THE SOUTH AFRICAN REVOLT

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2406, 11 March 1915, Page 5

THE SOUTH AFRICAN REVOLT

STEYN AND HERTZOG DENOUNCED I

Cape Town, March 10. During the debate on the Indemnity ®«!>. Mr. Walton said that the responsibility for the rebellion rested on Steyn and Hertnog. Both had used great in- i nuence,' and De Wet would have been I powerless without them. De Wet stood by his acts, and took the consequences. ! It was impossible to believe that he had ] not been misled. ; Mr. Burton. (Minister for Railways) j said that thero was still plenty of lip : rebellion and veiled treason. General '! Hertaog had led people to the brink of i the abyss, and then had refused to say 8 f^i word to save Wiem. *i

THE CAMPAICN. j CAPTURING 'A GERMAiTOAMP. " j Cape Town, March 9. ' ! Colonel Van der Venter captured tlio I enemy's camp at Nabas (in Cape Colony i territory), with much provisions, equip-" I ment, and horses. '

WAR CORRESPONDENTUNDEB I

CRITICISM

CAPTAIN BEAN'S ARTICLES*. j r _ Sydney, March 10'. I . Ihe South African Soldiers' Associa- ! tion in Sydney (a similar organisation j to tno ex-South African Contingenters' J Associations in New Zealand) has re- ! ceived a cable message from, Cairo stat- ; ing that at an indignation meeting of i old South African soldiers there a rc- i solution was carried emphatically resent. ! ing and denying Captain Bean's state*- j ments, and describing them as pernici- ! oils and unwarranted. ■ The message j adds: "Please contradict."

The Sydney "Sun" on. Maroh 1 last j published the following statement by j Captain Bean, the official war corres- j pondenfc'with the Australian Expedition- ' ary Forces: —"An article in which I i stated that the Australian troops wera . ! not responsible for certain- rowdiness i i» Cairo some months ■ ago, but that it was due solely to a small percentage 06 ,1 unsuitable men, seems to have been so - ' twisted and misquoted by a certain ! newspaper or newspapers as to appear.,, i to be an attack on the Australian troops [ i in is to say, exactly tbel "j opposite of what was written by me or, intended. The article alluded to alsia " j contains sweeping criticisms on tha • whole of the officers, who wero never j mentioned in my article. - These are j quito unjustified. Such'offences as took' j place were military offences. Nothing j else occurred which does not happen in i Australian and other cities every day.- ; The article referred to omits the fact— ' I which I was careful to state, and which ] is immensely important not to omit— -"-"1 that all the men returned to Australia' j are not unsuitable, but that a large' | proportion consists of men whose health' ! has broken down—often through hard: ■: work and exposure—and who are bitter- i ly disappointed at not being able to ! go on." . : 'J

WAR CORRESPONDENTS AT THE »i FRONT.

AUSTRALIAN REPRESENTATTVEiINi ''I EUROPE, j (Rec. March 10, 9 p.m.) j

Melbourne, March 10.. I The Commonwealth High Commis-' I sioner (Sir Georgo Reid) has cabled . ) that he has selected Mr. Harry Gullett ;'j as the Commonwealth representative to if join parties of war correspondents who •] are now allowed to visit the front on i sis-day tours. Arrangements are j being made for the distribution of newer j to the Commonwealth.