THE COLOUR BAR

Hokitika Guardian, 29 July 1926, Page 1

THE COLOUR BAR

I SOUTH AFRICA’S UNFORTUNATE ' EXPERIMENT. ’ Colonel P. A. Silburu, C.8.E., ! D. 5.0., a Former Member of the Union Parliament of South Africa, in the London “Daily Mail.”) Alter stormy debates in two sessions of South Africa’s Lower House, two sessions of the Senate, and a session of both House sitting as one Chamber, the Colour Bar Bill was passed by the small majority of 16, the number of members of both Houses voting at the joint sitting being 150. It does not follow that this measure, denying a whole population, because of colour, the right to do certain work or improve their condition, will become law, for it yet requires the Royal Assent. Ihe South African Government ot the day is a coalition of the Nationalist and Labour Parties, the latter having three Alinisters in a Cabinet of eleven. Ihe Colour Bar Bill, together with anti-Asiatic legislation, was the price paid by the Nationalists for Labour support. Shortly the measure aims at restricting coloured people from following or taking part in skilled trades. They are forbidden by this Bill to rise to the rank of artisan. Under the Bill, passed by a small majority out of 150 representatives of the one and a half million Europeans, five and a half million people and tlieir descendants are condemned to be perpetually hewers of wood and carriers of water. “ AVHAT IS COLOUR?” Should the Bill become law endless litigation must ensue over the definition of the word “ colour.” Such judges as have been called upon to give a definition of “ coloured persons ” have failed to do so. In the United States the definition of “coloured person” includes the sixth generation from a Negro. If a definition be accepted that the fourth generation from a Negro is “ coloured,” four members of the first South African Cabinet and 15 jaer cent of the first Parliament would have been illegally sitting as members and a number of those members voting for the Colour Bar Bill would come under its provisions.

It was the definition that made the first anti-Asiatic Bill a double-edged weapon. The Bill was initiated by the Jewish traders and usurers, so numerous and influential in South Africa, with the object of driving their successful competitor, the British Indian, from the country. It was then discovered that the phrase “of Asiatic descent ” covered the Hebrew. The Bill was therefore dropped. The constitutional procedure by which the protective functions of a bicameral Legislature became inoperative may he of interest. Owing to the rejection of the Colour Bar Bill by the Senate for the second time, a section of, the South Africa Act of 1909 (Section 63) allowing for such a contingency was called into operation for the first time. Unlike the British Constitution and the Constitutions governing the sister Dominions, the South Africa Act provides that if a Bill passed by the Assembly is rejected by the Senate it may be reintroduced into the Assembly the following session, and if again rejected by the Senate, both (the Assembly and the Senate shall sit as one Chamber to

legislate upon the measure. Then, if passed by a majority of the two Houses sitting as, one, it may he sent for the Governor-General’s approval. DOWNING-STREET’S RIGHT. This section of the Constitution was called into force for the first time in the history of the Union because it was the only means by which the Government could enact the Colour Bar Bill. But even this drastic and unprecedented step does not mean that such racial and class legislation, limiting the vocational calling of the coloured people will pass into law, for the royal instructions accompanying the Constitution (South Africa Act 1908) distinctly lay down that certain Bills dealing with class legislation shall Ire reserved for the Royal Assent.

In other words, Downing-streot has the right of veto, and it is only, right that this should be so, for if legisla-r tion oppressive to the five and a half million natives is passed by the par-

liamentary representatives elected by the one and a half million Europeans of the Union its bad effects will he felt over the whole of Africa.

The Imperial Government was in the first instance the recognised guardian of the five and a half million natives of the Union, and when handing this largo population over (without the natives being consulted) to he governed by the representatives of a population less than one-fourth that of London it was understood that oppressive class or racial legislation should not be introduced. A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. Should the Bill receive the Royal Assent it must inevitably react upon British prestige, which now stands so high with the coloured races of the Empire, and will he cited as a precedent for racial, class, or religious legislation. In, the event of a Mohammedan Government obtaining power in India such a Bill may well he used as an example for legislation against the Hindu or the European. When drafting the South Africa Act the South African National Convention were divided on the question of a bi-cameral or a uni-cameral Legislature. A compromise was effected by making it bi-cameral hut restricting the extent of the veto of the Upper House. Experience lias shown that a Second Chamber, being beyorfd the coercion of an excitable electorate, is an efficient chock upon hasty or fanatical legislation. In this particular case the Senate, not dependent upon the temper of the constituencies, was able to consider the Colour Bar Bill upon its merits in an atmosphere free from passion, and this body of experienced legislators rejected the measure by a large majority. A year later this same unprejudiced body, after twelve months impartial inquiry, rejected the Bill again by an increased majority. Section 63 of the South Africa Act therefore very largely nullifies the object for which the Upper House was created, with regrettable consequences not only for South Africa but for the whole Empire. _________