of to-day's date in answer to mine of the 5th instant, in which you inform me at the end thereof that you have deemed it fit to dismiss me forthwith from my office of Chief Justice of the S. A. Republic. 66 Your Honour must not take it amiss when I point out to you the untenableness and illegality of your action. You say that my "declaration of 19th March, 1897 (i e., "the declaration of the five Judges), cannot and may not be "considered as being a contract. No agreement can be "entered into by a Judge with regard to the laws which he will or will not apply. The declaration must, according "to the law, be absolute, and cannot be subject to conditions." When you, as State President, entered into the understanding in March last with the Judges, you were of an entirely different opinion, and considered that the circumstances did indeed justify the acceptance by you of the understanding proposed by the Judges. Permit me to remind your Honour of the particular terms of the understanding. "The Judges declare this upon the understanding "that your Honour will as speedily as possible submit a "draft to the Honourable the Volksraad, whereby the "constitution or Grondwet (guaranteeing, inter alia, the independence of the High Court) will be placed on a sure basis," etc. This understanding, proposed by the Judges, you unreservedly accepted. You were, therefore, as State President, a party to the understanding, which was as binding upon you as upon the Judges. The obligation thereby created was unquestionably of a reciprocal nature, and subjected both sides to the terms of a solemn compact. 66 66 The measure, under which your Honour affects to act, does not in Article 4 confer the competence on the State President of repeatedly putting the intended question to the members of the Judiciary. He can only do so once. To the question put to me, together with the other Judges, in March last, an answer has, in terms of the understanding, already been given and accepted. Moreover, I cannot admit the legality of the measure, which bears the name of Law No. 1, 1897. My appointment as Judge is for life; in the independent discharge of my judicial functions I may not be interfered with; and where I have been guilty of any supposed judicial misdemeanour I must be properly indicted, and can only be found guilty and punished by a specially constituted tribunal. These guarantees have been established, not only for the protection of the Judges, but also for that of the people, and of all the inhabitants in the State. These guarantees have been introduced, and are assured by Law No. 2 of 1896, and prior laws, by the convention with England and the Grondwet of 1858. The measure, therefore, which bears the name of Law No. 1 of 1897, which, I may add, was never previously published for the information of the people, and was, in the short space of three days, accepted by the Honourable the Volksraad upon your Honour's urgent request, possesses (I say it with all deference) no legal validity. By assuming and carrying out an authority that is illegal; by violating the guarantees for the independence of the Judiciary, the condition under which the Republic exists as a civilised and constitutionally governed country is likewise broken. I regret, therefore, that for these reasons I cannot agree with your Honour's views, nor can I admit the legality of your action. Until I am properly and legally found guilty by a competent Court and dismissed from office, I am, and remain, Chief Justice. I have, &c. J. G. KOTZE, Chief Justice. His Honour S. J. P. Kruger, No. 70. Div. B.R. 1633/97. Sir, Government Office, Pretoria. 17th February, 1898. In reply to your letter to His Honour the State President, dated High Court of the South African Republic, |