SOUTH AFRICA.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 481, 14 April 1909, Page 7

SOUTH AFRICA.

NATIVE FRANCHISE IN CAPE COLONY. TERMS OF THE UNION. DECISION BY THE GAPE ASSEMBLY. tUI Tir.EOBMMI—ritESS ASSOCIATION—COriRIqnt.) (R«c. April 13, 9.32 pan.) Capo Town, April 13. . Tho Oapo Colony Assembly discussed a recommendation further entrenching (on) tho nativo franchise in tho draft Constitution of tho. Union. Tile recommendation was supported by many members of tho Afrikander Bond, but was finally rejected by sis votos, tho voting being: For the, recommeudation ... 47 Against the recommendation ... 53 !

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE NATIVES. Under the draft Constitution of tho South African Union, a two-thirds majority of both Houses of' the Union iriay alter the nativo franchise, which obtains in Cape Colony. Tho above cablegram indicates that a recommendation further endangering the native franchiseits details are not stated—was negatived in tho Capo Colony Assembly by. only six votes, there is some doubt as to the senso in which the cabled word "entrenching" is "used, but the abo.vo.is the most probable reading. In its summary of tho draft 'Constitution, "The times says:—

the House of Assembly-is to-consist of 121 members chosen directly by the voters of tho Union and assigned-to the various provinces in tho. following manneri-Capo of Good Hope, olj JSntal, h; Orange River. Colony, 17; Transj;aa • , 3C - , Members of both Houses must bo British, subjeqts of European "descent'and have" resided in the Union for five years, Tho existing colonial franchises aro to bo maintained unless and until the Union Parliament otherwise provides. No voter is to bo disqualified on tho ground solely ot race or colour, and tho native franchise in the Capo Colony is not to bo altered except by a two-thirds majority ofboth Houses of Parliament." \\ hen the draft Constitution was published, here was considerable criticism on (ho ground that the native franchise is- insufficiently secured. The cabled; decision would »£"«?& indicate that the Cape Colony Assembly is'at I'f no Ji I w,u > n ? to accept further attacks "'™ I;. U }? Cnno - Tm ™ correspondent of Hie tames wrote, on February 10:-" On the-native> provisions opinion is divided, many thinking that the. specific exclusion of. native! from Parliament is a grave blot, especially as there is little imniodialo prospoet of the elec™n of a native. I am informed that ranch dissatisfaction has been caused among ha native.voters by the.provision ami.by, the nonextension o the franchise to !ho other South but J ™ Winced tho utterances of the northern delegates that even t.tcs concessions actually secured for the Cano native voters wi 1 not be easy to reconcile wi h tho other colonies' existing prejudices "