Documents - Part One: Leaders and Chiefs oppose government plans

Document 8. Proceedings and Resolution of the United Transkeian Territories General Council, March 30, 1936

CR. J. MOSHESH moved: "That this Council views with grave concern the Government's intention by its proposed legislation to abolish the existing form of franchise to Natives and thereby tamper with the rights of citizenship, and as this can only have the effect of undermining the good feeling between European and Native which has hitherto existed, this Council therefore expresses its profound disapproval."

The mover: Before speaking on the motion I wish to thank the Chairman very much for having shown us the picture of our beloved Queen Victoria the Good on Thursday last. I wish all to bear in mind that we are to-day dealing with a great gift that was given to us by our beloved Queen Victoria the Good, and that now the Union Parliament wishes to abolish it. I therefore call upon you one and all to think of that picture which you saw and to remember that that Queen would never give you anything that would harm you but rather that which would be for your good. I will not now go into anything new. These Bills have been before Parliament for a very long time, but there was no way by which they could be pushed through. All sorts of plans were tried, but they seemed to fail, until at last they hit upon the idea of forming in Parliament what they call a United Party. That United Party, as the word implies, was to move as one body. That is a most unsatisfactory state of things, but there it is. Well, Government this year, or rather late last year, sent out members of Parliament to go through their districts preaching what was to take place. Gen. Smuts went through the country, and Mr. Heaton Nicholls went through the country, telling the story of the wolf and lamb, as we saw it in these parts. Government, again called upon Mr. Smit, Secretary for Native Affairs, to come to Umtata and call a big meeting. Natives of all classes were called. The members of this Council were called together so that the Native mind might be properly represented. We met here in this very hall. The Secretary for Native Affairs, after having explained everything to us, retired and left us to deal with the subject. As is well-known we came to one conclusion. It is on record that we decided that we would have nothing that would shake our franchise, that we would not sell it for anything. We were willing to take what Government offered us in the way of councils and land, but those two things were not in any way to interfere with our franchise. To that was added a most remarkable speech by the Rev. Mazwi to be conveyed to Government. That was the first meeting we had called by the Secretary for Native Affairs on behalf of the Government. Our views then expressed were, I believe, placed before the Government. We were not satisfied with that. A meeting was again called by the Natives themselves which met at Bloemfontein and there were Natives there from all parts of South Africa. I am glad to say that all parts were represented, and I must here thank the three Northern provinces who said that they would not accept anything which would tamper with the Native franchise existing in the colony, though they were quite willing to take anything else that Government offered them. The resolution passed was taken to Cape­town by delegates appointed by that meeting and was presented to Gen. Hertzog himself. His replies are well-known. He refused to listen to anything that was suggested to him by these delegates of ours and told them he would push on with the Bill. The delegates retired. Then came a change. The delegates came home and told us what had happened. After they had got home they were recalled to Capetown. They were not then sent down by us who sent them originally; they were called by a quite different body of people. A compromise was suggested in Capetown which was put to the Natives who were down there. The money which took these delegates there was not ours; they were not sent down by us. We therefore do not recognise them. They did not go on our behalf but on behalf of those who called them. And here, sir, I have a letter from Mr. L. D. Gilson, M. P. for Griqualand, reading:

"Dear Chief,-You will have seen by now that we have arrived at a compromise on the vital clause of the Native Franchise Bill; that is, clause I, which practically took away the franchise, as we know it now, from the Natives. The position a fortnight ago was that these Bills would definitely have been passed in their original form and the individual vote would have been gone forever. Three or four of us, including Mr. Payn and Mr. van Coller, got together and on meeting Professor Jabavu and other representative Cape Native voters we found them in full agreement with our suggestion that we should try and effect a compromise on the lines of Native constituencies being formed in the Cape whereby three European representatives in the House of Assembly with full voting powers will be elected." From this you will understand that the suggestion of a compromise came from white parliamentarians and not from us. Then how can it be said that the compromise came from us? Here is a letter written to me by Mr. Gilson wherein he says the suggestion came from them. He mentions three names. They were people who were thought to be standing for the Natives in Parliament. Is it possible that they could make such a suggestion knowing very well that this compromise was going to take away our franchise, for they have been laboring all these years in order to obtain this? Is it possible for us Natives to say we are represented by these gentlemen? I say the compromise is not ours and that the people who agreed to it were not sent by us. After they had presented our views to the Prime Minister and come back they ceased to act for us. They were called down by those who called them. I therefore call this a white compromise, not a Native compromise, and this will bring about misunderstanding between European and Native. The one will not be able to trust the other, and whose handi­work is it? We are not willing under any circumstances to hand over our franchise to anybody. The only one to whom we could have given it was the giver, knowing that if she took it away she would replace it with something far better, not something that was inferior and worthless. I therefore call upon you councillors when dealing with this subject to know that the most sacred gift that we have is about to be taken away. But let it be taken honestly, not under false pretensions. Our minds are well-known; they have not changed and they will never change.

