Documents: The Minister thanked the Conference and withdrew

DOCUMENT 42b. Report on proceedings and resolutions of the Dutch Re­formed Church Conference, February 3, 1927 [Extracts] (Published in The Cape Times')

The third day's sitting of the European-Bantu Conference was opened by a short devotional service.
The first speaker was Senator Sir Walter Stanford, who recalled the Inter-State Commission on Native Affairs, on which he served in 1903-5. That Commission recommended that South Africa should follow the example of New Zealand in dealing with representations of the aboriginal races. It could not be said, declared Sir Walter, that the natives in the Cape Province had abused their right to vote. On the other hand, they had materially assisted by sending sound representatives to the Cape Parliament. The matter should not be influenced by existing party considera­tions, which might change in a day.

He considered there was no justification for depriving the Cape natives of a right which they had held for so many years, and which brought them a large measure of protection which they valued greatly. The Prime Minister should let well alone in the Cape Province, and try experiments in Provinces where no provision for the native vote had been made. Repressive legislation on the part of the Europeans would not bring contentment. The feelings of the natives who had given their loyal friendship in the four Provinces were entitled to fair consideration.

Sir Walter, in conclusion, emphatically declared that he had not the slightest fear of the natives. There was no need to fear the native when the wealth and commerce of South Africa was in the hands of the Europeans. The natives realised that for the large majority of them there was nothing but manual labour.
Four Principles.

Professor Du Plessis said that any consideration of the representation of natives in Parliament should start with the Native Commission of 1905. Four principles were then laid down: (a) The native is entitled to a certain amount of representation, (b) The native should have separate representation from the European, (c) The proportion of such representation to the European representation shall be decided by legislation, (d) The qualifications of the native elector should be equal to that of the European. The Commission referred to the danger of the constantly increasing native voting, which might lead to a conflict, which would be fatal to the good understanding hitherto existing between Euro­peans and natives. It was considered by the Commission that it would be impracticable to take away the franchise from the natives of the Cape who already had it. These recommendations were unanimous. If therefore, 20 years ago those responsible men regarded franchise legislation to be urgent, surely it was more urgent in 1927.

Professor Du Plessis quoted from General Henzog's Smithfield speech: "Circumstances are changing so rapidly that within a limited time the necessary conditions for the solu­tion will not be present any more. It is my desire, therefore, that people should recognize the necessity for tackling it now and not to delay."

The recommendations of the Commission, proceeded Professor Du Plessis, were largely embodied in the Bill now under consideration. The Bill proposed to give to the natives throughout the Union representation in Parliament. This was in accordance with the first principle of the 1905 Commission. It also proposed to give the natives separate representation. Confining the number of such representatives to seven was a wide difference, however, from the fourth principle of the Commission, that the qualification of the native elector should be equivalent to that of the European. The Bill differed from that because it was not a single native vote, but certain chiefs, members of local councils or persons nominated by the Government exercised to vote. This meant the withdrawing of the franchise from 14,000 natives in the Cape.

An Anomaly,
Professor Du Plessis, continuing, thought the Conference would agree, without much discussion, to the first and second principles. It was an anomaly that the natives should be without representation in the Legislature. This anomaly should now, if possible, be removed, and he could conceive of nothing which would improve their prestige in the eyes of the world more than such an action. This Conference would also agree, said Professor Du Plessis, to separate ballot boxes for Europeans and natives, and thus do away with the unedifying spectacle of Europeans canvassing for native votes, which would thus disappear. The Northern Transvaal did not want the Cape franchise introduced there.

The Bill proposed seven representatives, and since the number was fixed at seven it was surely immaterial to the Government how they were elected, provided they were elected by the natives. There were serious objections to the representatives of the natives being selected by the Government. It would also be a mistake to disfranchise the 14,000 natives in the Cape. They had not deserved this, and would rightly object. He hoped the report that this was to be dropped was correct, as if the franchise was retained a good deal of the objections would disappear.

Professor Du Plessis suggested that instead of limiting the number of representatives to seven they might make the quota of voters for each constituency 4,000. When that quota was exceeded the number of native constituencies should be increased so as to stand in the proportion of one native to 15 European;
when the Europeans in Parliament reached 150, then the native representation would advance to 10. He also wished that the representatives of the natives should have their duties in Parliament free and unre­stricted. Still, if the Bill could not be passed without Section 6, then let it be passed.

