Petition to the Prime Minister, from the Rev. John L. Dube, President, South African Native
National Congress, February 14, 1914. (Published in The Cape Argus)

Humbly showeth: --

1. That your petitioner is the Principal of the Zulu Christian Industrial School as above, and president of
the South African Native National Congress, which represents practically all the native tribes of South
Africa, and it is on their behalf, and by their commission, that he now makes this petition. (A reply to the
petition, signed by the Secretary for Native Affairs and published in The Cape Times of February 26, 1914,
observed, "Your statement that, as President of the South African Native National Congress, you are
making this petition on behalf of practically all the Native tribes of South Africa is scarcely correct, as the
Government is well aware that there are large and important tribes and various sections of the Natives of
the Union which your Congress cannot truly claim to represent in this matter."]

2. You, Sir, are no doubt aware that money is now being raised to send a deputation to England to make
an appeal to the King against the injustice of the Native Lands Act, which became law on 19th June of this
year, a step that you deprecate, as appears from your speeches. You are reported to have said that a
political question of this kind would be better settled here, with which we entirely agree. But it has been
pointed out to you, Sir, that we have already done all that we found possible to do with the Government
here, before the Bill was passed, but scarcely any notice was taken of our representations.

3. Now, however, lest it be said that we have not exhausted every possible means to get redress of our
grievances from the local authorities before sending our deputation to England, we are making this appeal
to you, Sir, and propose making a final one to Parliament if not successful.

4. Your petitioner avers that practically all the well-informed natives of South Africa feel that never under
the British flag have they suffered an act of greater injustice and one, which is more likely to embitter the
hearts of the most loyal native subjects against the Union Government.

5. We make no protest against the principle of separation so far as it can be fairly and practically carried
out. But we do not see how it is possible for this law to effect any greater separation between the races
than obtains now. It is evident that the aim of this law is to compel service by taking away the means of
independence and self-improvement. This compulsory service at reduced wages and high rents will not be
separation, but an intermingling of the most injurious character of both races.

6. It has been stated that the law is of advantage to us; but there is no assurance in the law that it will
protect us from rapacious land agents. Any European holding land in a native area is not prohibited to sell,
and, furthermore, we have not been protected from landlords, to whom we pay rent, who take advantage
under the law to charge high rents, knowing we cannot move away with our stock or find admittance to
any other farm as rent paying tenants. We are more at their mercy than ever we were before, as
competition is shut out.

7. But even supposing a little protection were there, the wrongs which might be suffered in that line are as
one to a hundred in comparison with what we must now endure from the rapacious farmer who seizes the
opportunity to raise our rent and reduce our wages.

8. It may be said that we misunderstood the law, and that when it has been properly explained, we shall
find that it is not so grievous as we supposed. It is true there seems to be a great deal of
misunderstanding about it, even by those highest in authority. But we heard it explained both to natives
and Europeans and we cannot help noticing a difference in the explanation, which is given to Europeans
from that which is given to natives. As it has sometimes been explained to natives it does not seem to be
so objectionable, and some natives have expressed themselves in favour of it. But we have seen that
explanation utterly refuted by statesmen when before European audiences. Whatever may be the
explanation, we can now speak from what we have seen of the effects even in the beginning, and which
must inevitably grow worse and worse. We have seen our people driven from the places dear to them as
the inheritance of generations, to become wanderers on the face of the earth. We have seen rents raised
to the point of desperation. We have seen many of our people who by their frugality have laid by a little
money in the hope of buying a small piece of land where they might make a home for their families and
leave something for their children now told that their hopes are in vain; that no European is now permitted
to sell or lease land to a native. We do not need any plainer explanation than what we have already seen.

9. For the above reasons your petitioner humbly protests against the summary prohibition of the sale of
land to natives, and prays that you, Sir, may exercise your power as Minister of Native Affairs to bring
about an amendment to the effect that there may be no prohibition of the sale of land to natives till after
the report of the Commission has been accepted by Parliament and the natives adequately provided with
land.

10. We also ask that the law regarding the leasing and ploughing of land on share be left as it was before
this Act came into operation. This prohibition is causing much hardship without benefiting anyone.

In. conclusion, we pray that one native be appointed by the Governor-General to the Commission now
sitting from among three to be nominated by the South African Native National Congress; or alternatively,
one from two European gentlemen to be nominated by the same body.

As in duty bound, etc.

Source:

Karis, T & Carter G. M. (1972). From Protest to Challenge: A Documentary History of African Politics in South Africa, 1882-1964, Volume 1: Protest and Hope, 1882-1934. Stanford University: Hanover Press.

<>