Documents: The Minister thanked the Conference and withdrew

DOCUMENT 40b. Testimony of Pro­fessor D.D.T. Jabavu, Walter Rubusana, and the Rev. Abner Mtimkulu of the Cape Native Voters' Convention and Meshach Pelem of the Bantu Union, before the Select Committee on Sub­ject of Native Bills, May 30, 1927 [Extracts] (Published in Minutes of Evidence, Select Committee on Subject of Native Bills)

253. By the Acting Chairman.} (Professor Jabavu.) Besides the Cape Native Voters' Convention I represent the following bodies:--

The Wesleyan Methodist Conference of South Africa.

The European-Bantu Conference. The Cape Native Voters' Convention. The Cis-Kei Native Convention. The Government Native Conference (Act 23 of 1920).
The S.A. Native Farmers' Congress. The S.A. Native Teachers' Federation. The S.A. Native and Coloured Health Society.

I wish to speak of the Representation of Natives in Parliament Bill. I have embodied my views in a pamphlet which has been submitted to the members of this Committee and which I wish to be taken up in my evidence. It is as follows:--

The franchise was first granted to the Natives of Cape Colony in 1854, without distinction as to white and black. Before this privilege was conferred upon the Natives, the evidence of both oral tradition and Cape historical records of the years 1848-1854 enables us to judge that the motives inspiring the officials of the then British Parliament were born of the essential Christian ethic, namely: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." They were founded on a system of unimpeachable equity to all human beings regardless of colour, race or creed.

Translated into practical politics by Sir George Grey and his contemporaries, who meticulously eschewed all discrimination based on the colour of a man's skin, they were finally crystallised by Cecil Rhodes in his formula of "Equal rights to all civilised men south of the Zambesi." This Rhodesian dic­tum imposed the criterion of civilisation on everybody alike, excluding both white and black uncivilised men. It was an equitable standard, because it threw the door open for all to qualify for true citizenship and a voice in the counsels of a State in which civilized men were bound for the same destiny.

Under such a scheme it was no disadvan­tage to wear a black skin, because all men who could prove their civilisation by a recognized educational and property test were eligible for the franchise and Parliamentary membership. Judged from the religious standpoint this was perfectly Christian and at the same time sound economics. The Ministers of Queen Victoria thus made Britons of all civilized black men under the Union Jack on a uniform equality of citizenship with all other British subjects elsewhere in the Empire on which the sun never sets. The old Cape Colony adhered to this policy for nearly half a century, producing a progressive, contented and sane Bantu population.

At the conclusion of the Boer War and pacification of 1902 a compromise was made by which the Britishers yielded to the tradi­tion of the Northern ex-Republics on the principle that a man's black colour should prohibit him from the right to the franchise.

A worse compromise was pressed from the same quarter in 1909 when under the Union Act, the right of membership to Parliament was taken away from the Cape Native and Coloured voters. We know that in the deliberations of the 1908 Convention it was the Northern members who pressed for the exclusion of non-Europeans from Parliament; and that it was only under inexorable pressure that the Cape delegates were brought to give way to the notorious Colour Bar Clause No. 26 of the Constitution, and to Clause No. 35, which made it a possibility to dispossess the Cape Natives of their franchise, and which constitutionally placed it under the jeopardy of election vicissitudes whereby all non-Europeans could some day be disqualified by a two-thirds majority in a Joint Sitting.

The spirit that produced this clause was without doubt illiberal, un-Christian and sub­versive of all that is best in British tradition, resulting in palpable unrest among the people thus stigmatised, as well as considerable mysti­fication and perplexity in the Imperial Parlia­ment when the Draft Union Act was taken thither for ratification. Memorable speeches were made in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister, Mr. H. H. Asquith, and in the House of Lords by Lord Crewe, all urging the South African delegation to abandon the un-British and shortsighted Colour Bar in the Constitution; but to no purpose. In view of this adamant position on the part of the South African delegation King Edward VII took the extraordinary step of preserving the right of the Cape Native franchise against future dispossession in his "Letters of Instruc­tion" to all future Governors-General. Again, the Imperial Commoners in their despair, after endeavouring to influence the Convention delegates to a more humane attitude, ex-honed the delegates to modify their policy on their return so as to seek a way to withdraw the Colour Bar and extend the Cape Native franchise northwards.

