Adamantia : the truth about the South African diamond fields : or, a ...

CALIGRAPHIC PERSPICIENCE. 219coincides with the well-known history of the country.Of course, unless Waterboer can disprove the authenticityof this document, it entirely upsets his case. Sofar as I can ascertain, Waterboer has never yet deniedthis letter, although his special pleaders (the ColonialGovernment) say ·so, and by two of their members,Mr. Southey; Colonial Secretary, and Mr. Griffith,Attorney General, once undertook to throw doubt uponit by declaring that the signature on the original wasa forgery!"Being something like this, 'N. Water-Boer,' while on allauthentic documents that we have seen, the signature is writteneN. Waterboer.' ".Well, at Bloemfontein, during the month of May,1872, his Honour, President Brand, and Mr. F. K.Bohne, Government Secretary, had the courtesy toproduce to me five or six "authentic documents,"with five or six authentic signatures of" N. Water­Boer," exactly as on the document, Annexure No. 25.Of course, the onus probandi does not rest with theOrange Free State, who are the defendants, although,with intentional and unpardonable injustice, theColonial Government has forced it upon them, butupon the plaintiff, Waterboer, who claims part of theState's \erritory-part, too, which, as we have seen,has for a quarter of a century .been in the indisputablepossession of the residents therein, and which has beenpart and parcel of the State from the day of itsexistence!A comparison of the documentary evidence producedon either side cannot fail to be in favour of the• Vide p. 157, Capetown Biue Book, No 1. 1871.Digitized by Goog Ie