CR. L. BAM: I second. We stand up knowing full well that the matter we are dealing with is a delicate one, and we know the matter has been under consideration for a long time. But on account of its importance it does not matter how often it is discussed--it will bear it. Native opinion is like this: We were given the franchise 80 years or more ago, and Natives used it in a proper manner. We found that the vote represented two or three things which we can mention now and which are very important to us and on which the British Government depends. The vote or franchise gave us the right of citizenship in this country. Citizenship we understand to mean this, that whether you are white or black you vote for a representative who goes to Parliament; and whether you are a European or a Native, if you are qualified you become a voter and because you are a common citizen of the country you gain all the privileges so that you can make progress. To-day, with the franchise being taken away from us it means that that door is being closed against us. We think that a great privilege is being tampered with for the first time in the history of the British Government. We find that if the Government wants to force a change in this great principle it can do so on its own, but we cannot assist the Government to do that. To-day people are talking about a compromise. This compromise is a new thing suggested just recently. People were given only ten days to think over this compromise and to decide whether it was a good thing or not, and we cannot forget that it took the Government ten years to think over these Bills. I do not think it is necessary to analyse this compromise. If there is any suggestion of a compromise Government should carry it on itself, but we will have nothing to do with it, because we hold on to our vote and cannot speak with two voices, agreeing to one thing to-day and to another the next day. It is said that under the compromise there will be a separate register for Native voters and that there will be three members of Parliament to represent our interests. We are not told that there are 150 members of Parliament altogether, and I would ask what three members will avail against 150 men? There is no provision made for an increase in the number of members to represent Native interests as the number of Native voters increases. That is why I say we are satisfied with the little we have had. We know that our minds have been confused in this matter of the vote by mixing several things not at all associated with one another. The suggestion was made to take away the vote and replace it with Native Councils and it was clear to us after examining this proposal that the councils might be even beneficial to us, but we are troubled over one difficulty, that these councils will not be given to us unless the vote is taken from us. Then we were surprised and wondered why the Government, if they aim at improving Native administration, cannot go on with the council system and leave the vote alone. We told our member of Parliament that we were grateful for the Council system, but that the vote should be allowed to remain. Again, certain suggestions are made to vote certain sums of money for us to buy land. That also interferes with us in this matter because in 1913 the Government promised to give us additional land. But the Government did not do that. Several commissions were appointed to investigate land matters but their recommendations were shelved and no action taken on them. To-day when a promise is made of additional land, it is brought along with the proposal to take away our vote, whereas we are still waiting for the Government to carry out its original promise of land and to give us that land because, as we claim to be common citizens with Europeans, we are entitled to land. Gov­ernment should give us land in a good position and on suitable conditions. We are very depressed that the promises made have not been fulfilled, and we do not know whether there is any truth in the latest promise to provide land. We know that the motive behind all this is segregation, but it seems to us that this segregation is discriminating. It deprives one section, but not the other section, and thus it ceases to be complete segregation. It becomes class legislation and we, being the under-dogs, are the sufferers. We do not understand why the Government should make all these conditions and take away all these rights from us. If Government is sincere in its segregation scheme we contend that on the Native side the Government should open higher positions to Natives so that they can advance as far as they can. Some who hear us speak like this will say we are only being ambitious. We know from reading books and from what people have told us that South Africa is not the only British colony. There are other British colonies in the world and we understand that the Governments of these colonies are different from what it is in this country. We know that in the Gold Coast a Native with the required qualifications can rise to be even a judge. But that does not obtain in this country. We can go on and make comparisons, for instance the treatment of Natives in French colonies. The Government must give us what is suitable for us and leave intact what we have already got and which we prize highly. One of the Empire builders, Cecil-Rhodes, said this: "Equal rights for all civilised men south of the Zambesi."

CR. E. QAMATA: Much has been said in connection with this Bill, and I do not want to touch on points that have been already raised. What is it that makes Government and the European public act in this way? The answer is given by the white nation themselves. They say they fear the black man. I am surprised that after hundreds of years of working together the white man should say he is afraid of the Native. The Prime Minister says they have to take away the Native vote in order to protect the white people, yet he has every reason to know that their position would never be interfered with and he quotes from the Bible to support his intention. I do not know whether what he says from the Bible is correct, but Jesus Christ who brought Christianity into the world said we must love one another. What did Jesus Christ do when one of His disciples cut off the ear of one of the servants of the high priests? He ordered His disciple to put it back; if it were necessary he would get his protection from God. This is the view of Christ, who introduced Christianity. That being the case I cannot see how Western civilisation and Christianity can be defended at the expense of other people. And I fail to see how one in this connection can hide behind Holy Scripture. What does the Government say it is going to give us? It says it will give us money to buy land, but we do not know the value of the land it is going to give us. If one looks at the areas scheduled they will find they have already been inhabited by Natives. The Prime Minister was asked to give us time to think things out, but that request was refused. What can we say that will move them not to take away our rights? I appeal to the white people of this country, as we were told by General Smuts that it was the white people's intention that this vote should be taken away. We have had this right for a good many years. What is wrong that the franchise should now be taken away? Even European women have the right to vote. Is it not sufficient protection that in order to vote a Native must have certain educational and other qualifications? I appeal to the white people in this respect. Let us view this from another angle and ask, are we not loyal enough to the Government? Even in voting Natives have never made any trouble. In a matter of this kind it is difficult to find words to express what we want to say. Whatever else the Government may do we will never agree to have our rights taken away.

CR. G. DANA: When we discuss this matter it is well that we go back to the convention from which resulted the Union of South Africa before we can deal with things that are happening to-day. Everyone knows what happened at the National Convention. The Native vote in the Cape Colony was a great pact at the convention and everyone knows what the European statesmen who attended that convention did. If they had known that the Union Government in 1926 would produce these Native Bills, the Cape Colony would never have joined the Union. I quote from a statement made by the late Mr. J. W. Jagger. When we ask what was the meaning of the provision of the two-thirds majority, I would reply by saying a petition was sent from this country to England to present the draft constitution before the British Parliament. The late King Edward made recom­mendations that if any law should be introduced affecting the Cape Native franchise that it would be reserved for him so that he could use his powers of veto. But the Union proceeded to deal with this matter with great wisdom by combining the two big parties and passing the Status Act of 1934, which states that on all matters South African the King would be advised by his South African ministers. The King's power of veto was taken away by that provision and the door was open for the Union Government to do what it liked with the Native vote. To-day the Native vote is being separated from the European vote. That means that the interests of Natives and Europeans are different, and that is not true. It is proposed to give us four senators, three members of Parliament and a Union Native Council in place of the Native vote. We pay direct and indirect taxes and those monies are in the hands of the House of Assembly. How are these senators going to represent us when our money is in the hands of the House of Assembly? The period of tenure of the senators is fixed by law. They are not appointed by the people. To come to the Native Council promised us, I liken it to a can that is said to contain water when it is practically empty. This Union Council will have no funds like the United Transkeian Territories General Council, and there is nothing to bind future parliaments to carry on the traditions of the present Parliament. No people will reach the standard we have reached by exercising the powers only of advisory boards. Gen. Smuts said that this council was not going to be made a legislative body but only a body advisory to the Government in regard to Native matters, but that in time the Government would consider whether to give it legislative powers or not. Natives are in a majority compared with Europeans. This Union Government is known as a democratic government. If that is true it is strange that we should be represented by three members when the Europeans are represented by 150. That could never satisfy the Natives of South Africa. The decision of the conference held at Bloemfontein was to reject these Native Bills, and I am sure that the opinion of the Native people expressed at Bloemfontein is the opinion of the Native people at home.

THE CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind councillors, that this is not a political meeting. I have allowed discussion on this matter not so that you could give expression to your political convictions but to enable this Council as repre­senting the people of these territories, to send its message to the Government. I think it would be better if members confined themselves to that aspect of the matter.

