Memorials from other places, with 523 signatures, prayed that the existing Franchise Law should be strictly enforced.
Several petitions against the prohibition of the Election Committee were read.
A further memorial from the Rand was read, containing 5,152 signatures, pointing out that they objected to the memorial issued by the National Union, and they wanted the system of one-man-one-vote and the ballot system adopted before they asked for the franchise.
THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
The Memorial Committee recommended that the law remain unaltered, because the memorials signed by full burghers requested no extension to take place.
Mr. LUCAS MEYER, who was chairman of the Memorial Commission, submitted a report, stating that he was in the minority and differed from his fellow-committeemen. There was not a single member of the Raad who would use his powers more towards maintaining the independence of the country than himself, but he was fully convinced that the Raad had as bounden duty to propose an alteration to last year's law. Proposals to do so had to emanate from the Raad. A large majority of memorialists who prayed for the extension were not burghers, but even those burghers who petitioned the Raad against the extension asked the Raad not to do so at present. That showed that they were convinced that sooner or later the extension would have to take place—cautiously perhaps, but the extension would come. Even the committee, the majority of whom were against him, recognised this. He repeated that it was his opinion that the time would come. Let the Raad then submit the proposal to the country, and if the majority of the burghers were against it, the Raad would have to stand or fall with the burghers; but at any rate they would be acting according to the will of the country, and could not be blamed for possible consequences. Recently the President said something had to be done to admit a portion of the people who were behind the dam, before the stream became so strong that the walls would be washed away and the country immersed in water. He hoped the Raad would favourably consider his proposal.
Mr. TOSEN said that when the proposals came to extend the franchise, such proposals had to come from old burghers, and so far the old burghers had not signified their willingness that this should be done. On the contrary, a large number of them were against it. They did not wish to exclude the new-comers for all eternity, but just now they should make no concession. It stood to reason that the new-comers could not have so much interest in the country as the old inhabitants. He cautioned the Raad against accepting the recommendations of Mr. Meyer. It would be contrary to Republican principles. Yes, he repeated it would be contrary to the principles of Republicanism, and were newcomers admitted to the franchise the old burghers would be deprived of all their rights. They would not dare to vote or exercise any of their privileges. Those persons who signed the petition for the franchise said they were peaceful and law-abiding citizens, but they gave a sign that they were not law-abiding, because they were against the law. The Election Law was there, and they should abide by it.
The CHAIRMAN called the speaker to order and advised him to keep to the point, whether it was desirable to extend the franchise or not.
Mr. TOSEN said he was cut short, but in a few words he would say that he would resist to the bitter end any attempt to alter the law as it at present stood. He spoke on behalf of his constituents and himself.
Mr. JEPPE, in the course of his speech, said: Who are the people who now demand from us a reasonable extension of the franchise? There are to begin with almost a thousand old burghers who consent to such extension. There are in addition 890 petitioners, also old burghers, who complain that the franchise has been narrowed by recent legislation. There are 5,100, chiefly from the Rand, who ask for extension subject to the ballot, the principle of which has already been adopted by you, and there is lastly a monster petition, bearing 35,700 names, chiefly from the Rand goldfields: and in passing I may mention that I have convinced myself that the signatures to it, with very few exceptions perhaps are undoubtedly genuine. Well, this petition has been practically signed by the entire population of the Rand. There are not three hundred people of any standing whose names do not appear there. It contains the name of the millionaire capitalist on the same page as that of the carrier or miner, that of the owner of half a district next to that of a clerk, and the signature of the merchant who possesses stores in more than one town of this Republic next to that of the official. It embraces also all nationalities: the German merchant, the doctor from Capetown, the English director, the teacher from the Paarl—they all have signed it. So have—and that is significant—old burghers from the Free State, whose fathers with yours reclaimed this country; and it bears too the signatures of some who have been born in this country, who know no other fatherland than this Republic, but whom the law regards as strangers. Then too there are the newcomers. They have settled for good: they have built Johannesburg, one of the wonders of the age, now valued at many millions sterling, and which, in a few short years, will contain from a hundred to a hundred and fifty thousand souls; they own half the soil, they pay at least three-quarters of the taxes. Nor are they persons who belong to a subservient race. They come from countries where they freely exercised political rights which can never be long denied to free-born men. They are, in short, men who in capital, energy and education are at least our equals. All these persons are gathered together, thanks to our law, into one camp. Through our own act this multitude, which contains elements which even the most suspicious amongst us would not hesitate to trust, is compelled to stand together, and so to stand in this most fatal of all questions in antagonism to us. Is that fact alone not sufficient to warn us and to prove how unstatesmanlike our policy is? What will we do with them now? Shall we convert them into friends or shall we send them away empty, dissatisfied, embittered? What will our answer be? Dare we refer them to the present law, which first expects them to wait for fourteen years and even then pledges itself to nothing, but leaves everything to a Volksraad which cannot decide until 1905? It is a law which denies all political rights even to their children born in this country. Can they gather any hope from that? Is not the fate of the petition of Mr. Justice Morice, whose request, however reasonable, could not be granted except by the alteration of the law published for twelve months and consented to by two-thirds of the entire burgher population, a convincing proof how untenable is the position which we have assumed? Well, should we resolve now to refuse this request, what will we do when as we well know must happen it is repeated by two hundred thousand one day. You will all admit the doors must be opened. What will become of us or our children on that day, when we shall find ourselves in a minority of perhaps one in twenty, without a single friend amongst the other nineteen, amongst those who will then tell us they wished to be brothers, but that we by our own act made them strangers to the Republic? Old as the world is, has an attempt like ours ever succeeded for long? Shall we say as a French king did that things will last our time, and after that we reck not the deluge? Again I ask what account is to be given to our descendants and what can be our hope in the future?