brought up the report of the Committee of the Whole House on the Second Report of the Select Committee on Waste Lands, reporting certain Resolutions with regard to grants, leases, and exchanges of land. (See pp. 1097-8, “Votes and Proceedings.”)

moved that the Resolutions be adopted.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I wish to call attention to Notice of Motion No. XIII. on the Order Paper for the 11th instant, standing in the name of the hon. member for Border (Mr. Blaine). This proposed motion is out of order, as its adoption would not only go beyond the scope of the order of reference of the Waste Lands Committee, but would be in conflict with Standing Order No. 149. The notice must, therefore, be discharged from the notice paper.

asked the Minister of Railways when he intended to lay on the table the schedule of new lines? They were nearing the end of the session, and yet the schedule had not been furnished.

said the hon. member ought to know that the schedule could not be furnished until the Bill came before the House. He had only just received the report of the Railway Board on the subject, but he promised that the schedule would be placed on the table early next week.

referred to the surplus the Minister derived from lighthouses, and said that as the railway surpluses were generally spent on the railways, he thought the surplus from lighthouses should be expended on lighthouses. In view of the surplus that appeared, he thought the Government should now undertake the construction of a lighthouse at Slangkop. He contended that the shipping that visited the port should have additional facilities to those, that existed at present, and urged that the erection of a lighthouse at this point was one of the most pressing needs. He went on to deal with evidence given in 1907, which supported his contention that a lighthouse at Slangkop was a necessity. He pointed out that both the Late Admiral and the Admiral at present at the naval station advocated the construction of a lighthouse at Slangkop without delay. In conclusion, he said he hoped that the Minister would not lose sight of the matter, seeing that it was of vast importance to the safety of the shipping that visited this port.

congratulated the Minister of Railways on the sound financial condition of the railways, but at the same time expressed the opinion that they should not be satisfied until the railways were run on the lines laid down in the South Africa Act. His reason for rising at that stage of the debate was to bring before the Government certain circumstances which adversely affected some of his constituents. The most northern town in Natal, Charlestown, was built when the railway was extended to that part of Natal. Its population was dependent upon the railway, and he found! that the new arrangements of the Railway Board had adversely affected the people living there. There had been stationed at Charlestown a good many railwayman, but they were now being removed to Volksrust, and the town was financially suffering, so that it would come to almost nothing. He understood that the Government made these changes for financial reasons, but he would like to know if all the circumstances had been considered. He found in the Estimates that a sum of £20,000 was brought up for certain alterations to be made at Volksrust with a view to making further accommodation, whereas there was already that accommodation at Charlestown. At Charlestown there was a good supply of water, whilst at Volksrust they had none. It might, therefore, be found necessary to spend a lot of money to obtain water, and so the removal might not be so economical after all. He had received a telegram from Charlestown stating that a meeting had unanimously resolved that the Natal members and Senators be asked to protest against the removal of the locomotive department from Charlestown in order to build up another town in the Transvaal.

applauded the Minister’s intention of increasing the number of white railway employees. In the Free State white labour on railways had been a great success, not only from the railway’s own point of view but because the system had the advantage of centralising, to some extent, the white population. Children, who might otherwise have remained illiterate, were now enabled to go to school. Unfortunately, the married quarters contained very poor accommodation, which had previously been used by bachelors, who were not particular as to how they handled it. Improvements had been, effected, but not on an adequate scale. A good deal had been said about the “business principles” on which the railways were to be run. It almost seemed as if that meant that the railways were to make as much profit as possible, but he trusted the expression would be interpreted to mean that goods should be carried as cheaply as possible. He especially advocated that course in regard to South African produce, because a quantity of locally produced meat and grain could not be sent to market at present on account of prohibitive rates, whereas there was a large importation of the same articles. Cattle rates had been raised, which was a mistake because that policy led to an increase of the cost of living in the towns. He was surprised to note that practically a new line was being built at certain portions of the main line north of Matjesfontein. In view of the fact that many districts were languishing for want of railway communication he did not understand the reasons for the construction in question.

