Testimony of Chief Stephen Mini, J.T. Gumede, and the Rev. Abner
Mtimkulu of the Natal Native Congress, before the Select Committee on
Native Affairs, June 15 and 18, 1917 [Extracts] (Published in Minutes of
Evidence, Select Committee on Native Affairs)

Chief Stephen Mini, Josiah Tshangana Gumede and Rev. Abner Mtimkulu, examined.

4392. Acting Chairman.] You are President of the Natal Native Congress,

Mini? -- (Chief Mini.) Yes.

4393. And you are the Secretary, Gumede? -- (Gumede.) Yes.

4394. And you are a Wesleyan Minister at Pietermaritzburg, Mtimkulu? -- (Rev.
Mtimkulu.) Yes.

4395. And you are all appearing before this Committee as delegates from the
Congress recently held at Pietermaritzburg? -- Yes.

4396. What part of Natal do you come from, Mini? -- (Chief Mini.) From near
Maritzburg.

4397. Was this Congress representative of the Natives of Natal proper or also of
Zululand? -- Both Natal and Zululand.

4398. What tribe do you belong to? - The Christian people at Edendale.

4399. What race are you all? - (Omnes.) Zulus.

4400. Did the Congress discuss the Native Affairs Administration Bill? -- (Chief
Mini.) It was discussed several times.

4401. Will you give us the Congress' views with regard to the Bill? -- The view of
the Congress is that nothing good will arise from the Bill. The Bill takes away the
rights of the people that they have enjoyed for seventy years, especially the right
to acquire land where they please and the hiring of land. They feel that the rights
they have been accustomed to for such a long time are being taken away from
them. The Proclamation of 1843 laid down that there should not be any
discrimination and it also forbids slavery in any form. The Congress is of opinion
that this Bill discriminates from the very start -- it discriminates according to
colour -- and takes away the rights which all enlightened nations have enjoyed
according to law. The Bill is quite against the spirit of the Proclamation of 1843
because there is equality for all under the Proclamation. The Congress considers
that the people cannot find out where this law is driving them. The Native people
only recognize what their superiors and Chiefs tell them. When that Proclamation
was issued there was peace and order in the country that has lasted for seventy
years. The people regard the Proclamation as having come from the King and
they trust and cling to it always. In Natal we have gone on for all these years on
that principle. In 1848 another Proclamation was issued and those who were in
authority in Natal at the time pointed out that the Natives were not so civilized as
other nations in the British Empire. They said that what they had to do was to
educate the people so that they could also be enlightened so as to follow the laws
of civilization intelligently.

4402. Do you know that under this Bill the white people are treated in exactly the
same way as the Natives? -- There are some differences in regard to Native and
European areas.

4403. Do you know that the Bill provides that there shall be certain Native areas
and certain white areas and that the restrictions, which apply to the purchase and
hire of land in a Native area, apply to the white men in a Native area? -- I
recognize that, but at the same time I also recognize there is a difference.

4404. The Proclamation of 1843 states "that there shall not he in the eye of the
law any distinction or qualification whatever, founded on mere distinction of
colour, origin or language or creed; but that the protection of the law, in letter
and in substance, shall be extended impartially to all." I would like to know in
what way you think that this Bill is an infringement of the Proclamation of 1843?
-- They have been going on for seventy years in Natal under that Proclamation
and nothing wrong has happened all the time.

4405. But that is not my question? -- For the last seventy years we have been
under that Proclamation and nothing went wrong and we had nothing to complain
of. The new Bill is contrary to the spirit of the Proclamation of 1843.

4406. I would point out to you that the restrictions, which are applied to the
Natives in certain areas, are also applied to the white people in their areas? --
There is something in the new Bill contrary to the old law.

4407. What is that "something"? -- This Proclamation of 1843 came from the
British Government and it allows us to do exactly as we please. It is a law of
freedom. The new Bill directs that the people can only buy and hire land in certain
places. One place is for Europeans and another place for Natives.