Summing up Professor Du Plessis said the suggestions were that the franchise qualifica­tions throughout the Union should be raised, with the gradual disappearance of the present voters' list; a representation of seven for the present, but to be allowed to rise until the proportion was one native representative to 15 Europeans; a simple method of nominating candidates and recording votes; the release if possible of the seven representatives of the natives from the disabilities imposed by Section 6 of the Bill.

Bantu Opinion. Special Representatives Needed.

Mr. W. A. Russell, of Cape Town, said he fully agreed with those who held that the settlement of the native question ought not to be based on fear. The present conditions for placing Bantus on the Voters' Roll in the Cape Province and Natal should be abrogated.

The Bantu people, he contended, should be given special representatives in the Union Parliament, adequate in numbers and compe­tent in qualifications to keep a watchful eye over Bantu interests, to draw attention to Bantu grievances, and generally to voice Bantu opinion. So far as was practicable, this repre­sentation should be disconnected from all the ordinary divisions and controversies of party politics.
Mr. Russell then advanced his reasons why such a policy was imperative at the present time.

As regards the Cape Franchise, the qualifi­cations required were virtually a sham. They no longer fulfilled their original purpose. Many had voted in the Cape whose only literary accomplishment was the ability to write a name and occupation. He had heard of raw Kafirs having exercised franchise rights. The wage earning qualification of £50 per annum worked out at 3s. 2d. a day. Forty years ago this was a respectable wage, but not to-day. In his opinion a decent Bantu boy in the Peninsula was under-paid with less than 3s. 6d. a day.

Proceeding, Mr. Russell said it might readily happen under present circumstances that the European voters in the Cape Province would be outnumbered by the Bantu voters of a low class.
"A Serious Decline."

He believed the transference of political supremacy at the polls from the Europeans to the Bantus would initiate a serious decline in all that was best in European civilisation in South Africa, and would finally cause its extinction. If a large mass of Bantu voters were added to the European voters, the fundamental conditions of successful demo­cratic government would certainly be violated.

Mr. Russell endeavoured to show, by referring to American investigations regarding negro mentality, that native ability was lower than that of the white man.

It had been said that the Bantus never abused their franchise privileges, and always voted for excellent representatives, and that was true.

"The reason is," said the speaker, "That they voted as their missionary leaders advised them; and the missionaries advised them wisely and well."

They used to act like docile children, he said, but there were clear signs that this docility was coming to an end. Christianised natives were beginning to show even a certain amount of antagonism to the leadership of European missionaries, and there was a very considerable movement towards separation from European churches.

Prof. Jabavu 's Views. Prof. D. D. T. Jabavu prefaced his remarks by observing that most of what he had to say had already appeared in the Press, and he would, therefore, only speak on certain points. He wished to say that the native's feeling on this matter was strong, and its unanimity unprecedented in history. All were speaking with one voice, and he did not know of any native, outside a mental asylum, who was prepared to temporise on this. They did not want to see the native vote tampered with. In the preamble they had a proposal to remove all the names of native voters from the register. He would not argue this, as he thought all were agreed that they did not want it. But the natives did not wish the door to be barred against their sons going on the register.

Referring to special and uniform representation in the Upper House, Mr. Jabavu said he was against uniformity. When Union came in the natives did not want Union; they wanted Federation, as then the best-governed Colony might bring the others up to its level, but to-day the Cape was being attacked by the North, where they were not so generous. There appeared to him to be no justification for tampering with the Constitution for the purpose, and he would suggest that no altera­tion be made, but special provision be made to introduce into the other three Provinces a limited form of franchise. Clause 2 was objectionable, as the people who voted would be in some position of subordination to the Government. Clause 3 proposed the old colour bar. Clauses 5 and 6 limited the representatives with regard to certain priv­ileges, and they should certainly ask that this be removed. Clause 8 was a legal riddle capable of two legal interpretations. Thus the natives were left with nothing to approve in the Bill, except those suggestions already outlined. The natives did not want the Bill as long as it involved the whittling down of the Cape voting qualifications. They were pre­pared to agree to a higher qualification for voting.

In conclusion, Mr. Jabavu referred to the fact that fear was at the back of the Bill, and said there was no fear of a black future. The natives, with the exception of some fire-eaters--who were the exceptions that proved the rule--were law-abiding.

The Colour Line. Two Distinct Civilisations.

Mr. S. Msimang (Johannesburg) declared they should ask themselves whether it was in the interests of the country to create and maintain two distinct civilisations under one tribunal. Was it possible that the laws which discriminated according to colour, and ignored the essential bonds binding mankind together, were likely to conduce to future peace and contentment? Should the answer be in the negative, then separate representation and the grouping of parties along the colour line must constitute a danger and aggravate the problem of the clash of colour. Supporters of separate representation belonged to that school which thought only of present needs and expediencies. It appealed to them because they dreaded what General Hertzog described as "the ruin of the white population and of European civilisation in the Union." Their argument lay in a fear complex.

