6 THE SOUTH AFRICAN INDIAN QUESTION
property worth 50 or pays an annual rent of 10 There is a separate franchise qualification for the Zulu. In 1894, the Natal Legislature passed a Bill disfranchising Asiatics by name. We resisted it in the Local Parlia- ment hub without any avail. We then memorialised the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and as a result that bill was this year withdrawn and replaced by another which, though not quite so bad as the first one, is bad enough. It gays that no natives of countries (not of European origin) which have not hitherto possessed elective representative institutions, founded on the Parliamentary Franchise, shall be placed on the voters roll unless they shall first obtain an exemption from tha Governor in Council, This bill excepta from its operation those whose names are already rightly contained in any voters' list- Before being introduced it was submitted to Mr, Chamberlain who has approved of it. We have opposed ifa on the ground that we have suoh institutions in India, and that, therefore, the Bill will fail initsobjeob if it is to disfranchise the Asiatics and that therefore also it is a harassing piece of legislation and is calculated to involve us in endless litigation and expense. This ia admitted on all hands. The very members who voted for ib thought likewise. The Natal Government organ says in effect :
We know India has euoh institutions and therefore the bill will not apply to the Indians. But we oan have that bill or none. If it disfranchises Indians, nothing oan be better, if it does not, then too we have nothing to feat ! for the Indian oan never gain political supremacy and if necessary, we oan soon impose an educational test or raise the property qualification which, while disfranchising Indians wholesale, will not debar a single European from voting.
Thus the Natal legislature ia paying a game of "boas up 1 ' at the Indians' expense. We are a fit subject for Vivisection tinder the Natal Paafcaur'a deadly scalpel and
�� �
