Documents: The Minister thanked the Conference and withdrew

DOCUMENT 44. Proceedings and Resolutions  of the Non-European Conference, June 1927 [Extracts] (Published in Minutes of the First Non-European Conference)

Dr. ABDURAHMAN announced that the Subjects Committee had met, and that several resolutions were ready to be placed before Conference, and that a mover and seconder had been appointed for each. In the absence of Dr. Rubusana, he called upon Mr. Plaatje to move the first one.
Mr. SOL PLAATJE moved:-
"That this Conference, representing the Non-European organisations and communities in the Four Provinces of the Union and South-West Africa, assembled in the City Hall, Kimberley, on June 23rd, 1927, resolves that the interests of South Africa as a whole can best be served by--
(a) Closer co-operation among the non-European sections of South Africa, and
(b) Closer co-operation between Euro­peans and non-Europeans."

The mover said that the resolutions had been thoroughly threshed out by the Com­mittee to which these matters had been entrusted. Some of them believed that they could fight their battles better single-handed, but he for one did not think so. The non-European was regarded more as a British object than a British subject (laughter), but they claimed the enjoyment of all the rights and privileges possessed by British people of every colour in all parts of the Empire. That being so, it was only natural that they should all co-operate. But before they could hope to co-operate with the European section, co­operation among non-whites must be the first essential. Real co-operation first among the several non-European organisations and also as between white and black, would be to the advantage of all.

Mr. I. P. JOSHUA (Kimberley) seconded. It seemed to him appropriate that two Kimberley men should sponsor this resolu­tion, because co-operation had been a matter of practical politics in Kimberley for many years. In this city, non-Europeans had co­operated in all matters--political, social and industrial--and had achieved good results. Co-operation was one of the first principles which, put into practice, brought peace, har­mony and union where before there had been discord. The Conference was called primarily to discuss and evolve methods of co-operation between non-Europeans. He had no doubt the resolution would be adopted and the principle put into operation forthwith. It was essential in every part of the Union that non-Europeans should co-operate. He felt the Conference would be a great success if the resolution alone was carried and the great principle brought into practice. It was most necessary in South Africa, a country where race preju­dice was more rampant than anywhere else. That was the only solution.

Prof. D. D. T. JABAVU was anxious not to be misunderstood by the world outside. Their purposes were absolutely innocent. If politics were introduced, they would fly asunder at once. They needed greater mutual knowledge, greater respect for each other, and loyalty. They must have greater co-operation so that they could combine better with Europeans. They as black men had their own prejudices between race and race. Europeans also had their racial prejudices. They must combine, blot out all prejudices, present a solid front, and help each other to rise in education and in the great struggle for existence. They should help each other by organising and getting facilities for mutual improvement, foster that good spirit throughout the country, and thus give a lead to the so-called civilised communities.

Mr. ALEXANDER M. JABAVU (I.C.U., King Williamstown), in supporting, said that as an I.C.U. man he felt that one of their greatest dreams had been realised. The I.C.U. stood for the economic development of non-Europeans. He hoped their efforts would reach a successful end.

Mr. V. LAWRENCE (Natal) wished to make clear the position of the Indians. The presence of his Chairman and himself clearly proved that they were heartily in sympathy with the movement. He always held the view that the salvation of the non-Europeans lay in unity. Unless they combined they could not get what they wanted from Europeans. The Constitution of the S.A. Indian Congress, while preventing them from committing that body in any way, did not prevent their attendance at that Conference as it was composed. He wholeheartedly endorsed the views of the previous speakers. He felt that there was no one present who could not identify himself with the resolution.

Mr. B. MAKAPELA (African Native Con­gress, Kimberley) also spoke in support of the resolution.

Mr. J. T. GUMEDE (Vice-President, African Native Congress) followed the lines of previous speakers. He hoped they would all strive to make the Conference a success. They had no desire to drive the white man out of South Africa. They were against injustice and oppression. They were British subjects and were promised freedom, justice, liberty and fair play. With these four principles it was heaven, and without them hopeless. Their duty was to work peaceably and constitutionally for the welfare of their people in this country. They were not, as Mr. Plaatje sug­gested, British objects, but British subjects. They did not want promises, nor did they ask for concessions. The present Government had no concessions to give them. They simply wanted the four principles he had enumerated.