It was not a question of uninformed English negrophiles unduly intermeddling in the local affairs of South Africa; but a case of indepen­dent external examiners criticising the patent failure on the part of South African politi­cians to observe the universal laws common to all humanity. Locally, it was the historical conflict between the ideals of the liberal Cape and the inflexible Northern Provinces habit­uated to governing their subject races on the principles of so-called "firmness." The Imperial Parliament and the King of the British Empire, in their capacity of unbiased judges, could not forbear to censure the Convention delegates for the glaring injustice committed against the inarticulate Bantu.

Less than two months ago a prominent Cape politician gave expression in a public speech to the following apposite remarks:

"A new spirit had come into Native policy in recent years as far as the Union was concerned -- a policy of repression, a policy of injustice, and a policy that went back entirely on the policy of the old Cape Colony. He would go as far as to say that had they at the/Convention, or had the leaders of the old Cape Colony in those days, known the posi­tion as it was to-day, there would have been no Union. That was absolutely certain. If they could have foreseen the Bills which were now before Parliament for discussion next session, they would never have dreamt of going into Union. They thought at that time that, with the experience which the Union Government would get, the policy of the old Cape Colony would gradually extend and be supported by the whole of the people of the Union. The policy now was to go back on the policy of the old Cape Colony. . . Under this (Represen­tation of Natives) Bill it was proposed to take every Native off the register, which was absolutely contrary to the Act of Union. . . . and it is against the assurances given to the Imperial Government when the Act of Union was passed."--(J. W. Jagger, M.L.A., Cape Times, December 16, 1926.)

These facts are incontestable and cannot lightly be dismissed as political opportunism or platform chicanery. Since then a change for the worse has become manifest from the spirit that obtained in 1854 and 1910. The North­ern provinces have undergone no change of heart during the last 16 years. On the con­trary, there is cumulative evidence that they have steadily overpowered the Cape policy. Indeed their dominance has given birth to the Colour Bar Act of 1926, and to the Native Bills, of which we are to consider clause by clause the one entitled "The Representation of Natives in Parliament."

The Franchise Bill.

The preamble to this Bill contains three extraordinary proposals:--(a) The first is to alter sub-section (2) of Section thirty-five of the South Africa Act in order to remove all the names of Native voters from the registers. The original law guaranteed that "No person who at the passing of any such law (i.e., to disqualify any person by reason of his race or colour only) is registered as a voter in any province shall be removed from the register by reason only of any disqualification based on race or colour." This proposal constitutes a revolutionary violation of both the letter and spirit of the Union Act.

(b) The second is "to make special and uniform provision for the representation of the Native inhabitants of the Union in the House of Assembly." This proposal postulates what we cannot accept, namely that the members of Parliament should be split into two sections according as they represent whites and blacks who live territorially mixed. It is further vitiated by its preliminary basis of depriving one section of the Natives of its franchise rights enjoyed for more than seventy years without abuse or misuse.

(c) The third is "to alter certain other provisions of the South Africa Act, 1909, and the laws governing voters' rolls and parlia­mentary elections, with a view to effect such representation."

There appears to be no justification for tampering with the Constitution for the pur­pose of introducing an injustice at the expense of the Cape Native voters.

On this preamble we would offer as a constructive suggestion that no alteration whatever be made in section 3 5 of the Union Act, but that special provision be introduced to initiate the Natives of the three Northern Provinces into a modified form of the fran­chise with a high educational and property qualification. That would be a step in the direction of honouring the assurances given in England in 1909 by the Convention deputa­tion. Incidentally it would rectify the long­standing anomaly of the existence of voteless educated Natives and create justice where it([s clamantly wanted.

Clause I of this Bill definitely disfranchises the Cape Native voters because it repeals sub-section (2) of section 35 of the Union Act.

As we oppose the retrogressive step of the disfranchisement of the Cape Natives, we respectfully suggest that Clause 1 be deleted from the Bill.

Clause 2 establishes seven European mem­bers to represent all the Natives of the Union and divides each of the larger provinces into two electoral constituencies where voting is to be carried on only by Chiefs, Headmen, members of local Councils, or by other groups to be organised by Government machinery. This clause is both revolutionary and indefen­sible; revolutionary because such a system of group voting is without precedent in the British Empire; and indefensible because,

(a) the number of members will be clearly inade­quate for the immense population concerned;
(b) the geographical size of the constituencies will be unwieldy for efficient management,
(c) the character of the electoral brigades will be that of men indebted to the Government either as servants or nominees;
(d) it supplies only a shadow of its intended substance because the proposed electorates, being all but suborned in advance, give but a faint reflex of real representation.