said when the announcement was made that there was going to be very considerable railway reductions they were all very pleased. These reductions appealed very much to the agricultural community. At the same time, if there were reductions, there were also several increases, and he would direct the attention of the House to some of them. There were some very considerable increases in certain articles, such as dried fruit, raisins, and onions. To-day it cost the Western Province farmer nearly twice as much to send onions to Port Elizabeth or East London, whereas in sending the article to Johannesburg it was very much less. He quite appreciated the fact that it was a great benefit to have the rates reduced to Large centres like Johannesburg, but he was unable to understand the disparity in the rates to Port Elizabeth and East London, which were large centres also.

said he was glad to see that the instalment for the Butterworth-Umtata railway figured in the Bill. Now, a Higher Power than theirs had stepped in and made ox-wagon competition impossible for the time being, and he supposed for the next year or two, because the East Coast fever outbreak in the Transkeian Territories was not going to be wiped out all at once. The railway would undoubtedly pay.

pointed out that not only had the rates on cement been raised, but the rebate on cement used for irrigation: purposes had been taken away. That, he said, was felt as a very serious grievance indeed in the irrigation areas of the country. He would like the Minister to seriously consider whether it was not possible to restore those rates in the Cape Colony for irrigation purposes.

said he had been cudgelling his brains as to the application of business principles to the running of the railways. It appeared to him that the people who principally had benefited by the reduced rates were those who lived inland, and the agricultural population did not seem to have derived much benefit from the reductions. It seemed to be a business principle to suspend the operation of the Railway Sinking Fund. The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Colonel Harris) had said that the Cape had done nothing but bleed Kimberley. But how many millions, worth of diamonds had the old Cape given to Kimberley? (Cheers.) There certainly did not appear to be much gratitude left in this world. (Laughter.) Continuing, Mr. Blaine said the Border districts had been building very much on Union, but with the new principle of running railways on business principles, he was afraid that the Border would not get the new lines it desired. He had the advantage of a branch line traversing his farm, fie found that as the result of railway extension farmers were not confining themselves wholly to sheep or cattle, but were going in for the smaller things, such as dairy produce, etc. He hoped the Government would not forget that what happened in the Transkei might happen in other parts of the country as well, and that the possibility of East Coast fever spreading to those places without railway communication should be borne in mind.

said the Minister of Railways had budgeted for an increased expenditure and for a diminished revenue to the extent of something like £550,000. He had also allowed for a loss on the harbours of something like £274,000, which was to be met out of the profits on the railways. Would Mr. Sauer give the House a clear statement as to the policy to be adopted with regard to the deficit on the harbours, and say whether it was the Minister’s intention to see, that that deficit should not continue, to so large an extent, to fall on the general revenue of the country? His hon. friend (Mr. Sauer) would remember that last December he was asked to place before the House the facts with regard to the capital account of the rolling-stock. The Minister had said that the capital account of rolling-stock On the books of the Railway Department was something like 13½ millions, and that he had allowed for depreciation £695,000, which was something like five per cent. Well, from his (Sir T. Smartt’s) experience of the Cape Railways, he was convinced that the capital amount of the rolling-stock on the books of the railways was far in excess of the actual value of the rolling-stock. He had asked the Minister to get. The Railway Board to go fully into the question, and to have the rolling-stock absolutely valued and certified to by each responsible officer. Until that had been done, it was impossible for the House to give any expression of opinion as to whether 5 per cent, on the capital account of 13½ millions was anything like an adequate provision for depreciation. His view was that it was nothing like adequate. He remembered that in 1900 he instructed the Cape Railway Department to value the rolling-stock, and the result was that the value was found to be £600,000 or £700,000 less than it appeared in the books of the railways. He was perfectly sure there must be thousands upon thousands of pounds of rolling-stock which was useless, and which was put in here to swell the capital account on the books.