Rt. Rev. D. W. ALEXANDER (Bishop, African Orthodox Church) expressed great pleasure in addressing such a great assembly. When the Conference was first mooted, he said, it seemed an impossibility. He was sure the eyes of South Africa were on Kimberley today. Even its European citizens should feel proud that Kimberley had been selected as the place of that Conference. He referred to his approaching visit to America and to the questions likely to be asked him there about their position in South Africa. He felt proud that now he could tell them they had come together at last to put all their prejudices in one box and bury them. They wanted no concessions from the Government but their just rights, which were theirs as free men. They claimed to be just as good as the Europeans and wanted to steer their own ship, and could steer it clear of the rocks.

Mr. W. W. WALTHEW (Natal Welfare Association) felt that the gathering was a heaven-sent blessing to the coloured races in South Africa. He hoped when it was finished they would have bound themselves in one parcel. They knew they had differences of opinion and these differences were stirred up and magnified by outsiders. They came together in no opposition to Europeans, but it was their duty to protect their rights. When they were united in one body they would be given a hearing. If they did not combine different sections might get different offers, as was already evident.

Dr. W. B. RUBUSANA (East London Native Voters' Association) congratulated the previous speakers on ther moderation under very trying circumstances. If God Almighty were not moved by that meeting to help them, he did not know what would help.

Dr. A. ABDURAHMAN, in closing the debate, said the resolution brought to a head what had passed through the minds of every thinking non-European. Many of them had thought of it for years, others had openly Striven for it. He was one of the latter. He wanted to thank the Conference for not uttering one word against those non-Europeans who had done their utmost to make the Conference a failure. The Govern­ment had done all in its power to wreck it, and at one time it seemed unlikely th a Conference would be held at all. He trusted nothing would be done at the Conference to keep away from next Conference those who had stayed away, but that everything would be done to welcome them when they did join them.

The resolution was put and carried, with great enthusiasm.
Second Day--Morning Session.
Conference resumed Friday, 24th June, at 11 a.m., Dr. Abdurahman being in the Chair.
THE CHAIRMAN said that the first resolu­tion to be proposed was contingent on the one passed yesterday.

Prof. D. D. T. JABAVU proposed:-

"That in order to give practical effect to the foregoing resolution, the Conference urges upon all non-European organisations and recognised communities to associate as far as possible in their respective districts, and to co-operate with one another in their respec­tive districts on all local and national questions."

Mr. DOYLE MODIAGOTLA seconded, and asked who was to recognise these bodies. Government, Town Councils, and other local bodies might refuse recognition. It was abso­lutely  necessary  to  delete  the word "recognised."

BISHOP ALEXANDER supported. The word "recognised" had been so pushed down their throats that even when they themselves used it they misunderstood it. So long as they knew that someone as a non-European was doing something to uplift his brother, they should work with him.

Mr. DIPPA (Alexandria) agreed. The first object was to find ways and means to bring together all non-Europeans to exchange views in connection with matters affecting them as a people. When they used the word "recog­nised" they began to limit their scope. They had to devise methods to establish a stronger organisation. They must find out who was going to recognise these people. They had no organisation and no constitution yet. The word "community" also had different inter­pretations and different meanings. A person not a member of any particular organisation would be ineligible to be a member of the Conference. They must try to bring all non-Europeans together, whether belonging to an organisation or not, so long as such were trying to foster that feeling which animated them that day.

Mr. MOTIYANA (Thabanchu) said the question was who was to recognise such a body, the people themselves or the community? He thought they should retain the word "recognised," but did not see any difficulty in deleting it.

Mr. ISMAIL (Cape Town) saw no difficulty in retaining the words. There were so many organisations amongst their people that he did not wish to see any more. They might have a few people coming together and refusing to recognise their work with existing organisations. He urged that they had come there to organise themselves, and their duty was to recognise existing organisations and help them. They could not recognise every small group of people who disagreed with others and formed new organisations. They should be urged to join existing organisations. That Conference represented the opinion of non-Europeans in South Africa; therefore why allow a loophole for a few disgruntled persons to form rival organisations.

Dr. ABDURAHMAN pointed out the diffi­culties they had experienced in drafting the resolution, and explained their object in draft­ing it as it stood. He explained the words "recognised" and "communities." They might pass it and see how it worked. It was not like the laws of the Medes and Persians, but could be altered from time to time as experience dictated.

The resolution was put and declared carried unanimously.

