3. The present form of oath would be regarded as humiliating and unnecessary, in support of which view we instance that quite recently the Volksraad of the Orange Free State rejected upon the same grounds the proposed introduction of the same oath of allegiance.
4. The period of disqualification, during which the Uitlander would have given up his own citizenship by naturalizing and have acquired nothing in return, would be found most objectionable—especially with the experience that rights have in the past been legislated away as they were on the point of maturing.
5. In view of the unique conditions of this country, extension of the franchise without some approach to equitable redistribution of representatives would be regarded as no solution of the question and might even provoke doubts as to the bonâ fides of the proposal, which would be a deplorable beginning, yet one easily to be avoided.
Regard being had to the points raised in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4, we consider that as restrictive franchise legislation, apparently designed to exclude for ever the great bulk of the Uitlander population, dates its beginning from the Session of 1890, and as the various enactments bearing upon this question have been passed by successive Volksraads exercising their power to alter, add to, or revoke, previous enactments, and as the same powers are to the full enjoyed by the present Volksraad, it would be both possible and proper for the present Volksraad to annul all the legislation upon this subject from that date, and to restore and confirm the status prior to 1890, and thus satisfy the indisputable claims of those who settled in this country under certain conditions from the benefits of which they could not properly be excluded.
With regard to paragraph 5, a moderate proposal designed to give a more equitable distribution of representatives in the Volksraad would be necessary.
The above suggestions are not put forward as the irreducible minimum, nor are they designed for public use, nor intended as a proposal acceptable to the eye but impossible in fact, and thus sure of rejection. They are put forward in good faith as indicating in our opinion the lines upon which it would be possible to work towards a settlement with a reasonable prospect of success.
If the difficulties appear great the more reason there is not to put forward an unalterable proposal foredoomed to failure, but rather to try and find points of agreement which, however few and small to begin with, would surely make for eventual and complete settlement. In any case it is clear that the mere fact of a proposal to extend the franchise having been made by the Government, thus frankly recognizing the need to deal with the subject, will be hailed as a good omen and a good beginning by all fair-minded men.
The determination of the negotiators to have the position clearly stated in writing, and their fear that the use of intermediaries would end in the usual unhappy and unpleasant result—namely, repudiation of the intermediary in part or entirely—were not long wanting justification. The following is a translation of Mr. F.W. Reitz's reply:—
PRETORIA, 8th April, 1899.
Messrs. G. Rouliot, H.F.E. Pistorius, A. Brakhan, E. Birkenruth, and John M. Pierce, Johannesburg.