Nelson Evening Mail MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 1928 SOUTH AFRICA AND SECESSION

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 13 August 1928, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 1928 SOUTH AFRICA AND SECESSION

THE disloyalty expressed by members of the Nationalist Party of South Africa at their Congress, on the 9th inst., is not surprising, as they represent the die-hard Dopper Boers who rebelled in 1399. The other political parties are the South African Party and the Labour Party, which in the aggregate much out.number the Natonalists. At the General Election in 1924 the Labour Party, with its 18 elected members, held the balance between the South African and National Parties, and threw, its lot in with the Nationalists, thus giving General Hertzog a working majority. But the Labour Party made it a condition that no movement should be made towards secession while the two parties remained in coalition. A month or two ago news was received by a split in the ranks of the Labour Party, which expelled its leader, Colonel Cresswell, and greatly weakened the alliance with the Nationalists, if not entirely breaking it. The result seems to have been to liberate the tongues of the Nationalists in Congress assembled, and their disloyal expressions will inspire the loyalists of South Africa with determination to combine for the preservation of union within the Empire and the upholding of the Crown.

One of the delegates at the Nationalist Congress said: "There is still a chain binding us to the Empire. I look forward to the day when the chain will be snapped and we shall be free from the Empire," and the chairman expressed the opinion "that sovereign independence was not in conflict with republicanism. South Africa could proclaim a republic." General Hertzog was,present,

and though lie did not, contradict these disloyal utterances, lie appears to have exercised a restraining influence, in that ho persuaded the meeting to accept the' Imperial Conference's declaration as to the attainment of sovereign independence,'which declaration includes allegiance to the Crown. •In doing so, the Premier of South Africa is consistent, for after returning from the Imperial Cbnference he said, "he no longer feared the Empire, and believed that English-speaking South Africans could be full citizens'of South Africa while retaining their love and loyalty to Great Britain." When the Prince of Wales wasnn South Africa, in 1925, General Hertzog "made a notable address in which he coupled a declaration of strong opposition to secession from the Empire with an appeal for co-operation in the Union between Briton and Boer". In saying this he has been corroborated by (lis Minister of Justice, Mr Tielman Roos who has declared that South African Nationalists are entirely satisfied with the status of the Union in the British Empire as established by the recent Imperial Conference." That was a remarkable utterance, because Mr Roos had previously been publicly described as "an unrepentant secessionist whose purpose seems to be to unite all Dutch-speaking South Africans into one party working for eventual separation from the Empire." If these expressions of the Nationalists' leaders are genuine, it is evident that whatever they themselves may think, their party is disloyal to the core. The Nationalists of South Africa are bent on. separation from the Empire, and on breaking the golden link which binds their country to the Crown, and,the question naturally arises: What are'their, chances of success?..

' Last year, when the Provincial elections were held, the seats gained by the Nationalists were outnumbered by those gained by the loyalist South African Party by 3to 2. The Labour Party lost heavily; the loyalists 'elected having a clear majority. If these returns form a criterion, it would seem that loyalism is in the ascendant, the more especially a 9 a solidVsection of the Labour Party is loyal. Natal is overwhelmingly loyal. So i that no movement for secession could be made by the Nationalists without provoking strong opposition and possibly civil war. Moreover, any appeals by the loyalists for help would be immediately responded to by loyalists throughout the Empire, and t though the struggle might be bitter and prolonged there is not much dpubt as to how it would end. The deluded Nationalists of South Africa may choose to interpret the term "sovereign independence" as giving them the right to rebel against the Crown? but that is not the interpretation of the loyal Dominions. To these, Empire unity is priceless, and' allegiance to the Crown is sacred, and it is as well that disloyalists 1 in South Africa should be told so in the clearest' manner possible. If they think to repeat on a larger scale the late Paul Kruger's experiment, they will find that, as in 1899, the Empire stands for unity. . True, its component p'arts enjoy a complete measure of self-government under- the Crown, but the Crown remains the emblem of unity and welds, the Empire into" one indivisible whole, and ; the loyalists of South Africa.and the Empire will certainly- resent whole-heartedly the di% loyal expressions uttered at the Congress of the South African'Nationalist Party. <'' ■'' '' v ; ' ' r , <