As a constructive suggestion we would eliminate this clause and substitute instead a modified individual franchise for the three Northern Provinces based on an educational and property qualification.

Clause 3 lays out the manner, date and place of elections.
Clause 4 makes the seven members addi­tional to those in the Union Act, and perpetu­ates the old and contentious Colour Bar of section 43 of the Union Act.
Clauses 5 and 6 limit the privileges of the seven members in certain respects, and these respects are just those matters in which the Native voters are at least as deeply concerned as are the European voters.
Clause 7 completes the process of the disfranchisement of the old-time Cape Native voter begun under Clause 1 of the Bill.
Now, clauses 3 to 7 should be deleted under our scheme inasmuch as they logically depend for their validity upon clause 1 and 2 which we have already expunged.

Clause 8 is a legal riddle. According to the reading of General Smuts it preserves the status quo of the Native voters in their relation to the Provincial Council. According to Sir Charles Crewe it abolishes it. The ambiguity of this clause thus permits of two diametrically opposed legal interpretations. In either case it is difficult to imagine how the Cape Native voters will continue to vote for their Provincial Council once their names are struck off the register as provided under Clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill. This confusion of aim on the part of the authors of the Bill somewhat upholds our suggestion against any tampering with the old Cape Native Vote.

Clauses 9 to 11 are negligible as they merely define terms.

Thus we are left with nothing to approve in the Bill except the constructive suggestions already outlined.
In support of this position we may at this juncture state that the Natives of the North­ern provinces have, by means of their organi­zations, journals, meetings and all other methods of expression, unequivocally rejected the offers made under this Bill.

They do not want the Bill so long as its advantages to them involve the whittling down of the old Cape Native vote. They prefer to wait until in God's good time the European race of South Africa may be induced to start them on a franchise similar, even if modified, to that of the Cape. It will therefore be purposeless to foist upon these people a pseudo-franchise they unanimously repudiate.

On the other hand the Cape Natives have already lost so many of their old treasured privileges since Union (that is, by the disabili­ties under the Colour Bar clause in the Constitution, the restrictions arising out of the 1913 Lands Act, the Poll Tax, Pass Laws, the abolition of the right to appeal to the Privy Council, the dispossession of the right to land tenure under the Urban Areas Act, The Colour Bar Act of 1926), they have already lost so many of their privileges, I say, that they can hardly be blamed for being now unwilling to sacrifice their greatest asset for the sake of conferring the franchise on some­body who says he does not [sic. ]

We shall now discuss eight arguments levelled against the Cape Native franchise by the Prime Minister at Smithfield (November 13th, 1925) and by others from time to time.

Firstly, the Cape Native Vote is a danger to European civilization.

Our answer to that is that a little thinking will show that this is erroneous because the ordinary Native cannot be a voter until he satisfies the standard set for all civilized men. To become civilized he begins by renouncing barbarism and develops political aspirations that are harmonious with progress and modern culture. Barbarism, as an inferior stage of ethnic development, can always be subjugated by civilization. Therefore it is a logical fallacy to assume that the Cape Native vote can by any possibility be a menace to European civilization. On the contrary the history of the last forty years contains abun­dant proof that the Native vote has substan­tially advanced the cause of European civiliza­tion, because it has been wisely exercised, producing parliamentarians of the calibre of Sir James Rose-Innes who first entered Parlia­ment in the early eighties as a direct choice of the Victoria East Native voters. Far from being amenable to bribery by unscrupulous orators, it has exhibited judicious selection, decorating the House of Assembly with illus­trious statesmen like Mr. Merriman, Mr. Sauer, Sir Richard Solomon, Sir Charles Crewe, and many more. It has never committed any mistakes. Therefore theory and experience are entirely on the side of the Cape Native vote.

Secondly, we are told it is a danger because it will in time swamp the European vote by reason of its numerical preponderance, transferring political ascendancy from white to black and making this a black man's country.