They were earmarked for specific purposes. The money available was £280,000.

said that now his hon. friend had given the show away. (Laughter.) The sums he had mentioned had been spent, and his hon. friend would sec by a simple arithmetical calculation that they were considerably more than £280,000. The House had a right to ask where that money had been found, and if that money had been found, what were the circumstances which had actuated the Government in selecting certain specific lines and leaving the Butterworth-Idutywa lines. Theta he would like to call Mr. Sauer’s attention to another matter. He thought they had laid down an admirable principle in the Act of Union with regard to the railway rate reserve, and the Government was in an entirely different position with regard to that than a private company was. During the previous Estimates Mr. Sauer had £165,000 to carry toward the railway rate reserve fund, but now that amount had been reduced to £70,000. He would have thought that in a good year like that they would not have diminished that amount, and that, if anything, his hon. friend would have increased it, because he had sufficient experience of railway working in the country to know that they might again have a period of depression, so that the railway rates would, unless there was such a fund, have to be materially increased, which would seriously interfere with traffic. He thought that was a point to which his hon. friend should have devoted more attention, and he would like to know the reason which had actuated the Railway Board in writing that amount down to £70,000. In connection with the transportation system and the reason for its adoption, he thought they should have more information; although they had had some experience of it in the Cape Colony with regard to the Port Elizabeth-Avontuur narrow-gauge line, where they had appointed Mr. More as superintendent in charge of the line, and the change effected had been very marked, and had done the district very much good indeed. (Hear, hear.)

“ Ikona.”

His hon. friend said that they had a loss of £330,000 on their branch lines, but he did not think it was so large as that; and they would have been able to maintain the loss out of their own resources. Some districts of the country needed railway lines, if ever they were to develop agriculturally. (Cheers.) What the country must recognise was that they had no waterways such as they had in other countries, and the only way of opening up this country was by the Construction of branch lines in suitable districts where they would not be considered from the political point of view, but absolutely and entirely from the developmental point of view. (Hear, hear) These branch lines had not been absolutely fairly treated in connection with the Cape system, and the highest possible administrative charges had always been adopted against these lines, and they had not been or edited with the traffic they brought to the main lines. It had been the united credit of the country which made the building of these lines, as well as the line to Kimberley, possible. He was glad to hear from his hon. friend (Mr. Sauer) that branch lines should be constructed as cheaply as possible, and when he (Sir Thomas) in the old Cape Parliament had submitted a proposal that the engineer’s certificate need not be, necessary for certain branch lines he had not had the support of Mr. Sauer or Mr. Merriman.

Certainly not. Sir T. W. SMARTT (Fort Beaufort) said that when he had advocated the construction of cheap two-foot gauge development dines, he had not had their support either, and he had held that a cheap line in the Karoo was better than an unmade road. It was only by building cheap branch lines that they were able to cope with the development of the country, and if they were going to build expensive branch lines and wanted saloons and the like, they would have to wait a long time before they could develop the country as it should be developed (Hear, hear.) In connection with the working of American railroads as compared with the working of British lines, and the enormous number of accidents which occurred on the former, to which Sir David Hunter had referred, they must take into consideration that conditions were entirely dissimilar, and that it was impossible, in a new country like America, that they could have embarked on the same policy which had been adopted in Britain. In a new country they must begin cheaply, and develop and improve the lines as more goods were carried. He asked Mr. Sauer whether they would get some information about the new lines. (Hear, hear.) His hon. friend had always been a great stickler for constitutional principles and the rights and privileges of Parliament, but he had done a thing which in all his experience had never been done before, in the Cape Legislature, at all events. He had introduced a book with a blank page. Here was nothing and there was nothing, and out of it Mr. Sauer had constructed several railways. (Laughter.) It was extraordinary that the Minister should place upon the table of the House a statement with regard to railway construction which gave the total amount to be spent, but which contained no information whatever as to where the proposed lines were to be constructed. The question of railway construction was of the greatest importance, and the House and the country generally should not be placed at a disadvantage in the matter of the Government’s policy of railway construction, and for that reason he hoped the Minister would place a full statement on the table of the House without delay.

Perhaps it is not ready.

That I can hardly conceive is possible.

in replying to the debate, said that the question which had struck him most during the discussion on his motion was that the railway administration of the various Provinces was very had indeed, because hardly an hon. member had spoken who had not asked him to rectify; what was wrong prior to Union. Speaking for the Cape, all he could say was that its administration was not so defective as hon. members would like to make out. It was very difficult for him to deal with a good many of the questions raised by hon. members opposite, because some wanted one thing and did not want another, and others wanted this and did not want that. The fact of the matter was the Unionist party opposite were divided on almost every important question; there was hardly a question upon which they were not divided, except, of course, that they were “agin the Government.” In a large measure, the criticism which had come from the other side of the House had been answered by gentle-men on the same side. Well, he took first the question of the General Manager’s report. He was asked why was not the General Manager’s report here? Well, he did not know since he had sat in Parliament that the General Manager’s report was presented within the time that had elapsed since the last calendar year. He took the case of the Cape, when it was a separate administration. He found that for the three years immediately preceding Union the General Manager’s report was not introduced before the end of May, and generally in June. He was sorry that the hon. member for Durban (Sir David Hunter), who had grown eloquent on the subject, was not in his place, because he had found that the last report presented to the Natal Parliament by the hon. gentleman as General Manager of the Natal Railways, which was the smallest of all the administrations, was not presented until July. (Ministerial “Hear, hears.”) He was also informed that the greet mining companies only published within the last few days their reports of last year. It was a practical impossibility to get the report out as suggested by hon. members. Well, some of the questions which had been raised, he took leave to say, would perhaps be more appropriately dealt with in Committee of Supply, and as he did not wish to detain the House, he would only deal with the more important matters raised. There were one or two matters in regard to rates, to which he would like to refer. The hon. member for Granff-Reinet had referred to the rates on cement—(hear, hear)—and another horn, member had referred to the rates for galvanised iron. With regard to galvanised iron, the’ old rate from East London to Aliwal was 5s. 9d.; now it was 4s. Galvanised was 5s. 8d.; now it was 2s. 9d. He hoped, therefore, the hon. member would be satisfied. Of course, there were people who were never grateful for any reduction, and he was quite sure that it would be difficult to satisfy the majority unless they ran the railways at rates which were non-paying. (Opposition “Hear, hears.”) Now, he came to the question of cement. Cement used in the construction of dipping tanks was subject to a rebate of 33 1-3 per cent., and cement used in the construction of permanent irrigation works was reduced to one penny per ton per mile. So far as the people engaged in the construction of irrigation works were concerned, they would not have to pay much more now than they did in the past. He would go on to deal with a few of the other questions raised. Hon. members had asked: Why had not the Railway Board reported on this and on that? (Hear, hear.) Well, the Estimates which the House had before it were framed in consultation with the Board, and the rates which were recently enforced were determined by the Board. (A VOICE: “Shame,” and laughter.) All questions of importance came before the Board, and were determined by the Board. Hon. members opposite asked: Why doesn’t the Board send in a report? Well, he would like to say he found in connection with the C.S.A. Railways that there was a Board of which some hon. members opposite were members, and it never sent in a report to Parliament. Personally, he saw no objection to the Railway Board presenting a report, but the Estimates had been framed, the rates fixed, and all important questions determined by the Board He had been asked: Are you going to waste money on betterment without reference to the Board? If hon. members had looked at the papers laid on the table they would have found that they actually stated that the Board approved. No money had been, or would be spent on betterment before being approved by the Board.

Is the Board satisfied with the amount?