Prof. JABAVU (Alice) proposed:-
"That this Conference deeply deplores the unsympathetic attitude of the Legislature towards non-Europeans as expressed in some of the contemplated legislation, which has a
tendency also to divide, and urges the respective organisations to take whatever steps they deem necessary to prevent the continuance of such policy."

The mover said that one of the reasons for the resolution was that they had found to their cost during many a year that they had suffered much more than they would have done had they combined as they had done that day in that Conference. Their sufferings were not only amongst themselves but had been imposed from above. He strongly urged the acceptance of the resolution, believing that it would go a long way to bring about that solidarity they were all aiming at.

Mr. JAS. NGOJO (General Secretary, Cape African Congress, Cape Town) seconded.
The resolution was carried.
Mr. J. J. JOSHUA (Kimberley) proposed:-

"That this Conference views with alarm and misgiving the tendency of the Union Parliament, as evidenced by recent legislation and the general policy of the administration, to estrange the various sections of the non-European population of the Union. That this Conference realises that while such legislation and policy are detrimental to certain sections, no material advantage is brought to any. That Conference recognises no other policy but that of justice and equal opportunity to all sections of the population, and in this connection resolves to take effective steps to combat any policy of differentiation on the grounds of colour or race."

Mr. CHAMPION, in seconding, said that he prayed night and day that one day we should see all races in South Africa on a footing of absolute equality as regards education, the vote, economic conditions, titles and honours, and the right to sit in the House of Assembly and Senate on a par with Europeans. Many men and women were working very hard to bring that to pass.

One speaker objected to the last portion of the resolution. They did not ask for any favours but only for equality of opportunity with the Europeans of this country, who claimed to be superior races yet at every opportunity demanded a special artificial advantage over the Native. If they were really superior they should give non-Europeans the advantage. In support of that he instanced the method of handicapping in horse races. The political practice was not in conformity with the sporting spirit. In politics and economics he would ask the Europeans to carry it a little further and not seize every advantage for themselves. They (the Europeans) had been doing an injustice to themselves and their children by giving themselves those advantages inasmuch as they were not in so doing building up a virile race. They might say that was what they were doing with them (the Coloured people), but in the long run the Natives would be the better race in that country. He wanted to encourage his people to organise. The Europeans had taken a mean advantage of them by handicapping them in every walk of life.

Mr. CHAMPION (who had been inter­rupted on a point of order) continued his remarks, and dealt with four points on which he claimed the non-European should have equal opportunities: Church, School, Politics and Economics. He thought if the Union Government were true and honest, Dr. Abdurahman should already have been given the title of "Sir." He wished to point out that he did not know the Doctor personally. The policy of the Government was to divide and rule. He believed in equal pay for all men, irrespective of colour. He prayed every night for equality of opportunity and equality of pay for work. To-day the Government was spending large sums on work for Europeans, and had striven hard to interfere with the success of that Conference. He referred to Dr. Molema of Mafeking, and hoped that one day he might represent them in Parliament.

Mr. J. A. SISHUBA (Queenstown) spoke feelingly and temperately in support of the resolution, and urged them to be moderate in their language.

Dr. RUBUSANA proposed to add after "equal opportunity" the words "and an open door," but found no seconder.

The resolution was put to the meeting and declared carried.
Mr. B. MAKAPELA (Kimberley) moved:
"That this Conference supports the considered condemnation and rejection of the Representation of Natives in Parliament Bill, as has been expressed in resolutions passed at the Government's and other Native conferences, and affirms that the only effective means of ensuring the harmonious co­operation of Bantu and European is by direct representation in the Union Parliament."

Chief S. F. ZIBI (Rustenburg, Transvaal) seconded. He represented no organisation, but a community. Those of the Northern Prov­inces who were voteless and who were sup­posed to benefit by the Bill, felt that it was wrong to deprive their fellow-men of the Cape of rights they at present possessed in order to help those in the North.

Mr. J. A. SISHUBA referred to the Bill providing for the repeal of Section 35 of the Act of Union. If once that section was repealed anything might happen. They must stubbornly oppose it.

Mr. J. T. GUMEDE (Natal) said they were now coming to the real business of the Conference. The Black man had never abused the vote he possessed. The Voortrekkers left the Cape because they did not want to be on an equality with the Blacks; and when they established their own Republics they laid it down in their constitution that the Black man should never get the vote.

Conference adjourned for ten minutes to be photographed.

On resumption the Chairman referred to the unauthorised distribution of literature in the Hall. A delegate explained satisfactorily.