Our reply is that this is a confession of an unjustifiable fear. Past history provides no more ground for fear on this account than the Cassandra prophecies deduced from census figures by a Government official two years ago. A study of the figures reveals that in 1910 there were 6,633 Native voters to 121,346 European voters, that is one to eighteen; and now sixteen years after that there are 14,182 to 156,531, one to eleven. This comparative slowness of Native growth is in keeping with the slow process of a true education, a natural course of development. Supposing it did swamp the whites in our present day, what reason is there to fear four million uncivilized Natives on the part of a million civilized European population backed by forty-five million Englishmen plus the whole League of Nations? A lion might as well fear the future of the mouse. Just as Natal has framed laws stringent enough to limit its franchise to a few Natives, so will the Union Parliament always be in a position to circum­scribe the Native vote to within whatever standard of Natives it judges to be adequate for the sentimental purpose of maintaining white dominance in Parliament. Furthermore, when the Native voters of five centuries hereafter are numerous enough to swamp the whites they will ipso facto be civilized enough to run the country on civilized lines and with the intelligence and dignity associated with civilized races elsewhere in the world.

Thirdly, it is argued that political equality will lead to social equality, a position repug­nant to Europeans.
In answer, we say political equality is by no means synonymous with social inter­mixture and miscegenation any more than the present Native voters seek intermarriage with European women. We desire political equality not for social intercourse but in order to rise in our economic and political circumstances. We cannot thrive economically until we have our due share to the land rightly adjusted. And we cannot obtain our land rights until we get a direct voice in Parliament, that is, political equality. We are already inextricably bound up with Europeans in our territorial occupation of the land, but minus the means wherewith to protect our interests in the land we jointly occupy. Without political equality there is no hope of our attaining justice in our territorial problems; and it is obvious that territorial segregation will for ever be a physi­cal impossibility in South Africa. Christianity alone has failed to secure justice for the Natives. The Natives will get justice only when they get political equality. It follows then that political equality is the only practical policy which Christianity should adopt for the Bantu of South Africa. This has nothing to do with social intercourse.

Fourthly, it is averred that the vote is in essence contrary to the African tradition of tribal rule by chiefs.
Against this we submit that African tribal rule has undergone such disintegration that it can never be re-established among detribalised Natives. Our tribal system is being gradually dislodged by the European democratic system and will ultimately be eliminated according as education spreads. It is useless to urge tribal communism as our ultimate goal in face of the Union Act based on British individualism, which is the enemy of communism. Even a racial or differential imperium  in imperio will be ineffectual in this country.

Fifthly, it has been said that the Cape Native vote is obnoxious because it places the Cape Native on a higher footing than the Northern Native.

Against this we would point out that the reason why the Cape Native stands politically on a higher footing than his Northern com­patriot is that the Cape tradition was his­torically based upon impartial justice. Chris­tian morality, so far as we understand it, requires that the happy man shall not be penalised by degradation in order to establish a uniform injustice. Rather, the unhappy Native helot of the Orange Free State should be sympathetically raised to the rightful citizenship enjoyed by his more fortunate Cape brother.

Sixthly, political advantage granted to the Native will recoil detrimentally to European interests.

This is a favourite Northern argument based on the theory that the Natives are children and should therefore be treated as political minors. Plausible as this theory sounds, it will be found on closer examination to be faulty because the Native people in the Union are not all children or barbarians. Some have achieved considerable progress and we cannot afford to despise or defy their van­guard of worthy leaders who are already fit to exercise the franchise by their unobtrusive qualification of good character, education and substance. Another mistake lies in the assump­tion that they will perpetually remain children and never grow out of childhood, A wise policy is that which makes due provision for such members of the population as grow out of the condition of childhood, as was done at the Cape. Under such a policy the Bantu leaders develop confidence in, and loyalty and love for their government system, leading the masses behind them to a similar appreciation of authority, thus eliminating any possible detriment to the interest of the rulers.

Seventhly, it is affirmed that the political interests of the Europeans are distinct from those of the Natives.
Our reply is that all political affairs are, in the last analysis, governed by economic interests. Now in the Union it is admitted on all sides that white and black are economically interdependent. In Native affairs the land question is supreme because the land is the indispensable asset that governs the economic status of the Native. All Native prosperity automatically increases European prosperity. Every Native wealthy enough to contribute a substantial income tax is by that much a more valuable citizen to the white government than his impecunious brother who pays only the poll tax, and accordingly deserves a voice in the counsels of the State in which he has so much property at stake. The identity of white and black political and economic interests should be accepted as an indisputable axiom in this country. The only alternative left for those who deny this identity of interest is the impossible task of effecting absolute terri­torial segregation, placing the blacks on some virgin land where they shall conduct their own separate administration directly under the Imperial Government.