4408. But the white man is also restricted. He cannot buy land in a Native area?
-- You must also remember that as things are the Natives have not enough land
as it is, and this law is restricting them from extending.

4409. Do you know that in this Bill certain areas are given to the Natives, and
they are protected in those areas, whereas under the present law, unless they are
protected, the white man can come and take even the land they already hold? --
In 1864 the land in Natal was surveyed into locations and reserves for the Native
people, it being recognised that the Natives must have land set apart for them.
Those locations and reserves were given to them, and after that they still had the
right to purchase and acquire land, and European farmers without restriction sold
farms to them. The Natives do not complain if that door is still open to them to
purchase land; they do not want to go through any other door but the door, which
has been opened to them for all time. They would not complain if that were still
the case and if the locations could be extended -- the locations given in 1864.

4410. Under the Letters Patent of the 27th April 1864, Natives were exclusively
confined to their own locations and were not allowed to go outside? -- What I say
is that for the last seventy years a Native has had the right to hire land from any
outside location.

4411. Would you be prepared to agree that the white man should come and
purchase and hire land in your locations? -- That would be all right, because the
European has been restricted for the last seventy years from buying land in
Native locations

4412. But is not that against the Proclamation of 1843, which laid down that the
white man and the Native should have the same right. If the white man cannot go
into the location that is not treating him fairly? -- I do not think it would be unfair
for the European, because it has been there all the time, and he has not the same
claim as we have -- over 70 years. There are places set aside in Natal where
Natives cannot buy land, and there is no complaint about that.

4413. The Proclamation of 1843 laid down the same law for both. There are
restrictions now with regard to certain areas for the Natives. What wrong can it do
the Natives to give what one might say white locations? You have Native
locations, so why not white locations? -- We have enjoyed certain rights for the
last seventy years, which the Europeans have not, and we wish to retain that
right.

4414. Is there any other point you wish to bring to the notice of the Committee?
-- I have a lot to say in regard to Chapter 1. of the Bill, but at this stage I would
prefer that the Secretary to the Congress should give his evidence. (Gumede.)
The first Clause of this Bill restricts transactions relating to Natives and prevents
other than Natives to purchase or hire land, a thing, which is unknown to us. As
Chief Mini has stated, I have only to refer you to the Proclamations of 1843 and
1848, which created one law for white and black in Natal, and that was the case
until Natal went into the Union.

4415. How can you say that when there are areas in which the white man cannot
buy? -- There never were areas where white men could buy. In her wisdom the
late Queen Victoria set apart land for the people who were found in the country
who were the aborigines of the country. That is British rule all over.

4416. You say that the Native must be able to buy land everywhere and the white
man restricted. That is not equality? -- I do not say that. The Queen in her
wisdom, finding the Natives in their own country, set apart certain pieces of land
for them, where they were to live with civilized people, who would come there
with different ideas amongst them, so that they could do something to protect the
people.

4417. Suppose Parliament now says, "We want further to protect the Natives,"
and lays down that in these additional areas where the Natives live they shall live
there alone, and the white people cannot go there? -- Under the provisions of the
Bill I fail to see that, as I shall point out later on.

4418. There is no inequality. What is done for the white man is done for the
Native too? - In this Bill?

4419. Yes? - That is not so.

4420. In what way? -- The freedom and liberty of the Native, which he has
enjoyed ever since Natal became a British Colony, is today being restricted. It is
laid down that the Native must buy here and not buy there and the same with the
white man. It is all so confused to us. The white man makes that law, and the
Native is not consulted. The white man is represented in Parliament, and his
Parliament can restrict him, but Parliament is also restricting me without
consulting me, and taking away my freedom and liberty-restricting me against my
will. The law under the Proclamations has bound together the European and
Native to live under peaceful conditions all these years.