Mr. CHAMPION moved as an amend­ment: "Non-representative Government Conference."

Mr. R. J. MAZOMBA (Phillipstown) asked for the meaning of the amendment.

Mr. CHAMPION said it referred to the action of the Government in organising opposition to that Conference.

Several points of order having been raised, Dr. RUBUSANA protested against the discus­sion being monopolised by a few members.

Mr. E. S. MAKALIMA (General Secretary, Bantu Union) agreed personally with the resolution, but thought it was a universal condemnation and rejection. His society had not opposed it and he wanted to know his duty.

Mr. A. K. SOGA (Transkei) supported the motion. For once he was in agreement with the irrepressible Champion of the I.C.U. He hoped that these delegates of non-Europeans would see that delegates to the Government Conference were properly representative in future.

Dr. RUBUSANA moved as an amendment: "Passed at the Conference of Government nominees." He had heard so many speeches, and so many speakers referred to the Colour Bar. The white man did not understand what the Colour Bar was. What was a man's colour? An accident of birth. A black colour was of more value than a white. (A voice: "Yes, for funeral purposes.") Ask the Clergy why they invest in black. It was more presentable and more costly. If a man went to an evening function in any other than black he would be the laughing stock of all the guests.

THE CHAIRMAN asked delegates to keep to the point.

Mr. C. JULIUS (Pearston) complained that members of the Subjects Committee were taking up most of the time although they had already thoroughly threshed out the whole subject. He moved the question be now put.

Mr. DIPPA (Alexandria) supported Mr. Champion's amendment.

Dr. RUBUSANA'S amendment was also seconded.

Chief S. F. ZIBI (Rustenburg) said not all the people who attended the Government Conference were Government nominees. He was appointed constitutionally by the Chiefs of the Rustenburg District, and the amend­ment proposed to place a stigma on all of them.
The first amendment was lost, receiving little support.
The second amendment was lost by 16 votes to 20.
The resolution was then put and carried.
The Conference adjourned to give the Subjects Committee time to prepare a further agenda.

THE CHAIRMAN said they would now resolve into Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN asked Dr. Abdurahman to explain certain matters relative to their Asiatic friends.

Dr. ABDURAHMAN said it was at some risk that their Indian friends attended the Conference. They were there because their action might be misunderstood. They were in
a very difficult and delicate position. If they themselves had regard to that feeling, no very strong resolutions affecting Indians would passed that day. It must be understood that although they remained during the day, they lad not voted on any resolutions that were I adopted. He was satisfied the Conference had ;heir support, but it would be awkward if, luring the negotiations which would con­tinue, Conference resolutions were thrown up against them. It was then recorded that they took no part in the Conference. He moved:
'That the Indian delegates be relieved from responsibility from any part in the passing of :he resolutions."
Dr. RUBUSANA seconded. They should wt in any way compromise their Indian Mends. They should not, in the absence of Mr. Sastri, do anything to compromise them. agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN said the Subjects Com­mittee would now meet.
Conference adjourned to 8.30 p.m.
Second Day--Evening Session.
Conference resumed at 8.30 p.m., 24th June, 1927, Prof. D. D. Tengo Jabavu in the Chair.

Mr. C. A. F. CALVERT (Kimberley) proposed:--
"(a) That in view of the great contribution being made by Natives through their labour, to the wealth of this country, and the fact of their contributing largely also through indirect taxation, in common with other sections of the population, this Conference enters its emphatic protest against Act No. 41 of 1925, which imposes on Natives in the Cape Prov­ince for the first time a direct tax, and which also reaffirms the principle of direct taxation, a form of taxation which is considered in all civilised countries as oppressive and repressive.
"(b) In the event of the Government not accepting Resolution (a) above, this Conference respectfully urges the Government to so amend Act 41 of 1925 as to exempt from its operation--
(i) Natives over the age of sixty years;
(ii) Natives who already pay urban rates and taxes; and
(iii) Those who earn less than ten shil­lings per month."

The mover quoted numerous instances of hardship and unfairness due to the present system of taxation. It was impossible for persons earning the small wages which many Natives did, to pay such heavy taxes. If the Government must exact those unjust taxes, then the exemptions and reductions proposed were badly needed.

Mr. J. A. S1SHUBA seconded, but thought it was a bit too moderate. However, he would take half a loaf rather than nothing.

Mr. P. K. MOTIYANE (Thabanchu) sup­ported, but felt it was a mistake to urge that they should pay no taxes at all. That would be going a bit too far, and he felt it was a privilege and a duty for those who could afford it to pay taxes.