Lastly, it has been recently stated that "As the voting power of the Native increases, so the feeling of bitterness against him will take possession of the white man. It will then doubtless come to pass that the basis of popular government, that is, honest difference of opinion on great questions, will give place to a division on colour and race lines to the neglect of everything else."

This is perhaps the strongest of all the arguments ever advanced against the Native franchise; and it is of paramount importance that the whole of the intelligent public opinion of South Africa be familiarized with the truth that will explode the fallacies that underlie this and the other seven propositions just discussed.
This particular argument presupposes two things to which we cannot subscribe, namely, (a) that the white man holds an incorrigible hatred against the black man; and (b) that white and black in South Africa are irreconcilable enemies.

So far as the Cape Province is concerned we venture to state that the voting power of the black man has never produced bitterness against him. Division on racial lines has from the very beginning been conspicuous by its absence. The Natives have always divided along ordinary Parliamentary lines. We remember in the days of the old Afrikander Bond that Onze Jan Hofmeyr was in league with John Tengo Jabavu with a big following of Native voters; whilst the Progressives had Dr. Jameson with the Rev. Walter Benson Rubusana and an equally large share of the Native voters behind them. These were divisions on lines of honest differences of opinion persisting down to the year 1909 with the South African Party and the Unionists each claiming a substantial following of Native voters. There was not even the mention of racialism. These are the historical facts. This situation was due to the kind of spirit that ruled in the Cape. Probably it is an approximation of a Christian spirit of nonracialism. If others are incapable of rising to it, then there appears no good reason for them to blame the Cape Europeans for being good Christians. The pessimistic expectation of a division on race lines is destitute of historical foundation, and either betrays a lack of faith in Christian­ity, or amounts to a confession that Christian­ity as we know it in South Africa is bankrupt.

It is desirable that the view of the black possessor towards his franchise should be known.

He regards his vote as a treasured gift of justice inherited from Queen Victoria, the Good. This Queen attracted the Basuto, the Bechuana and the Pondo chiefs voluntarily to surrender their unconquered lands under British tutelage. This franchise is ethically moral because it places a premium on merit rather than colour. It is Christian, indicating the white man's humanitarian duty towards the black. It is economically sound, for it confers equality of opportunity on all to rise freely in the scale of civilization. It fulfills the challenge of the New Testament towards peace as against hate. It has bestowed the highest mundane privilege of man, citizenship, as opposed to serfdom. The Cape Natives being full-fledged citizens have been immune from the rigours of the Pass Laws which are the curse of their voteless comrades in the Transvaal. Likewise have they been saved by the grace of the franchise from the operation of the 1913 Lands Act with its painful evictions. They have good reason for being vigilant against any impending dispossession of this citizenship lest such a misfortune be followed by an era of mutual hatred that can only end in the dim and dismal future with a sanguinary conflict. This franchise is thus nothing less than the noblest monument of the white man's rule, emblematic of his genuineness in practising the precepts of Holy Scripture towards the subject races.

The obvious Christian policy is that which will in our day truly lay the foundations for a glorious future of co-operation and good understanding. There seems to be no likeli­hood of keeping the black man down or back from his march towards ultimate liberty in education, economic life and political privilege any more than it was possible for King Canute to block the ocean tide by an act of volition.

Oppression and restriction will perhaps serve as useful expedients for a time, but the unerring course of evolution and the ultimate destiny of Christianity will inevitably predominate.

All the Native people of the Union pray that the white citizens of South Africa will respond to the call of Christian duty at this momentous hour when we are at the cross­roads of Native policy, exhorting public opinion to abandon the fatal path of mere expediency and injustice, guiding all to the safe haven of self-denial, peace and goodwill towards men.