I have told the hon. gentleman that the Estimates have been before the Board. I have stated before to the House that no expenditure of any kind would be incurred unless these specific items were before Parliament. Continuing, the hon. member said that at the same time it was absolutely necessary to spend money on certain urgent expenditure in the interests of the public and railway interests, and the Railway Board were quite willing to take the responsibility for this expenditure, and then come to Parliament for the authority to spend. The hon. member for Yeoville the other day in a speech that was faintly reverberated in the building, and which was dwelled upon by the newspapers as if the hon. member were a Mirabeau and Chateaubriand rolled into one, made an extraordinary statement. He (Mr. Sauer) was very glad to see that there was a large number of people who were not going to see that railway development was stopped because the Witwatersrand people were satisfied with their railway development. He had never heard in his life a more outrageous statement than that they must stop the railway development of this country because the Witwatersrand Mines were satisfied with their railway development.

Stick to facts.

I never heard a more cynical announcement.

I never said it.

said that was the conclusion he took from the hon. member’s speech. What the hon. member said was that if they were building branch lines and they did not pay, they must make the people pay through whose districts they passed. He never heard anything so outrageous. He (Mr. Sauer) had always said that when they built these branch lines they must go slow, and it was very frequently the case that people when they got these branch lines were more unhappy than they were before, but he agreed with his right hon. friend the member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), when he said that they should build these branch lines as Cheaply as possible, and as many as they could, where there was a reasonable prospect of the development of the country. They must not complain also if they put old rolling-stock upon these branch lines. The proper place to use this rolling-stock was upon the branch lines, instead of scrapping it. The hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) referred to a decrease in the railway traffic and in the increase at the ports. The reason was that a good many ships called at the ports that did not bring any cargo. Then there was the question of the Knysna sleepers. The question of these sleepers had been gone into, and the remarkable thing was that they were found to have lasted very much longer than had been supposed. One of the officials, in fact, said they were very much better than Australian sleepers. The sleeper did better in some parts of the country than others. In some parts it would appear that it was as good as the Australian sleeper. There were some of these Knysna sleepers that had been used for 17 years. They had been examined now, and found to be perfectly sound. (Hear, hear.) That being so, his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) would see that at present it was not perfectly clear that if was a loss; in any case, if it were found to be a loss, it would be infinitesimal. It was quite possible it may be found that when used in certain parts of the Union this sleeper was as good as the ordinary sleeper.

There was an Order in Council.

Yes; but the position of the present Beard is quite different from that of the O.S.A.R. Board. Proceeding, he observed that it had been said that it looked as if he used the Board to screen himself. That was not so. That was not his way He was prepared to take responsibility and fight it through, if he could; and if he could not, it was in the day’s march. But what was the position? It was said to him a few days ago in the lobbies that the Board was there to manage and control the railways, but if anything went wrong, the Minister of Railways would be answerable If the Board did a certain thing, and the Minister disapproved of it, what were they going to say? They said that they put in that clause, which made it subject to the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council. If that were so, then they must bear in mind that they could not have that control and management of a Board that they could have if they had not had that proviso. That made all the difference between this Board and Boards which existed in other parts. The Board and himself, as they knew one another (better, began to recognise, he wouldn’t say each other’s defects, but each other’s qualities, and he saw no reason why the Board and himself should not be able to work very harmoniously in the onerous duties which were imposed upon them. But if members of Parliament were anxious to foment dissension, and come there with ill-informed information and give it to Parliament, and incite a sort of difference, he did not know where the end would be. In regard to the new lines of railway, he consulted the Board. He did all that the Act of Union required of him.

It says that the control and management shall be exercised by the Board.

I have been trying to say so. Proceeding, he said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger)—who was so fair-minded that he ought to sit on the cross-benches — said, “Why not lay the report on the table of the House?” He (Mr. Sauer) only got it the day before yesterday. He was not going to ask Parliament to vote two millions of money before they had particulars before them. Before he asked them to vote this money, he was going to give them the report, and tell them what the lines were. He wanted to say again that on all the big questions, and generally, as he understood the position, he had consulted the Board. He did not want to say that the Board and he had always been in accord on every point. They might give different interpretations even to the meaning of the South Africa Act. They had differences of opinion, but that had not prevented them from working together. Now he came to a very important question, and that was the question of capital. The hon. member for Uitenhage was very transcendental yesterday about the Supplementary Estimates, and he (Mr. Sauer) did not know what) and he was sorry to see the fall afterwards when the hon. member referred to the position of some of his unfortunate constituents, but he also raised the important question of the capital account of the railways. They were asked to say right off what it was. The Minister of Finance, when he dealt with this question, distinctly said he was speaking from memory—that the question of the capital account of the railways was not settled, because of the different views held by the Railway Administration and the Treasury, that it was being gone into, and that as soon as possible it would be settled. As to railway capital, he took it that that included all outstanding loans, all loans redeemed out of general revenue, and all amounts paid out of general railway revenue on behalf of the railways. Against that they must put the railway surpluses supplied to general revenue, and railway surpluses out of which they had built railways. He was surprised that a man of figures did not see that it was not quite so easy a matter to get an exact statement. For some time past the Treasury and the Railway Administration had been busy with this matter. In the Estimates, it was said it was not quite determined what the interest on railways was to be in future. The principle had been determined, and now it was a question only as to the amount.

What principle?

The principle I have read— contained in Sir Thomas Price’s letter. Now, he continued, what was the position? In the first place, he would ask the House to hear in mind that there was what was called a Coal Combine in the Transvaal; needless to say, he wished that it were not a combine; but he wished the coal industry of the Transvaal, as well as every other industry, every success, and from what he could hear they did not make that profit which some other mines did in the Transvaal, and something more would be desirable. Still, the fact remained that there was a combine, and it embraced all the coal which was nearer than the Breyten mines, so that the former were in a position to charge anything they chose, and if the Ermelo district were not brought into competition this combine would charge what they liked.

It is absolutely incorrect. You ought to know.

I ought to know. I prefer the authority I have, which tells me that I cannot get coal cheap unless I go to the mines beyond the existing mines in the combine. The position was that unless I was able to do so, and come to an arrangement with a company other than the combine, we would have had to pay very much more for the coal than we do to-day. Last year, before the contract was entered into, and there was no possibility of bringing other companies into competition, the result was that we had to pay 5s. per ton for coal, but since these companies, have come in we have got coal for 3s. 8d.; 4s. from the combine, and a large quantity at 3s. 8d. from the Breyten mines. I consider this extremely good business, and if I had not done it we would have been entirely in the hands of the combine, and paid very much more for the coal than we do now. Under these circumstances I think I was justified in the public interest in entering into a contract by which the railway got coal at a much cheaper rate. Mr. Sauer went on to say that they did not give the cheaper rate to one company alone, but to the area. (Hear, bear.) They gave it to all the mines there. They did not do it for the coal alone, but for the cement, too, There had been a rate which enabled the Daspoort Cement Co. to compete at Jagersfontein, and the company at Fourteen Streams to compete at Johannesburg. Dealing with an article by Mr. Duncan in the “South African Railway Magazine” on railway rates, Mr. Sauer said that Mr. Duncan there advocated that under Union geographical position in regard to railways had been destroyed. Geographica,1 position had now been destroyed, and for whose benefit? That of the public.

The motion was agreed to, and the House will resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means on the Railway Estimates on Monday.

Business was suspended at 12.58 p.m.

said he hoped the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Wessels) would not press his amendment. He had a great deal of sympathy with his amendment, and, personally, he would like to see introduced the system which the hon. member advocated. There were, however, practical difficulties in the way of accepting the amendment. One of the difficulties was that about one-third of the men who went up to the Rand went up voluntarily. Another great difficulty was that the facilities for ensuring examination on the spot were in many eases most defective. He pointed to the possibility of a labour agent in Pondoland bringing in a batch of natives for medical examination, and having to wait three or four days for the services of a district surgeon, who might be engaged elsewhere. At the Labour Bureau in Johannesburg, however, there was a very careful examination of every man, and he hoped that the hon. member would be satisfied with that. With regard to the other amendment by the hon. member for Ermelo (General Tobias Smuts), he would ask him to consider if the clause did not satisfy him?

said he considered that both amendments were fully justified by the evidence given before the Select Committee, and he did not agree with the Minister that they were impracticable, There could be no doubt in the mind of anybody who had read the evidence that, in the interests of the country, and in the interests of the employers of labour themselves, this recruitment of natives far away from the mines should net take place at too early an age. The agriculturists could not pay the wages offered by the mines, and they had practically to fall back upon the services of the youths who were now proposed to be sent to the mines. He thought that, in the interests of all, they should try to work harmoniously, and that the restriction moved by the hon. member for Ermelo should be put in. From the moral point of view, the recruitment of natives under the age of 18 years was undesirable. He also agreed with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bechuanaland. He had received letters from the Transkei pointing out how often natives were sent away in an unfit state of health. Supposing poor creatures who were suffering from diseases of all kinds were sent up, and supposing they were rejected at the mine compounds, what was to become of them? It was not right to do such a thing, and they should not do it. He had never heard of anybody engaging bodies of labourers unless they were in good health. It was contrary to humanity and to the best interests of the country, and therefore the hon. member’s amendment was amply justified. He had seen natives examined at the ports, and the examination consisted of shoving a lusty tongue out, and the native was passed. Certainly it would be best if the natives were examined at the place of recruiting. When they paid these recruiters, they expected them to deliver the article sound.

said he had a great deal of sympathy with the examination of natives before they came to the Rand. Certainly, it would be to the advantage of the mines. In the case of the Portuguese it was possible to do this, because they were examined at the Frontier and at Johannesburg. He thought the clause as it stood should be accepted.

said in bringing forward his amendment he was thinking more particularly of the agricultural community. There was only a certain class of labour upon which a farmer could depend. A father did not want a boy of tender years to go and earn this money, but the agent came and talked to him and persuaded him, and that was what they wanted to put a stop to. He was speaking from experience. The natives were taken away from his farm time after time. A boy should not be allowed to jeopardise himself and knock about all over the country, and come back an absolutely demoralised being.

said if they looked at the clause they would see that a boy whose age was less than 18 was not allowed to contract for service unless his parents had agreed. Even then the Magistrate had the power to refuse to confirm the contract, if necessary. If a boy was found unfit he was returned to his home.

said if the man cost the contractor £5 he would be sent back to settle the debt. It was best if an examination could be conducted at the place of recruiting, although he had no doubt it would be inconvenient. He could not understand why they should want to water down the terms of the Rill, although the Bill in itself was had enough. (Laughter.) The reason why he put his amendment on the paper was because the labour agents were paid by results, and they did not care what class of boys they recruited, whether in sound health or not. It seemed to him that the proper place to make an examination was before the boys left the district. He would make it prohibitive for labour agents to take any but boys in sound health to the mines.

said that when his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) was Prime Minister, they tried this experiment by insisting upon medical examinations in the Territories. He found, however, that it was not satisfactory, and for that reason he abandoned it, and authorised his department to take other steps to carry out the medical examination. There was a medical examination at the Government Bureau. The boys were then taken to the mines, and they were again medically examined, and the recruiter was not paid his capitation fee until the mines had passed the boys as sound, and if they were not sound, they were sent back at the expense of the recruiter.

quoted a contract between a mine and a labour contractor, in which provision was made that natives found unfit for work had, at the contractor’s own expense, to be replaced.

said that the Minister had not answered his question in regard to advances.

said he assumed that the man who had given a native an advance, if the native were rejected must forfeit the advance. He could not say definitely, because he had not considered that aspect of the case

said it was a poor consolation when a man was brought before the Magistrate’s Court, and the Magistrate’s Court, in pursuance of the law, condemned him to pay.