THE CHAIRMAN thought an explanation might save much oratory. The Committee had spent an hour debating the matter, and there were many good reasons for it. It was felt that Natives already paid heavily in indirect taxation through Customs, etc. Many people were suffering through this taxation.

Mr. J. D. NGOJO (Cape Town) was of opinion that the Poll Tax was illegal and only imposed on Natives. The Native man having paid income tax and indirect taxation, should appeal to the Government to repeal the Poll Tax.

Mr. MODIAKGOTLA took exception to the exemption of those who paid urban rates and taxes. It was very unmanly to run away from their brothers in rural areas who earned less than those in town did. He moved that sub-section (ii) be deleted, and he felt that the whole gathering would agree with him.
Mr. MAKALIMA spoke on the exemption of town Natives. They must keep their eyes wide open, as that was the way to develop a white man.

Mr. DIPPA said the Native people were already overburdened with taxation. The Poll Tax was doing great harm amongst them. He spoke of the hardships of labourers on farms in his area. The town Natives paid for many municipal services, while their average pay was £3 per month. They had to use trains and trams and buy postage stamps, etc.--all indirect taxation. The country Natives earned £6 a year, and the town Natives £50 to £60, and all had to pay the same Poll Tax. The proceeds of the tax were supposed to go into a Development Fund, but that had not been done yet. The tax had already been two years in existence, but the Government had not yet made up its mind what to do with the money.

Mr. DANIELS supported, but did not think the town Natives were in a worse position. When the Minister of Finance intro­duced the Poll Tax he hoped to collect £1,200,000, or £1,400,000 per annum. He put aside £300,000 for development, while £900,000 was spent on the white people. He argued that from figures given by Sir Ernest Oppenheimer it would appear the Natives paid more taxes than Europeans.
Mr. SOL PLAATJE said he did not intend to say anything about taxes, but the system was complicated and unfair. He once saw thirteen lions at the Zoo ten minutes before they were fed. When they got their food he thought he could defy any man to take the chunks of beef from their jaws. It was the same with the tax. Recognising that, they simply asked the Government to gobble the tax, but relieve three sections of Natives who were hard hit. It was never suggested that a man should be exempted because he lived in a town; but ratepayers should be relieved from double taxation--a town tax and location tax. Location Natives paid no rates, only taxes, but do not let one man pay town rates and location taxes also.

Chief ZIBI informed Mr. Daniels that town Natives did not pay the 30/ - Poll Tax. He pointed out that the rates paid in towns are not taxes. What townspeople paid in taxes helped to develop the country, and what they paid in rates helped to develop the towns. Town people were asking, in effect, that those in the country should be taxed to develop the country, but that they should not be so taxed. In fact, they wanted development to happen at others' expense, not theirs.

Mr.  BEN MAKAPELA (Kimberley) supported.

Mr. A. F. PENDLA (Port Elizabeth) in supporting asked if Coloured people were liable for the Poll Tax.
Mr. DALY (Bloemfontein) had asked his Magistrate in the Free State, and was told that he did come under the tax as the old tax was repealed by new laws.

THE CHAIRMAN said he would now put the motion.

The first section was unanimously accepted. The amendment was then defeated, and the motion adopted as originally proposed.

Chief ZIBI moved: "That this Conference draws the attention of the Government to the fact that all those people who have made an impartial study of the Land Bill agree with the Natives that the distribution of land according to its schedules was hopelessly unfair to the Bantu people, especially in the Cape and O.F.S. Provinces, and attest that there can be no settlement of the Land question until there is a more equitable distribution of the areas. With regard to Chapter II. of the Bill, the Conference commends to the careful consid­eration of the Government the constructive proposals made by the Joint Council of Johannesburg in their Memorandum."

The mover, in an eloquent and amusing speech, said the Natives of the Orange Free State were practically given nothing, and the Transvaal Natives got very little. He asked them to accept the motion as it stood, in the interests of the Natives as a whole. In the Cape they gained nothing and lost much. In fact, it was officially stated that the Cape Natives got nothing under the Bill because there was nothing to give.

(At this stage the Chairman retired and Mr. Reagon took the Chair.)

Mr. SOGA, seconding, said he was pleased they had referred to the Joint Council, Johan­nesburg, in the resolution. They should co-operate with those in urban areas who were doing good work for Native welfare.