With reference to the question of the Native franchise, the first point I wish to bring to the attention of the Committee is that we, as natives, throughout the country would like to be of help to the Government in regard to the formation of a native policy. We would like to take part as far as we can do, but in such way that we shall win the confidence of our people for the decisions made by Parlia­ment. Therefore our remarks will be made with the view of helping the Government and not destroying the efforts of the Government. In that connection we are appreciative of the efforts made by the Government to focus the attention of the country on these things in a way it has never been done before. We feel perhaps that the Committee has many views and interests to consider which are in conflict, and we shall endeavour to look at both sides and suggest what we think will be for the benefit of the country as a whole. The first point is this. We feel that these Bills represent such different interests that they may bring about unnecessary friction between black and white if taken as one indivisible block. If they can each be dealt with on their merits it will be more useful to the Committee and to the Government. We see no reason why one or two of them should not be proceeded with straight away, while the others need longer time and deliberation. Also, we feel that while we may like to approve of some things in one Bill and of others in another Bill, we are uncompromisingly against some things in another. One of the Bills we are solidly against; but we would not like it to be in the way of other Bills; therefore we feel that if the clause which binds them together be eliminated it will be of help to us and to the Committee.

With reference to the Cape Native Franchise, the feeling is that it represents a definite tradition in this country -- the tradition which impressed us and our fathers as one of absolute justice in this country, namely, the Cape policy under which we were born. We regard that as the true solution which will satisfy all concerned on the native side and make for good feeling in the future. We consider not merely present convenience. It may be very convenient for present purposes to make changes but at the same time they may prove to be the undoing of goodwill in this country in the future. We feel that the Cape policy is necessary for goodwill. It gave absolute freedom to the black man to rise to his highest scale not only in education but even in political influence. Judging by results this policy has produced goodwill, and the native vote has been handled in such a way, so far as I know, that there has never been a single mistake in using it. They have used-it for the benefit of the country. To take it away now will create bad blood and ill-will in the country. I and many of us have endeavoured to examine the objections which have been raised against this Cape Native franchise, and every one of them, both those mentioned in this House of Assembly, as well as others, can be answered.

I will be prepared to answer questions there-anent and satisfy members that the objections can be proved to be chimerical. There need be no fear. The most potent objection is that if the franchise were extended to the rest of the country it will bring civilization down to ruins; because it will be giving strength to the backward part of the country which would do harm to those who are civilized. Far from that being the case, it will have the opposite result. Every black man who is a voter has ipso facto abandoned the position of barbarism. We are ranged on the side of civilization. Our interests are intertwined with civilized interests. We would not like to go back naked to the kraals and live a barbarous life. We have renounced that life once and for all. In fact if to-day there were a war between barbarism and civilization, we would be on the side of civilization. The Europeans regard us as a solid block of undifferentiated barbarism, and the Europeans as a solid block of innate capacity to govern, whereas the division is not on these lines. The division is between civilization and ignorance, which may be found in both blocks. There are many Europeans not capa­ble of governing just as there may be a few black men who are so far removed from their conditions that they would not make a mess of civilized interests. The fact is that we are growing and developing under civilization and we shall be more and more a power on the side of civilization. The franchise is what may be familiarly called a safety valve for these natives who have developed and grown out of barbarism. It is an encouragement to feel that there is an opening at the top where they will have the opportunity to exercise their powers which they have learned to appreciate, and the present Bill impresses one as a Bill calculated to block the progress of those who like to advance and to dam them back to the slough of ignorance.

We feel so strongly in the matter that we are prepared 10 forego any advantage which is offered in the Bill to our northern compeers if it means touching or whittling down the Cape Native franchise as it stands to-day. The northern natives also feel that we are jointly so well protected by the Cape franchise that if there is any offer made to them but which involves the whittling down of the Cape franchise they are prepared rather to remain as they are and trust to the working of providence to change public opinion, perhaps gradually and slowly, but at any rate finally, that the Europeans may grow to realize in the future that the only sound policy for this country to adopt is to open the gates of freedom for self development rather than to make temporary measures of a repres­sive character or which will cause ill will amongst those debarred from advancing. That is the view of the associations I represent. I trust the Committee will understand our position, that we are giving what we really believe will be the salvation of this country. We think this policy has justified itself in the past and will continue to justify itself in the future and make for a better country and greater happiness amongst us than if we embark upon the changes proposed in this Bill.