4421. 1 have no objection to your stating your claim on the grounds that you
have not been consulted, or that you are not represented in Parliament, but you
cannot complain that we are infringing the law of 1843, because that law says,
what you do to the Native you do to the white man and we do not interfere with
that law. I want you to clearly understand that we are not breaking the law of
1843? -- I do say that the Proclamations of 1843 and 1848, as far as the Natives
in Natal are concerned, are being infringed, as I will prove later on. I would refer
you to Law No. 28 of 1865 (Natal); in speaking to Chief Mini you stated that the
Natives were not restricted, and that there were equal rights under the Bill before
the Committee. There is European land settlements in Natal that were created for
people who could not buy back their farms, and in these settlements Natives were
not allowed to buy or hire land.

We fail to see what this Bill is going to give us. A right is being taken away from
us and nothing is being put in its place. As I have pointed out before much of the
land proposed to be reserved is very unsuitable. Secondly, the Government or
Parliament having passed this law has not provided for Natives who would refuse
to accept the conditions laid down in this Bill for their occupation of farms.

4441. Mr. Clayton.] What Natives is you referring to? -- The Natives on the farms.

4442. Those at present on private farms? - Yes.

4443. Mr. King.] Do you mean the squatters? -- Yes. When these conditions came
before them they wished to leave the farms and go to these places, but these
were found unsuitable for occupation.

4444. Sir Bisset Berry. ] Will there be many of that class? -- Yes, a great number.

4445. How many? -- Thousands who are living on the farms.

4446. Will you tell me why you think that the Natives would leave the farms if this
Bill is passed? -- Because of the conditions under this Bill, the provisions of which
will compel the Natives to leave the farms.

4447. Do you mean the Bill will bring about conditions that the Natives are not
accustomed to? -- Before the Natives Land Act a Native could work on a farm,
and he could put his children to work for the owner of the farm? A man who did
not want to work could rent a hut at the rate of from £3 to £5 a year.

4448. And then he could live there with his wife and family? -- Yes, and that has
been the custom for years.

4449. Are there grown-up sons living with the family also? -- Yes.

4450. The farmer who owned the land did not object to that? -- No. Some of the
farmers had grown up with the Natives and some had got old with the Natives.
The Natives lived on the farms under very peaceful conditions.

4451. Did they make written agreements? -- No, the agreements were verbal,
and never has any breach of agreement occurred, to my memory.

4452. The Natives were allowed to live on the farms forgiving their labour? -- Yes.

4453. What labour did that mean? -- Some of them herded cattle, and others
worked on the lands, and so on.

4454. Do they work all the year round? -- No, for six months at a time. If a man
has three sons, one goes for six months, then the other and then the third, and
the girls work for the farmers as well.

4455. What did the men do after they had completed their six months' labour? --
Some of them went to Johannesburg to work.

4456. When they came back were they taken on again? -- Yes.

4457. There were no restrictions? -- No. They were all allowed to live together;
those who wanted to work did so, and others paid rent.

4458. The Commission which went up to Zululand -- the Dartnell and Saunders
Commission -- did they set aside a piece of land for sugar planting? -- Yes.

4459. And that was to be taken from the Natives' portion of Zululand -- That was
done.

4460. Who are on it now? - The sugar planters.

4461. Did they buy it? - I think they bought it from the Government under the
Crown Lands system.

4462. Are there any Natives living on it? - There are some Natives living there --
some of them are working.

4463. Not all of them? - No, only some, and they seem to be quite content. I
never heard of any harshness being exercised by the farmers there.

4464. I understand that your principal objection to this Clause is that until this Bill
came forward and before the 1913 Act was passed, you were not restricted in any
way in your rights to buy land outside of your locations? -- Yes.

4465. This Bill proposes to limit your rights in that respect? -- Yes.

4466. And to limit you to certain areas which are stated in the Schedule? -- Yes.

4467. And you think your rights should go further -- that you should have an
unrestricted right to purchase land where you desire? -- Yes, that is so.

4468. You hold that the same thing does not apply to the white man who wants to
go into the locations, because the Queen set aside those locations for you? - Yes,
in her wisdom.