Mr. P. K. MOTIYANE (Thabanchu) said they in the O.F.S. would be debarred from crossing the border to buy land elsewhere. The Bill would also prevent them from buying an island farm among white people. It would be possible for white people to arrange not to sell farms, and thus prevent access to island Native farms. He referred to the Thabanchu scheme. In the O.F.S. twenty-three Native farms were "released" by the Bill to be bought by free competition between whites and Blacks. People went so far as to ask if those farms belonged to Government or to private owners. His Chief's farm was not released, and no Native would be able to buy it. In that manner they would lose about 17,000 morgen, which to-day they could buy.

Mr. MAPAKELA also spoke.

Mr. J. A. SISHUBA said many failed to grasp the meaning of the Land Act Amend­ment Bill. The Transvaal might gain something, but to-day in the Cape they had a free right to buy ground anywhere, so he could not quite follow the Chief's argument. The Bill was taking away the right of Natives in the Cape. It would prevent Natives buying land when they had got the money.

Mr. GUMEDE supported. The Bill was taking those Native areas and giving them to white people again. They wanted a fairer distribution of the land.

Mr. DIPPA also supported.

It being proposed that the question be now put, the resolution was carried unanimously.

Mr. SOL PLAATJE moved: "That this Conference protests against the Native Administration Bill because (a) it abolishes the Magna Charna right, the right of appeal to the law courts, (b) suppresses free speech, (c) confers unnecessarily wide powers on the Governor-General, and (d) abrogates the Hofmeyr Act and other existing exemption laws."

The mover said the question was a very serious one. It was a fact that no one there had travelled and written so much as the speaker had done in connection with the Land Act, and his experience was that the Bill was even more serious. They were no longer to be ruled or controlled by Parliament, but by the Governor-General. That in practice meant the Head of the Native Affairs Department. He quoted cases in Transvaal where the system had for years been in operation, where men were debarred from holding meetings and expelled from their homes. In some instances they appealed to the Judge, who held it was barbarous to prevent free citizens from hold­ing meetings. Under the Bill such people would have no right of appeal. In fact, if the Bill became law, the police could march into that Hall and arrest the whole Conference under the sedition clause, because it was called without the permission of the Gover­nor-General. It meant that gentlemen of the I.C.U. would no longer have the right to go about asking Natives to join their Organisation which was against the interests of employers.

Mr. A. M. JABAVU seconded, and spoke strongly in favour. He referred to a reported case where it was stated that the Natal Supreme Court was not suited for Natives. If a Native had said that, what a hullaballoo there would have been. The I.C.U. had appealed and taken cases to the Supreme Court lately, and one after another of Durban's bye-laws had been declared ultra vires. He did not know what the Natal High Court was like, but they could rely on the fairness of the Supreme Court throughout South Africa. There was great danger in the Sedition Clause of the Bill. If they could not meet and speak publicly they were going to meet privately, and what might then be done privately!

Mr. A. J. SISHUBA was sorry that the resolution made no reference to the title deeds that had been revoked. The Government wanted to remove Natives to where it liked and when it liked. It was like Satan rebuking sin. It incited whites against non-Europeans but prevented non-Europeans from meeting and speaking.

Mr. NGOJO (Cape Town) supported, but thought other grievances should be included.

Dr. A. ABDURAHMAN, M.P.C., thought it impossible for the Conference to deal with every grievance. They must read all these laws not in the light of how they might affect them that day, but how they might affect them 15 or 20 years hence. They must not blame the unhappy white man for his attitude in his endeavour to protect his future. The Native was clamouring for more land, the Coloured demanded more education. The white man saw what was ahead, and realized that in the near future he would have to surrender some of the rights he held at present, and would have to readjust himself. The battle for rights would be a long-drawn and strenuous one, but in the end truth would prevail.

The resolution was carried unanimously.

Dr. ABDURAHMAN moved: "That this Conference urges all the associations to take steps towards mutual economic improvement by starting businesses controlled by non-Euro­peans to provide labour for their people and to support existing business concerns organised by non-Europeans." The moving of this resolution ought to have been entrusted to one of the members of the I.C.U., who were more familiar with industrial and commercial enterprises. If it was true that a man's character was formed by the manner in which he earned his living, then their duty was to strive for opportunities to improve their economic status. They ought therefore to create conditions to enable their own men to become employers of labour. The vast majority of them--in fact, almost all of them--were still workers, and on the lowest scale. Of course there was no indignity in that. Never­theless they should work along the lines of the resolution and create conditions which would enable some of the younger generation not only to make money but to give employment to their own people. The rivalry between black and white capitalists would be good for the worker, as the majority of the workers in this country would be black men. He hoped the black men would prove to be better employers of labour than some of the existing employers.

