Raid, and that it was baited
with the promise that if he and Mr. Rhodes would agree to support it
the threatened 'consequences' of their association with the Raid
would be averted. But they preferred the 'consequences.'

{44} About the middle of 1895 a bad explosion of dynamite occurred
in Germany under circumstances very similar to those of the
Johannesburg accident. An inquiry held by the German authorities
resulted in the finding that the explosion must have been due to
some fault in the dynamite, and an order was issued to destroy the
remainder. The officials charged with this duty found, however, that
the owners, anticipating some such result, had removed it. It was
eventually traced as having been shipped from Antwerp to Port
Elizabeth and thence consigned to the Transvaal in November, 1895.
The Johannesburg explosion occurred in February, 1896. No competent
or independent inquiry was held, although about 100 people were
killed and many more injured.

{45} The gaoler--Du Plessis--in the fulfilment of his promise lost
no opportunity to harass them into submission, by depriving them of
one thing after another, knowing that they would ask for nothing
except as a right. As an instance, the spirit-lamp with which
they made their tea was taken from them on the pretext that no
combustibles were allowed under the prison regulations, and upon a
remonstrance being made by Mr. Conyngham Greene to Dr. Leyds the
latter replied that it was necessary on account of the risk of fire.
For about eight months, therefore, water was to be--and of course
was--their only drink. Only once during the thirteen months did Du
Plessis appear to 'get home.' It was when he proposed that the two
should be separated and sent to out-of-the-way gaols, widely apart
and distant from all friends. Without doubt the conditions told
seriously upon their health, but as both men were endowed with
exceptional physique and any amount of grit they were still able to
take it smiling.

{46} It is described as the Witfontein case. See page 100.

{47} When the case came up again in due course a decision was given
by Mr. Gregorowski, the new Chief Justice, which was regarded by the
plaintiff's advisers as a reversal of the first judgment, and the
practical effect of which was to bring the case under the operations
of Law 1 of 1897--that is to say, to put the plaintiff 'out of court.'
Mr. Brown has appealed to the United States Government for redress.

{48} S