4469. Then you mean that your people have grown in numbers to such an extent
that you cannot part with any of that land to the white man? -- Yes, most of the
locations are very much congested.

4470. And, therefore, in order to provide for your increasing numbers you want to
go outside and hire or purchase land? -- Yes.

4471. The substance of your complaint is that in this Bill you are restricted in that
respect? - Yes.

Chief Stephen Mini, Josiah 'I'shangana Gumede and Rev. Abner Mtimkulu, further
examined

4629. Mr. Stuart.] Have you any notes in connection with Chapter II of the Bill? - (Rev. Mtimkulu) Yes.

4630. What is your first note? -- My first note is in regard to Clause Four in
connection with the appointment of a Native Affairs Commission. We consider that
the Native people should have a voice in the appointment of the Commissioners.
The Clause says that a permanent Commission shall be constituted, consisting of
the Minister, "and not less than three or more than five." This Commission being
the only outlet by which the Native people can keep in touch with the
Administration, and seeing that most of the Native people at the present time are
not directly represented in Parliament, we consider that if the Commission were to
he appointed by them, it would serve as some kind of relief. The men they
appoint would be their mouthpieces, and would be able to redress any grievances.
The members would be accessible to them, whereas if the Commission were
appointed by the Government, it would be looked upon as all other officials and
departments of the Government, when, unless one is directly prepared to prove
what he has to say he would have no access at all. If the people themselves
appointed the Commissioners, their confidence would be obtained, and the
Government would better know their grievances.

4631. Mr. Clayton.] What is your idea as to what that Commission should be? -- I
consider that the Commission should consist of one man from each of the
Provinces.

4632. Mr. Stuart.] Have you any comments to make on sub-section (2) of the
Clause? -- I consider that the appointment of permanent officials who could not
be removed unless within a statutory time would immediately lead to
dissatisfaction.

4633. That is inadvisable? -Yes. The position of the Commissioners should be
regarded as permanent, but they should also be removable.

4634. Chairman.] Would you object to the permanent appointment if the
appointment were not made by the Government, but in some other way? -- Yes,
we would object in any case if it were permanent.

4635. Mr. Stuart.] What are your comments on sub-sections (3) and (4)? - The
questions involved there are very broad indeed, and seeing that they touch the
whole of the Native people, we feel it would be unwise to suggest anything. I
think the people as a whole should be consulted, through their Chiefs and other
principal Natives, and then some common meeting ground would be arrived at.

4636. Supposing that in places where you have direct councils, such as in the
Transkei, the Councillors were consulted generally, and that in particular areas,
such as in Natal and Bechuanaland (where there are no district councils), advisory
councils were appointed by the Government, which would be consulted by the
Commission, do you not think that would be a possible solution? -- As
representing the feelings of the people the position is that this question is a very
broad one. Even if they had district councils it would be better to have a general
meeting of the Natives, and in that way they could be consulted.

4637. You open up the broad question of representation, but you are not
discussing any particular form? -- No.

4638. Under the circumstances, have you any suggestion to make as to how this
Commission should be appointed? -- My opinion is that the Commissioners in all
the districts should be in touch with the Native Chiefs and the principal people, so
that the Government should consult all the Natives of the Province with a view to
ways and means being adopted for a common meeting ground.

4639. You feel that with regard to Chapter II. -- Administration and legislation in
Native areas -- the Government must get into touch with the people? -- Yes. (Gumede.) Our feeling is that this question is a very broad one. It is proposed, for
the first time in the history of South Africa or of any other British Dominion, to
separate the races, this having been agreed upon by Europeans through their
representatives. We have not been consulted on a matter, which touches us
deeply. Therefore, in our minds, after considering the matter, we feel that if this
separation must be done a Convention of the two races concerned is necessary to
consider the question; two races that have lived together under different
conditions for all these years. We beg to urge for this Convention of the two races
to go into the whole question. Again, it is proposed to give the Commission
powers and functions, which are quite beyond the layman.

