SOUTH AFRICAN FLAG

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 131, 7 June 1927, Page 4

SOUTH AFRICAN FLAG

BILL BEFORE PARLIAMENT

A HOPELESS DEADLOCK

'On JEfch May the Minister for the Interiorl (Dr.. Malon) introduced to the House of Assembly a "Bill to define South African nationality and to provide for a na- ' tjimaMlag," the design of which is to be the Cross of St. George on a white field, superimposed on a green field. The Bill was rSad the first time'on 16th May by a majority of 21, after vigorous protests from General-Smuts and others, while many indMnaflSn meetings have been held in other parts of the Union. There is no evidence that we are any nearer a settlement of the design of the Sjrmth African flag than we were six months ago. Indeed, there are distressing, signs that we are approaching a crisis which, may have the most disastrous congruences, wrote the Capetown correspondent of the Melbourne "Argus" on 23rd April. On sth April the so-called Flag Conference assembled in Capetown, and sat for a few days. The conference consisted of; six members of the Government Flag Commission, which failed to reach any ajgreement when it held its sessions some time ago, and six members of the fiag vigilance committees which had been established in various parts of South Africa to>; safeguard the principle of the inclusion of the Union Jack in the.South African flag. The conference held four or five sittings. At an early stage Mr. Howard Pirn, chairman of the vigilance committees' section, presented a document iq! which he and his colleagues stated their cue. "No flag," it declared, "which does not contain the Union Jack can win the recognition and respect of English-speak-ing South Africans." On the following day th« Government delegates replied with a statement in which they based their case against the Union Jack on "the host of unpleasant memories" which it raises "in tKe minds of a very large number of Dilrtch-speaking South Africans." On the declaration of the Government delegates, that no flag including the Union Jack would b_e acceptable to them, "even if themembers of the. flag committees agree totlje inclusion in such a flag of any other emblem or emblems proposed by the members of the Flag Commission," Mr. Pirn add his co-delegates seem to have contemplated breaking up the conference with a recommendation that the whole question b»; postponed. The vigilance committees, wiiich they represent, are regretful to-day that they did not do so. Discussions proceeded, however, and eventually, a joint re;Sori;;was issued declaring that the conference was convinced of the necessity for • ioontn-African flag, and of the importafle* of settling the design "on a basis of' mutual understanding and goodwill." Xte resolution, recognised the desirability of--a solution being reached, in spite of any flag, including the Union Jack, beufc unacceptable to a large section of the South African people, any flag not including the Union Jack, being unacceptable to another large section. The representatives of^-the flag vigilance committees said that they recognised the inclusion of the Cross I °v> "t^ George in a design recommended by tKe Government commission ab- a genuine ?;esturs of goodwill and a real help to urther.discussion." It was recommended that toe conference adjourn until 14th ■May with a view to further consultation. .The design mentioned in the report consist* of the Cross of St. George W) on 2 S i.- v ' supenmposed upon a green flejd, which is thus divided quarterly. It Uj«laimed by the Government commission that this flag is a compromise between two extreme views, but it is not so regardeiby tne^Enghsh-speaking people of South A^ica, The Cross of St. George, it is pointed out, is little known except in its pihet i m the Union Jack, and it has no significance to-day f or English-speaking patole as a national emblem. Scots are S*"f what has become of the Cross of St. Andrew. As Scots have played no *!&: part,ln the building up of South Africa, and are numerically an important section of the South African people, there »"substance in this question. The delegates who subscribed to the report have erfe y ,criti cised M the vigilance committees, and when the. conference reassembles on 14th May—if it ever reassembefen severely criticised? by the vigilance representatives will have been instructed tp;mamtain the principle that no national flag can be accepted which does not contain the Union Jack, and to make it clear that any attempt to pass a flag Bill except by; ; general consent will be strenuously resisted. It is stated on semi-official authority in a Labour newspaper that the Mm Iw^m 0 Proceed th's session with *£ S a6 Blll: ?nd. that if, after passing th£ House of Assembly, where the pact commands a majority, it is rejocted by the Senate, where the South African Party is ?n a^ majority, a special session will be summoned within a few days of rejeetwta, and the Bill will again be passed. The provisions of the Act of Union will be,:complied with," says the statement, and a joint sitting of the two Houses will be held In such a joint sitting the Government would command a majority." It is further stated that a referendum will afterwards be taken, and that unless 60 E? r S:?,* \,° l the electors are in favour of Jne, Bill the measure will lapse.