#

f J a t £•

n.d .

NAT TVS LAITO ACT AMI) FARt.tSR AN!D TENANT.Prior to the passing of Act called Land Act of 1913 residentson private lands were obliged to make any contracts favourablebetween landlord and tenant. Act. 18 of 1936 made it clearthat a lease of land wherein the Native tenant pays an annual

and compelledrental but .is required/to"work"off" this refctal by the supply of his own or his inmates’ services as labourers at current rates of pay.Act 18 of 1936 amends all the previous Acts such as Squatters Act of 1852,Land Act of 1923,Act 24 of 1932 Act of 1926 Act known as Squartfeers Act of 1852 allowed the collection of rents from Native residing on private and Crown lands and without the entention of the lrovissions to farmers,farmers cppied the action of the &atal government as they could get satisfactory labour from the ir labour tenants.On Private and Cron lands Natives first paid £1 rent per hut per annum and this was subquently raised to £2 per hut per annum. Farmers collected rents from Natives,and these the® amounts were fixed'between a farmer and Native on entering the verbal contranct,some paid £3 per hut per annum and others charged an obsobedent sums £5.The Land Act of 1913 introduced a new passage that Natives residing on private own farms should in return of their residdng on the farm give labour and stoped the farmers from making contract with Natives either that the contract provided in the Act,that is to give labour not to pay rent.The amends of 1926 and 1932 affirmed that contention of the Act,but Act 18 of 1936 is definite on the point that no rents should be accepted and makes a crime to Master and to the Tenant.The difficult arises, a Native labour tenant residing on the farm and binds his inmates to enter into his master’s service,he can not bind those under the age of 10 years and those over the age of 18 years,the conditi are that he looses all his children under the circustances which he could not help. The farmer wants labour and the Tenant is not fit to give labour but he has enough live stock from which he could raise enough^to pay nis rent provided rent was allewed.If the present landlord gives him a track pass and who is to

who is that farmer that would accept this poor ITative oh his farmwith a large stock and having no body to give service to the farmer.Therefore I conclude that such provission should be amended toallow those who wish to reside on the private owned land on suchconditions deem fiting between &Lhe f a t M r and tenant concerned„Resticting Natives to give labour not ig. kind in respect of theirliving or residing on private lands is calculated to slavery because

b t.the sprit 01 the Act is^compell natives to work or give service to land owner without pay,whereas this particular Native is expected to meet all his obligations demanded of him by the taxation Act of 1925 and etc«

_HAT TVS ADI .HITISTRATI ON ACT OF 1927.__earning to deal with this Act. I wish to draw the attention to section 12 (4) this passage gives the right to Natives to appeal any decision of the Native Chief to Native Commissioner as being borne by 33 'df 'Act 'OGA) j the Act of 1927.Then comesthe amendment of this Act by section 23 (4) of Act No.36/1944 which now limits the right to appeal to the Native Commissioner in that the amount appealed against should be not less than £5 if so appeal shall not be allowed unless the Native Commissioner is satified that such appeal involves the issues of important principal of law® He has to make summary enquiry if he likes and he can not be compellei that means Natives are left with no redress.On the other hand now Natives are to take great care that the only remedy in cases which involves small amounts they shall have to take such cases before the Native Commissioner not before the Native Chief.From the Native Commissioner you remain with the right to appeal to the Native Appeal Court whereas who have no remedy to appeal against the Chief. Chiefs as a rule are not keen to see their members appealing against them and they shall do all possible they can to limit their awards within the limit that is not appealable to to the Native Commissioner This amendment should be delited and allow the setion and sub.section remain as if it was not amended. Theose that recomended this amendment are the members of the Native Appeal Court,but thesedre no't being affected by the amendment.

Collection Number: A922

Allison Wessels George CHAMPION Papers, 1925-1959

PUBLISHER: Publisher:- Historical Papers Research Archive

Location:- Johannesburg

©2013

LEGAL NOTICES:

Copyright Notice: All materials on the Historical Papers website are protected by South African copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, or otherwise published in any format, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.

Disclaimer and Terms of Use: Provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein, you may download material (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal and/or educational non-commercial use only.

People using these records relating to the archives of Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand,

Johannesburg, are reminded that such records sometimes contain material which is uncorroborated, inaccurate, distorted or untrue. While these digital records are true facsimiles of paper documents and the information contained

herein is obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand has not independently verified their content. Consequently, the University is not responsible for any errors or

omissions and excludes any and all liability for any errors in or omissions from the information on the website or any related information on third party websites accessible from this website.

This document is part of a collection held at the Historical Papers Research Archive at The University of the

Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.