CR. T. NTINTILI: All the points have been mentioned by the previous speakers and we should not make any more long speeches. We should only deal with a few points in order to 'show that we are of one opinion in this matter. Many years ago Queen Victoria, whose picture, sir, you showed us the other day, sent out instructions. Even if they were not issued directly by herself, yet she signed them. They told the people in this country that whatever steps they took should be such as to place all the people on one level, and we are of opinion that the Union Government has deviated from those instructions, for the reasons stated by previous speakers. At the time of the visit of the Secretary for Native Affairs to Umtata to interpret the aims and objects of the Native Bills, in our reply we asked for time in order that we could consider the Bills and we even stated that a year thereafter a convention should be called for us. The All-Africa convention held at Bloemfontein made a similar request and we sent delegates to interview the Prime Minister. This is what surprised us. When we asked for time to consider the request it was not granted. Is it right that when you give a man something that is good you do not give him time so that he can think over it? We ask ourselves the question, what interests of Government will suffer if Government gives us time to think over the Bills? Probably that is why we think that Government is prompted by fear. We are only guessing from what we see in the papers. We have read the speeches delivered on this matter. Another thing that surprised us was spoken by the councillor on the other side of the chamber, when we were thinking that these Bills were made in the interests of Natives and to protect their interests. We find the statement that these Bills were made to protect European civilisation so that it may not be swept away by the Native people. We are surprised and wonder why the Bills are being hurried through. We should have understood if Government had given the Native people time to consider. When the Government introduces legislation affecting our votes it combines it with Native councils and land. We do not know where we stand. We are not complaining about Native Councils and the land proposals, because we know these things are what we require and that they will be of benefit to us. We are expressing the opinion that we are not prepared to associate ourselves with the present Bill. We are restraining ourselves in our speeches because we feel we must not become heated with the Government.

CR. J. XAKEKILE: I am glad to have the opportunity to say something on this matter. A great deal has been said already by members of the Council. I will only deal with a few points that they have not touched on. This is a painful matter to the Native. A matter like lands is bound up with certain entrenched privileges conferred on us by Queen Victoria, who found it fit to give the right to vote to Native and European alike. I know from experience that this country has advanced a great deal from very humble beginnings. Since the time the Cape Parliament was first constituted it has been composed of members elected by both European and Native voters. The Native carried out all his duties in trying to advance this country, and when it was sought to appoint representatives to further the work of civilisation the Native also had a share. No one can deny the fact that the Native never abused his vote, but used it properly. They appointed European men like Rose Innes, Sauer, Molteno, Solomon, and Native votes assisted in their election. Those were the men who bore the burden trying to uplift this country. How can people be deprived of their rights without any reason? It is clear that the suggested compromise has not emanated from the Natives. When the Government sent a certain commission round the country it seemed that Government was trying to find means to make the Natives speak with different voices. Again it is clear that the Government undertook the matter in the assurance that it would have a two-thirds majority if it formed the United Party. Therefore there is nothing to lead to the conclusion that it was the Native people who suggested the compromise. Government should be clear on this matter, because this is class legislation. Only people of a certain colour are discriminated against. The Native is not to blame for being black; if anybody is to blame it is God. We should be very glad if the Government could find another way to deal with this matter.

CR. P. XABANISA: We complain about being deprived of the vote because it gave the right to Natives to appoint a European as a member of Parliament whom they knew was a man of justice. Even to-day we still have Europeans full of justice and who have sympathy with the Native. That is our complaint that we are being ousted from the main voters' roll. To say it is being exchanged for something else is not true, because we have been given nothing. This council that we have been promised is already in existence under Act 23 of 1920, where it is stated that Councils would be introduced in all the provinces in South Africa. All that we were expecting was offered when that law was to be applied. We are surprised that Government should suggest an exchange or purchase price because we already had what was proposed. What sort of a man would he be who came to buy an ox and gave you in payment a horse that was already yours? Again, this vote is sought to be purchased with land. We already have a law about land-the 1913 Act. The Beaumont Commission was sent out to divide the land so that Natives would be on one side and Europeans on the other side. The Scully Commission was sent out for the same purpose and the Stanford Commis­sion came to this country to do the same work. The Government must know our natural right in the land as being the Native people of this country, and that is why we say that an Act for the diversion of land is already in existence. How can it be proposed to pay us with that for our vote? The Native in this country finds it hard to follow the policy in this regard. I could have spoken much longer on this subject. Cr. Sakwe was present at the conference at Umtata and at the convention at Bloemfontein and was sent to be our representative at Capetown, and if I am in order to make the request I would ask that he address the Council.

THE CHAIRMAN: I think we have discussed the motion at quite sufficient length, and it might be embarrassing to Cr. Sakwe to mention things dealt with at Capetown. The discussion is not on what has taken place but to bring to the notice of Government what are the feelings of the people of these territories. The motion was carried unanimously.

<<MENU / DOCUMENT 7 / DOCUMENT 8 / DOCUMENT 9 >>