(Dr. Rubusana.) I want to emphasise what has been placed before this Committee by Professor Jabavu on the question of the franchise. I wish to say at the very outset 1 have never yet heard anybody in this country or in the House say that the franchise has been abused by the natives who have exer­cised it for the last 50 years. I think they elected very able members to the Cape Parlia­ment. Secondly, if the policy of the Govern­ment is to equalise things and to give the natives in the north also a franchise, then I say why take away the present franchise from the Cape native. It seems to be a policy of robbing Paul to pay Peter. Apart from that I wish to say this, that if it is held by the members of the Committee that the Cape native is not benefited economically by use of the vote then it stands to reason that our white brethren who have not been benefited economically by the exercise of the franchise should also be deprived of the franchise. We know it for a fact in this country that there are Europeans as well as natives -- if that is the argument used to deprive the natives of the franchise, that economically he has not been of help -- to whom the same argument may be applied. But that would not need argument.

I do not think that the economic conditions have anything to do with the exercise of the franchise. Apart from that, there has been in the Cape franchise the safeguard of the educational test. If I am not mistaken, in the other provinces there are no such safeguards. I believe in the Transvaal and the Free State you have manhood suffrage. Thus when a man becomes 21 years of age he becomes a voter. In the Cape it is not so. There the uneducated and unqualified man cannot exercise the vote. There is that educa­tional test which the late Jan Hofmeyr intro­duced. That was a very wise provision because it prevented any idea of the native swamping the European vote in the Cape Province. All these years there has been no fear of the European vote being swamped by the native vote. There is therefore no reason for taking away the Cape vote. I have seen no cause why it should be taken away. Speaking generally, I fear on account of the passage of these Native Bills the natives in the country will be in a state of ferment in anticipation of the Bills becoming law.

I happen to have had the privilege of knowing every native chief this side of the Kei as well as in the Transkei, and these native Bills are being keenly watched by these native chiefs because they are afraid that there is really something behind the Bills, and that the policy of the Government is to take away every right the native has in the country. I have no doubt in my mind, with the experience I have in the country, that the passage of these Bills into law will create hatred between the black and white people in this country. That is very undesirable. It will also shake the loyalty and confidence of the native in the justice and honesty of the white man in this country when he comes to deal with the native or man of another colour. Therefore 1 do sincerely hope that this Com­mittee and Parliament in their wisdom will drop these Bills so that we may have peace in the country. It has never been questioned that the natives are loyal. Drop all four bills for the time being so that things may be coolly considered later on and you will create peace in the country. We cannot afford just now to do anything which is likely to shake the confidence and loyalty of the natives in the Transkei and on this side of the Kei. I would therefore on behalf of the people I represent beg you and Parliament to drop these Bills.

(Rev. Mtimkulu.) I support what Mr. Jabavu has said and also wish to make a few observations with regard to the Land Bill. It is a well-known fact that the crux of the native question is the land question. In that Bill in sub-sections (1) and (2) on page 1 provision is made for released areas. It takes away the reserved areas and converts them straight away into released areas, and as such it allows competition between Europeans and natives. It ignores the fact that the native is at the present moment living under every difficulty. He has got to contend with the civilized labour policy and with the colour bar, and therefore his earning capacity is very much reduced. He cannot earn as much money as the European and cannot compete with him. Therefore it is considered very unfair that with the disabilities of the policy of the colour bar and civilized labour, the black man should be handicapped by being put on the same footing with the European in the matter of acquiring land because he cannot compete with him. I wish to make some observations also in regard to the detribalised natives. It is a well-known fact that hundreds and thousands of young men at the present time live in the towns, even men of 20, 30 or 40 years, and no provision is made for these men in the Bill. The standard of living of these men is as good as that of the coloured man or some of the poor Europeans. The Bill does not take account in this case of his nationality.

With regard to the licence for native labour tenants and squatters. These provisions create a difficulty straight away and will induce the young natives to go to the towns. As soon as a young man reaches 18 the licence has got to be found for him, and if he does not want to work on that farm he has to be sent away. He cannot live on the farm. That is going to add to the influx of natives into the towns and to the question of unemployment in the towns. It also breaks down the native custom of parental control, and is therefore regarded by the native people as one of those things that ought to receive the best consideration. We feel that to send a young man of 18 into the towns lays him open to all sorts of tempta­tion; some are unable to think for themselves and are carried away, and by that action we will be increasing the criminal class among the natives. I may also point out in regard to these licences that it is not stated how much a man is going to be paid. It may be on the farms as is being done to-day the young men will only get 10s., 15s. or £1 per month as the case may be. Out of that the licence will have to be paid and that means that he will be bound to his baas for a number of years because the baas will get the licence for him and charge him. So he will continually be bound and this is again a policy of compelling the natives to work. If some arrangement can be made that these licences be free it will be of some advantage to the natives.