If, however, the Cape native vote offered a standard by which a fair estimate of the rate of increase of the number of enfranchised natives could be made, in comparison with that of Europeans, one could accept the conclusion that such fears as entertained by the Northern Provinces were without founda­tion. The history of the Cape native vote contained an assurance that the natives were not only amenable to civilised influences, but they were equally sensible of the responsi­bilities they entailed.

Native voters had never drawn a line between Briton and Boer. With them the deciding factor had been only the return of the best man. There was absolutely no evi­dence to support the dangerous statement that the extension of the native franchise would mean the ruin of the white population.

"A Backward Step."

Mr. H. Mazwi (Queen's Town) said it was clear that wrong existed because the present relationship required definition and amendment.

"On a close examination of the Premier's Bill it is difficult to see what he is exactly driving at," said the speaker. "The vagueness of his expressions leave safety holes through which he may escape, perhaps, later on, or may use for the purpose of attack if he may choose.

"But whatever the Premier may introduce with which to guard himself, these uncer­tainties leave us not only embarrassed but in a very precarious position.

"The present Bills, if carried into effect, will be so limited in their privileges, so guarded in their rights, so scant in their allowances, and will be such a distinct step backward that it will take us a decade perhaps to remake the lost ground, whereas in that decade we should have gained more ground in the recognition of our status as fellow citizens."

Referendum Suggested,

Mr. Zimi thought that if the legislation went through, the principle of referendum should be included, by which natives would have power to repeal any objectionable measure.

Mr. R. V. S. Thema (Johannesburg) said he always held that we were one nation. Two people could not live in one country and develop two nationalities. That in the end must create strife. The Conference had agreed that they formed one economic system, and they could not now say they did not form one political body.

"I now appreciate what the demand of the educated native is," said Advocate C. T. Stallard (Johannesburg). "Their demand is for complete equality with the white races, polit­ically and economically. They demand equal rights, and it is in the light of that demand that the whole of this debate has been made.

"Personally I believe that if that demand were granted it would mean ruination to the white races, and it would harm the natives, too.

"Right from the beginning, in our resolutions, we have evaded the issue--segregation or no segregation. The public of South Africa are looking for a lead from us, and I say there is no half-way house.

"If you will not tolerate equality it is idle to talk about getting native members of Parliament. I suggest the resolutions already drafted have been very unfortunate. The whole of the resolutions have been based on a fundamental doubt as to whether you are going for segregation or amalgamation. Do let us determine now whether we are going to vote for segregation or amalgamation and equality. The lines on which we are going are leading us absolutely into the wilderness."

"Segregation Impossible."

Mr. Howard Pirn (Johannesburg) said he could not accept Mr. Stallard's dilemma. There could be no such thing as segregation in South Africa.

Voice: Question!

"Quite impossible," said Mr. Pirn, "except under conditions of slavery."

Loud cries of "No!"

Proceeding, Mr. Pirn argued that the ques­tion of amalgamation should have been brought up before.
"The object of every scientist," he went on, "is to find a master experiment which will decide his investigations, and this Cape Fran­chise seems to be that master experiment. It was introduced at a time when there was no passion in this matter. It has survived minor storms, and is coming to the biggest storm. If it survives this it will mean a definite step to what our knowledge of the application of democratic government to the backward races means--a most tremendous issue. Any inter­ference with the Cape Franchise will mean that that experiment will be lost, and I tremble at the thought of anybody taking that responsibility."

Not Necessarily Repression.

Mr. J. G. Strydom emphasised that differ­entiation did not imply repression, but it was a definite solution for black and white. All natives were not as calm and as intelligent as those present. If they were, he would say, "Give them a chance." But the l.C.U. and Ethiopian movement had a great majority, and he felt the few intelligent natives would never keep them down.

Mrs. Walsh said that if the rights of the Cape natives were taken away now they would be making a ghastly mistake.

"The Franchise is the precious heritage of all nations," she said. Only on national lines could any question in South Africa be faced to-day. It was imperative that they took the national outlook.

"Your only qualification for employment should be efficiency, and your qualification for the vote should be education and prop­erty," she went on.

She hoped that from the Conference would go the strongest resolution that such rights as the natives had in the Cape to-day would never be taken from them. (Applause.)