4640. Why? -- Powers are given and work is assigned them, which is more
suitable to men who hold legal attainments.

4641. You think the nature of the work of the Commission would lead to the
appointment of lawyers? --Judges or experts-people who have qualification in
law. Again the period of appointment is another objection. The number of
members is also very small to consider business that concerns about 5½ millions
of people, and if the Protectorates come in as part of the Union, as was indicated
in General Smuts speech in London, I do not think that three or six men would
represent 7 millions of people.

4642. The number would be considerably increased, from 3 to 5 millions, if the
Protectorates were handed over to the Union? -- Apart from that, the number of
Commissioners is too small to represent 5½ millions of people. In view of the
greatness and deepness of this matter as affecting the Native population we urge
for a Convention of the two races,

4645. Chairman.] How would you call this Convention together? -- We would
leave it in the hands of Parliament, who propose this measure.

4646. The suggestion in regard to this Convention has come from you, and I
would like to know how you would propose to call the Convention together? --
The Government would call it together.

4647. Would the Government have to invite the educated class or the Chiefs? --
All the classes concerned.

4648. I would like you to explain the position, because there exists a difference of
opinion on this point. For instance, you have your Chiefs in Natal whom you pass
over and you call the educated people your masters. Would you invite a number
of the Chiefs as well? -- No. The members from each Province would be elected
by the people to go to that Convention. If it is necessary that Chiefs should also
attend, and they were elected, it would be so much the better. It could be done.
Each Province should select its own representatives.

4649. Mr. Stuart.] You think that a reasonable basis of agreement could be
arrived at? - Yes.

4650. Do you agree sufficiently with the appointment of the proposed Commission
to make it worth while to give evidence in regard to sub-sections (5), (6) and (7)?
- No.

4651. Chairman.] Do you wish to give evidence on any other point? -- I would
like again to refer to sub-section (3) of Clause Four, which provides that "no
appointed member shall be removed from office except upon addresses from both
Houses of Parliament passed in the same session and praying for his removal."
Our objection is that it is made difficult to remove a member once he has been
appointed. He might have been wrong in something and the Government may
have found him to be wrong, yet the Government would be impotent to remove
him. Parties represent parliament and it may happen that a certain Commissioner
may belong to a particular party, and on his case coming before Parliament that
party would hold he should not be removed.

4652. The Commissioners are appointed for at least five years. That is provided in
sub-section (2)? -- I object to that length of period.

4653. Mr. Stuart.] You realise that it is difficult to make appointments of this
nature unless there is some guarantee of tenure? -- I admit that it is difficult.

4654. Chairman.] You object to the appointment for a term of five years? -- Yes.

4655. What period would you lay down? -- There should be no time limit. As long
as he behaves himself he can carry on for twenty years.

4656. You do not want Parliament to decide; you want the Government to decide?
- Yes.

4657. Mr. Collins.] Who must decide when a Commissioner must go? -- The
Government -- the Native Affairs Department.

4658. Mr. Stuart.] Have you any views to express on sub-sections (5), (6) and
(7)? -- Before coming to those sub-sections I would like to refer to sub-section
(4), which lays down that no appointed member shall be, or be qualified to
become, a member of either House of Parliament, or of a Provincial Council.

4659. Do you think it unwise? -- We think that a man who takes up a position as
Commissioner should be a man of great responsibilities and have the necessary
qualifications for Parliamentary representation.

4660. Have you anything to say in regard to Clause Eight of the Bill? -- We feel
that government by proclamation as provided for in this Bill will be a great
hardship to the native people, especially the native people of Natal.

