Petition to the Prime Minister, from the Rev. John L. Dube,
President, South African Native National Congress, 14 February 1914
(Published in The Cape Argus)
Humbly showeth:-
- That your petitioner is the Principal of the Zulu Christian Industrial
School as above, and president of the South African Native National
Congress, which represents practically all the native tribes of South
Africa, and it is on their behalf, and by their commission, that he now
makes this petition. [A reply to the petition, signed by the Secretary for
Native Affairs and published in The Cape Times of February 26, 1914,
observed, "Your statement that, as President of the South African
Native National Congress, you are making this petition on behalf of
practically all the Native tribes of South Africa is scarcely correct, as
the Government is well aware that there are large and important tribes and
various sections of the Natives of the Union which your Congress cannot
truly claim to represent in this matter."]
- You, Sir, are no doubt aware that money is now being raised to send a
deputation to England to make an appeal to the King against the injustice of
the Native Lands Act, which became law on 19th June of this year, a step
which you deprecate, as appears from your speeches. You are reported to have
said that a political question of this kind would be better settled here,
with which we entirely agree. But it has been pointed out to you, Sir, that
we have already done all that we found possible to do with the Government
here, before the Bill was passed; but scarcely any notice was taken of our
representations.
- Now, however, lest it be said that we have not exhausted every possible
means to get redress of our grievances from the local authorities before
sending our deputation to England, we are making this appeal to you, Sir,
and propose making a final one to Parliament if not successful.
- Your petitioner avers that practically all the well-informed natives of
South Africa feel that never under the British flag have they suffered an
act of greater injustice and one which is more likely to embitter the hearts
of the most loyal native subjects against the Union Government.
- We make no protest against the principle of separation so far as it can be
fairly and practically carried out. But we do not see how it is possible for
this law to effect any greater separation between the races than obtains
now. It is evident that the aim of this law is to compel service by taking
away the means of independence and self-improvement. This compulsory service
at reduced wages and high rents will not be separation, but an intermingling
of the most injurious character of both races.
- It has been stated that the law is of advantage to us; but there is no
assurance in the law that it will protect us from rapacious land-agents. Any
European holding land in a native area is not prohibited to sell, and,
furthermore, we have not been protected from landlords, to whom we pay rent,
who take advantage under the law to charge high rents, knowing we cannot
move away with our stock or find admittance to any other farm as rent-paying
tenants. We are more at their mercy than ever we were before, as competition
is shut out.
- But even supposing a little protection were there, the wrongs which might
be suffered in that line are as one to a hundred in comparison with what we
must now endure from the rapacious farmer who seizes the opportunity to
raise our rent and reduce our wages.
- It may be said that we misunderstood the law, and that when it has been
properly explained, we shall find that it is not so grievous as we supposed.
It is true there seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding about it, even
by those highest in authority. But we heard it explained both to natives and
Europeans and we cannot help noticing a difference in the explanation which
is given to Europeans from that which is given to natives. As it has
sometimes been explained to natives it does not seem to be so objectionable,
and some natives have expressed themselves in favour of it. But we have seen
that explanation utterly refuted by statesmen when before European
audiences. Whatever may be the explanation, we can now speak from what we
have seen of the effects even in the beginning, and which must inevitably
grow worse and worse. We have seen our people driven from the places dear to
them as the inheritance of generations, to become wanderers on the face of
the earth. We have seen rents raised to the point of desperation. We have
seen many of our people who by their frugality have laid by a little money
in the hope of buying a small piece of land where they might make a home for
their families and leave something for their children now told that their
hopes are in vain; that no European is now permitted to sell or lease land
to a native. We do not need any plainer explanation than what we have
already seen.
- For the above reasons your petitioner humbly protests against the summary
prohibition of the sale of land to natives, and prays that you, Sir, may
exercise your power as Minister of Native Affairs to bring about an
amendment to the effect that there may be no prohibition of the sale of land
to natives till after the report of the Commission has been accepted by
Parliament and the natives adequately provided with land.
- We also ask that the law regarding the leasing and ploughing of land on
share be left as it was before this Act came into operation. This
prohibition is causing much hardship without benefiting anyone.
In. conclusion, we pray that one native be appointed by the Governor-General
to the Commission now sitting from among three to be nominated by the South
African Native National Congress; or alternatively, one from two European
gentlemen to be nominated by the same body.
As in duty bound, etc.