Mr. CALVERT seconded, and instanced what the A.P.O. had done in its .building society, which had in its possession wealth which played an important part in modern industrial life. If they could form co-operative societies, they would be able to obtain the necessities of life cheaper, and could then see the amount of good that could be done by it in many walks of life. It would be one of the finest steps they could take to uplift the non-European in South Africa.

Mr. JOSHUA thought that was one of the best methods whereby they as a people could advance. The position they occupied socially and politically resulted from their economic position. Most of them possessed nothing in a material sense, and therefore they counted for nothing. The majority of Asiatics were a commercial people, and their superior posi­tion was due to their commercial position. They, the other parties to the Conference-Native and Coloured--must try to foster the commercial spirit in their people. A clever salesman need never starve. If one could only buy and sell he was all right. They should carry out the spirit of co-operation not only in politics but in business. If each put up £1 they could start at once. He dwelt at some length on the co-operative movement in England, its millions of members, enormous capital, gigantic turnover, scholarships for children, highest wages for employees, whole­sale co-operation and co-operative farming. He asked them to study that subject, practise it, and preach it as a religion.

Mr. A. JABAVU felt that everything necessary had been said, but the Natives, his own people, needed a particular homily. If they were true to their convictions and carried out their aspirations, there would be no competition between European and non-European. The non-European was the chief buyer, and white people would be too clever not to recognise the weapon that fact would give. The Asiatics and white men who had come here had business acumen. If the Natives had shops and non-Europeans bought there, the movement would be an enormous success. They could buy safely from each other as they would not be afraid that the Native seller would be out to batten on them. Not one of these Sedition Bills or Native Bills would be there threatening them if they were economically strong and sound. He particularly addressed his own people, and asked them to take home the fact that co-operation had been decided upon.

Mr. SISHUBA, in supporting, suggested that a committee be appointed to decide on something constructive, otherwise the enthu­siasm might die away.

Mr. S. P. AKENA (Middelburg Vigilance Association) thought that was the most im­portant resolution of all. But for it he would not have known what to report on his return home. He supported the idea of a small committee to go into details. If nothing was done by the Conference but passing that resolution, it would be a great success.

Mr. W. T. McLEOD (Kimberley) testified to the enormous knowledge he, as a young man, had gained at that Conference. In Kimberley and Cape Town it was a common thing for a Coloured man to earn £25 to £30 per month, but they spent it as fast as they earned it. But what was to become of their children? Must they follow on the same lines? In this country the white Labourite was supposed to be their friend, but he was up against them. Men like Schlesinger had become fabulously wealthy through the tickeys and sixpences put up weekly by their people, yet such men put up advertisements, "100 per cent. White Labour." He spoke in praise of the A.P.O. Burial Society, which employs 30 to 40 whole-time men, and urged them to help it to greater success. He made some practical suggestions for the utilisation of the capital when raised.

Mr. DIPPA (Alexandria) detailed the exper­iment started in his small native town, and explained it for the benefit of those not having much money. Their nominal capital was £3,000. They got a farm in their name and on it employed 50 families. The Native owners in the company employed young men to cut wood for firewood, fencing poles, etc. They had now opened an office in New Brighton (P.E.) to sell firewood there at a good price. His point was that they should not say they could do nothing merely because they got only £l per week. His people were getting from nothing up to 10s. per month.

THE CHAIRMAN said the resolution was on the lines of the thrift movement on which they heard an address that afternoon. They must first get the money, and then they could find the channel in which to use it.
The resolution was carried unanimously.
The Chairman announced the programme for the 25th:-
9.15 a.m., Visit to Kimberley Mine, Mine Compound, and Mine Hospital, tram leaving Market Square at 9.15 sharp. 11 a.m., Conference meets; 8 p.m., Public Meeting.
Third Day--One Session.
Conference resumed at 11.45 a.m. on the 25th June, 1927. Prof. Jabavu in the Chair.

THE CHAIRMAN said he hoped that would be the final session of the Conference, but it could only be the last with the co-operation of those present, who should learn to curb their loquacity and not repeat what other speakers had said.

Mr. MOTINJANA (Thabanchu) proposed;

"That this Conference is convinced from practical experience gained since 1913 that a policy of segregation, territorial, political, industrial and economic, based on colour or race, is detrimental to the best interests of South Africa as a whole," and added a few brief words of explanation.
Bp. ALEXANDER seconded formally.

Mr. G. J. KUSHWAYO (Sterkstroom) supported, saying he represented districts which did not understand the attitude of the Conference. They appreciated the resolutions, but were unable to understand how they were going to carry them out.

Mr. AKENA said that the Association he represented was not against the policy of segregation, but if segregation took place, perhaps it would not be bad if accompanied by an equable distribution of land. He concluded, however, by hoping that the Con­ference would agree with him against the policy of segregation.

Mr. NGOJO said the policy of segregation had failed industrially, territorially, and in toto.
Headman H. L. PHOOKO (Herschel) hoped Conference would vote and pass on to other business to save time.
The resolution was put and carried unanimously.

Dr. ABDURAHMAN moved: "That the civilised labour policy of the Government is cruel and unjust, because it has thrown out of work and impoverished large numbers of non-Europeans; it has closed many avenues of employment hitherto open to them, besides placing a heavy burden on the whole country in the form of additional taxation to subsidise the policy." The mover very briefly pointed out that the motion expressed not only the view of the Conference but expressed the opinion of Natives and non-Europeans in South Africa and of Europeans, not only in South Africa but outside of South Africa.

Mr. D. E. WESSELS (A.P.O., Claremont) seconded, saying that they all knew the disabilities under which they laboured, and little discussion was needed.
The resolution was carried unanimously.

BISHOP ALEXANDER moved: "That this Conference desires to enter its emphatic pro­test against the Colour Bar Act, because it was deliberately aimed at depriving, and does in fact deprive, certain sections of the commun­ity of their inherent right of earning an honest livelihood in accordance with the capacity with which Almighty God has endowed them, and thus driving them into poverty, misery and crime." The Colour Bar, he said, was against the dictates of the Master Builder of the Universe, and if one section legislated against another section, he was afraid that section was doomed.
Mr. A. F. PENDLA seconded.

Dr. RUBUSANA said that when Asquith in England found that a good many Members of Parliament would not vote for the Union Bill because of the Colour Bar in it, he (Asquith) said he had appealed to all four Prime Ministers, who gave him positive assurances. He (Dr. Rubusana) then said to some friends that Asquith did not know the unscrupulous Britisher and the Dutchmen of South Africa. He urged that the Colour Bar should not be inserted. Members of the House of Commons felt so angry that 150 would not vote for the Bill, saying that this clause was un-British. He must express these things very strongly. There was at least a tacit understanding between their representatives who went to England that this Colour Bar would not be enforced. They (South Africa) never acted on that understanding, but those members would not vote because they would not allow themselves to be made registering machines for the Union of South Africa.

A delegate interposed to correct Dr. Rubusana, and said that all white people were unjust.

Dr. ABDURAHMAN said that in the initial stages they could do no more than protest emphatically against unjust steps. They must be constitutional. Afterwards their friends might be able to devise better steps. They would not leave that question of the Colour Bar where it was. They could not sit still under it. It deliberately robbed men of the opportunity of earning a livelihood according to the capacity God Almighty gave them, and when they deprived a man of that opportunity, they murdered his wife and children, and were nothing less than cold-blooded murderers. After they had gone to war and shed their blood, they were deliberately deprived of political rights. The very men, the Germans, whom they had fought, were already allowed to sit in the S.W.A, Parliament and make laws for the Coloured men who fought against them. It was wrong to say that the present Colour Bar was the second. The second was in 1925 in S.W.A. The present one was the third Colour Bar, but the first economic one. It ought to be the determina­tion of every one of them to express himself and work against it until it was removed.
The resolution was put and carried unanimously.

Rev. JAS. A. CALATA (Non-European Association, Somerset East) proposed: "That the inadequate educational facilities provided for non-European children constitute the greatest factor in hampering the economic development of South Africa. This Conference therefore impresses upon the Government that there can be no satisfactory progress unless there is a substantial increase in the grants by the Government to the Provincial Councils,"
Mr. DIPPA seconded.

Dr. RUBUSANA proposed to add at end:

"under the Financial Relations Act," This was agreed to, and the resolution as amended carried unanimously.

<<MENU / DOCUMENT 43b / DOCUMENT 44 / DOCUMENT 45>>