4661. Why? -- Because we have always been accustomed to rely on the
Government and the Magistrates to interpret the law for us, and not to have an
official to only proclaim those laws. Government by proclamation would tend to
diminish the confidence that we hold. It is a hardship inasmuch as government by
proclamation is being specially made for the native people, and it would be liable
to misinterpretation. It would not be such a great hardship if we knew it came
from responsible people, who have studied the ins and outs of the land, and the
things that should be done and things that should not be done. Again, some laws
would remain with the Commissioners for some time and when they come out
there would not be sufficient advertisement of the laws. They will simply take
people by surprise and it would not prepare the people for what is coming. When
a law comes in at the present time we have a chance of discussing it and, as in
the present case, make our representations before a Select Committee, and in
that way it is some source of satisfaction. Government by proclamation divides us
altogether -- it puts us aside from the Government; it creates a government
within a government, and in that way we are not able to reach headquarters. It is
suggested that we shall be a separate nation in the same Empire in that we shall
have our laws laid down by proclamation.

4662. You agree that it is laid down in the Act that every proclamation, except in
cases of urgency, should be published for some period so that the people should
be made aware of the fact and be in a position to make any protests. Do you not
think that would meet the case to a considerable extent? -- At the present time
there is no knowing. If an urgent need should arise we are simply told that such
and such a thing would be done on such and such a day. In the past that has
been done without any hardship. If we are set aside, our connection with
authority is cut away altogether -- we have no means of bringing our grievances
to notice. We are separate from the Government.

4663. The Minister of Education.] The Commission, which it is proposed to
appoint, will be directed under the Government. What you have in mind is that it
separates you from Parliament? -- Yes, we feel we are separated from Parliament,
and we would like still to have some connection. We view with concern the
coming generation of native people -- the cutting away of the only connection we
have.

4664. Mr. Stuart.] Legislation by Holland for you? -- It should not be cut away; it
should continue.

4665. The Minister of Education.] Do you not think that a Commission, which
would consult the Natives direct and be in touch with them, will know the wants of
the Natives better than Holland, in which the Natives are not represented? -- I do
not think so. As a rule Native people do not give their minds to Magistrates and
officials. They would accept a certain thing and say: "It is alright," whereas, in
fact, they mean quite just the opposite. You must remember that the Natives will
always be in South Africa, and you now propose to cut away our only connection
with Parliament.

4666. Chairman.] Surely this body consisting of five men, whose sole object will
be to look after Native affairs, would bring you more into touch with the
Government than anything you have had before. Is not that so? - According to
this Bill it would not be so because the members of the Commission are not to be
elected by the Native people. It is very hard on the Natives to go and see a
Commissioner or a Magistrate who knows nothing of their grievances. We
consider that the Natives would have no access to the Commission.

4667. Mr. Clayton.] Supposing you had advisory boards elected by the Natives
themselves who would be in touch with the Commission, would not that bring you
closer to the Government? -- No, not if the door is to be closed for all time to the
Native people in regard to access to Parliament, as this Bill suggests. We consider
that an agreement could be arrived at by a responsible party of people attending
such a Convention such as we have urged.

4668. Chairman.] In regard to your statement that "The door is to be closed for
all time," I would call your attention to subsection (7) of Clause Eight, which reads
"Nothing in this section contained shall be construed as limiting the power of
Parliament to make laws in respect of any part of the Union which is within a
Native Area." All proper nations are brought under review by Parliament? -- It
comes to what the Rev. Mtimkulu has said. Government by proclamation is
unknown in the whole world. In the Transkei the people are represented in
Parliament; other Native people are not represented in Parliament. In regard to
people who are represented in Parliament, if there is any proclamation, which is
contrary to their wishes, they have their safeguard and remedy to get it removed.
In our case there is no such safeguard. Government by proclamation under British
rule was condemned long years ago. In view of that we cannot accept it. It simply
amounts to this: that the door is being removed for all time against the black man
being represented in Parliament. That being the case and it being proposed to
separate the two races, why not have a Convention of these two races to consider
the question of separation and come to an agreement in regard thereto. We
cannot be expected to be competent enough to make suggestions in this
connection, but suggestions from the people could be considered.

Source:

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

<>