Bishop Karney considered it impossible to expect the natives to settle down on one-fifth of the land. Were they prepared to disorganise farm life by allowing all native labour to be withdrawn from them? Segregation meant all white people doing their own work, and he did not think it ever would be possible.
Advocate Stallard replied that the difficulty could be overcome by taking in the farms on the outer edge of the native reserves. A beginning should be made in the congested areas--in the towns--and redundant natives should be removed and not replaced.

Native Council Bill. Resolutions.

After further discussion the following resolutions concerning the Union Native Council Bill were passed unanimously:

(1) That the Bill be considered indepen­dently of the other Native Bills.
(2) With regard to the method of election of the Council, the Conference consider that a register should be formed of qualified natives who shall exercise a personal vote, while unqualified natives shall be represented through chiefs and headmen.
(3) That the Council should meet at such place as shall be appointed by the Governor-General in Council.
(4) Members of the Council should retain their seats for longer periods than is suggested in the Bill.
(5) The penalty of a fine for insubordination in the Council should be deleted.
(6) Greater power should be given to the Council in initiating discussions.
(7) The Government should accelerate the establishment of local native councils.

No Agreement On Franchise. Committee's Divergence of Opinion.

Professor du Plessis created a great surprise, particularly among the natives, when he announced that the Committee had agreed that no resolution should be taken on the Franchise Bill. He explained that the diver­gence of opinion in the Committee could not be overcome. Most of their resolutions had been unanimously passed, but on the Franchise they were hopelessly divergent. The European members could not meet the natives' viewpoint, and the natives said that if they let the question drop there was no knowing that they would get anything. In the circumstances it was felt unwise to advance a resolution that would not receive unanimous support.

Mrs. Walsh immediately moved as an amendment that "this Council recommends that the Government retains the Franchise as it now is in the Cape Province."

This was greeted with cheers from the native members.

Mr. Rheinallt Jones (Johannesburg University): I believe that the spirit of this Confer­ence, despite all that has been said and done, has been one of growing goodwill and co­operation. I believe the amendment would pass, but if we passed it what would it mean? Let us agree to differ and hope to meet again before long and find a solution.
Rev. A. Mtimkulu: Does this mean that we shall achieve nothing on the franchise question?
A Year Must Elapse.
Mr. Rheinallt Jones explained that the measure would not come before Parliament until a year had elapsed after its introduction. It would not come forward this session, and he suggested that the Federal Council should call another Conference at an early date.
Mrs. Walsh: Guided by Mr. Jones, I think the wisest thing I can do is to withdraw. I am convinced I should carry this amendment, but I am guided by those who have had a greater experience than I have. I withdraw on the clear assurance and understanding that we shall have another opportunity to discuss it before Parliament deals with it.
Prof. Jabavu said that although he would have liked to go to the extreme limit, he was glad Mrs. Walsh had withdrawn. By so doing the natives were keeping in favour with their friends in the North. The debate alone, he thought, would do good to their cause.

Original Motion Adopted.

In order to meet all wishes of the Conference the original motion was then re-drafted as follows and adopted:

"Inasmuch as the other resolutions of the conference have been reached with unanimity, or practical unanimity, and a vote on the question of the representation of Natives Bill is sure to divide the meeting, the conference decides to abide by the full and frank discussion which has been held."

The following deputation was then elected to present the Council's resolutions to the Minister of Native Affairs: The Rev. D. S. Botha, the Archbishop of Cape Town, the Rev. P. G. J. Meiring, Professor J. du Plessis, Professor D. D. T. Jabavu and Mr. Rheinallt Jones.

It was also agreed "that it be a request to the Federal Council that another conference be called on this all-important question."

In drawing the conference to a close the Chairman (the Rev. D. S. Botha) said they had reason to congratulate themselves on the good work done. They should be thankful for the good spirit which had prevailed. (Applause.) He also tendered thanks to the Archbishop and Dean for the use of the hall, and to the committees which had done excellent work. He trusted that when the resolutions were submitted to the Government the deputation would achieve the success that they had achieved in the conference.
Stating he had something in his heart which he must unfold, the reverend gentleman went on to give his views regarding segregation--views which he could not give as chairman.

"In my humble opinion what we need in South Africa is segregation of the natives as far as it is practicable," he said. Everyone knew that entire segregation was utterly impossible, but it would be in the interest of white and blacks to have segregation as far as it was practicable.

Professor Jabavu tendered the appreciation and thanks of the natives for the efforts of the Europeans on their behalf, and the conference closed with prayer, the Archbishop pronounc­ing the blessing.

<<MENU / DOCUMENT 42a / DOCUMENT 42b / DOCUMENT 43a>>