Coming to the question of land, the ratio at present is 105 morgen to every European and 3 morgen to every native. As you know, the native people generally have the hills and stony places. If the land question is going to be tackled at all it must be in such a way as to give a fairer proportion to the natives, and the native will develop himself and be a useful member of the community.

(Professor Jabavu.) The Cape native is very much opposed to the franchise being taken away from him. You say what the Bill provides for is merely an alteration of the franchise, but the changes which are suggested in the Bill amount to such a re-organisation of the vote that it takes away what we prize in the present state of the franchise. The indi­vidual vote is being abolished and substituted by group voting. I would not like to be responsible for supporting the suggestion that the native voters at present on the roll should remain there, and that no more be added, nor that the natives should vote separately for representation in Parliament. I stand for the status quo. If I were to suggest anything it would simply be the same franchise for the other provinces, although it may be a dream that will never be realised. You ask whether it will not be for the general good of the native in South Africa if we in the Cape curtailed our rights in order to give the northern natives some share in the Parliamentary business of the country. Whatever that may be in theory we have found in practice that we lose too much when once the position is put into the melting pot.

We have lost so many privileges since we came into Union through the inva­sion of the northern policy that to-day we feel our safety lies in the status quo and nothing else. I quite follow that the purpose of the Bill is to give the northern natives a vote to a certain extent, but I have the word of the northern natives themselves that they so value the privilege that we have here that they would not recognize this concession as a gift to them if it involved the whittling down of the present franchise. The Transvaal and Natal natives feel exactly as we do in regard to this question. They say if European feeling is not liberal enough to let those of the Cape keep what they have, and not to take away the rights of others, they will be better off as they are. I think the vote which I have here is helping to uplift the natives in the north. When I elect a good member for Parliament he does not say, "I am standing only for the Cape native," but he will speak for the good of all the natives and will benefit us all round. That is why we feel this offer will be no gain to us if it means the whittling down of the present system. You ask whether I have ever tried to place myself in the position of the white man and view these Bills from his standpoint. Yes, I have done that, and I feel if I were a white man I would take the view which the liberal minority of white men in the country take, and would be more generous than the average white man is to-day.

(Mr. Pelem.) Our Union is in favour of separate representation for natives. Where the interests of the European and the native clash, where does the native come in? He has no one to look after his interest then. If the native cannot get direct representation, which is most unlikely, then I think that the Euro­peans who represent him ought to be elected by the native vote solely, so that the Euro­peans will have no claim on that man at all. It is impossible for a man to serve two masters. A member not elected solely by the native vote cannot serve the native as well as he can his own people. That is how I look at it. I say that if I am honest and faithful and true to my people and their interests I will have to look after them, and I say the same of the European. If the native has no direct represen­tation he must have separate representation, as he is at present he is really unrepresented in the Union Parliament. (Dr. Rubusana.) I may say I am a member of the Bantu Union and I do not share the view of Mr. Pelem. He is giving his personal opinion; we are not united on that question. (Mr. Pelem.} I have read a resolution which bears out the views I have expressed which was carried by a majority at our meeting. (Dr. Rubusana.) I dispute the majority unless it is tested. That resolution was taken at a congress but the men there were not all members of the Bantu Union.

(Mr. Pelem.) I cannot say they were all members, but a large number represented the Bantu Union.
Coming to the Union Native Council Bill, it is the opinion of our committee that the chairman has too much power in his hands. We do not want the members to retire by rotation but to stay on for the full three years. We want a voters' roll on which the members for the Native Council will be elected. Our view is that we like this Bill to stand in abeyance for the present and first of all let the Bunga system be extended to the provinces before we have this Council. That is my own opinion and the view of the com­mittee. I have not considered the question whether the member for the Union Council should be elected by the Bunga or by the natives individually. (Dr. Rubusana.) The representation of natives through their chiefs and headmen is most unsatisfactory. They are ratepayers and hut tax payers, why not give them the vote? Why should one man who is the headman, and who may be a nominee of the Government, have to vote for the whole location? It would be more satisfactory if the people were called together by a Government official and their vote taken by him.

<<MENU / DOCUMENT 40a / DOCUMENT 40b / DOCUMENT 41a>>