thought that the provisions in regulations 22 and 23 as to medical examination were sufficient. As to the 18 years limit, he was of opinion that a native of 18 years was not suitable for underground work, because he was not fully grown. He moved that the word “apparently” be inserted before “over” in the amendment of the hon. member for Ermelo (General T. Smuts).

urged that a definite provision should be made in the Rill that the repayment of an advance made to a native should be dependent upon the native being passed by the medical inspector.

said he hoped the Minister would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Ermelo. He thought it was a perfectly good and sound principle to say that no native under 18 years of age should be recruited. He would like to see a stop put to recruiting, as it was now carried on in his part of the world on the farms, because already the young natives were getting out of menu and undisciplined, even with their own parents.

withdrew his amendment.

asked, in case a native was rejected as unfit for work, what security the Government had that the labour agent would return the boy to the place where he was recruited’

said he was sorry that the hon. member for Bechuanaland had withdrawn his amendment, because he conceived that a grave situation might arise.

asked whether the hon. member was in order in discussing an amendment which had been withdrawn?

I am expressing regret that the hon. member has withdrawn it.

You cannot do that.

said he objected to the amendment being withdrawn.

put the question that, with the leave of the House, the amendment be withdrawn.

I object to that.

moved that the following be a new sub-section: “(c) In respect of the contract of any native labourer medical proof shall be given to the satisfaction of the attesting officer that such native labourer whose contract is to be attested is in sound physical health, and upon failure to produce such proof every such contract shall be considered null and void.”

moved: To add after paragraph (b):“ (c) No contract shall be attested between any person and any natives obtained or received by him or on his behalf in contravention of the provisions of this Act.”

moved to insert “apparently” after “attested is.”

The amendments proposed by the Minister of Native Affairs in sub-section (1), and the amendments proposed by General T. Smuts, Mr. Schreiner and Mr. Mentz, were agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Wessels was negatived.

moved a new sub-section (c) as follows: “In the case of natives recruited for underground work at mines on the Witwatersrand, no contract shall be entered into for a period of more than six months.” The mover said that if natives were employed underground for more than six months at a time, the risk of contracting miners’ phthisis was considerably aggravated.

said he could not accept the amendment. Government could not tie people down as to the length of time they should work. It was preposterous.

pointed out that the white miners were not under a contract as to the length of time they worked. Natives suffering: from phthisis should be allowed to leave the mines at once.

said the amendment would be futile, as there would be nothing to prevent a native re-engaging at the end of six months.

said a large number of natives deserted from the mines, and it was obvious that they did not do that without reason.

drew Mr. Sauer’s attention to the following evidence given before the committee on the Native Labour Regulation Bill by Mr. J. T. McKenzie: “Do you know that from some stations on the Natal line some of the ‘boys who go up to the Rand are Cape Pondos?—Yes. Is there any difference in the fare paid by Pondos and by Natal hoys?—Yes. The one is 19s. 6d. and the other 30s. 6d. from the same station Do you know any reason why it should be so?—For political reasons. I went to see the manager, and asked him why he made this difference. It was to prevent men going to the Rand.” If that statement were true (proceeded Mr. Merriman) it demanded some explanation.

replied that the matter was being looked into. If he found that the statement were correct his hon. friend would have no need to draw his attention to it again.

said natives would not go to the mines for a longer period than six months. He agreed that natives should not work longer on the mines than six months. It would be a splendid thing if the white miners could be persuaded to return to their homes after six months, for then the House would not be bothered with so many Bills. (Cries of “Oh.”)

The amendment of Mr. Fawcus was negatived.

The remaining amendment moved by the Minister of Native Affairs was agreed to.

On new clause 14,

moved as an amendment, after the word “native” to insert the following: “who has been lawfully recruited to desert or repudiate having been so recruited, or ”.

moved to insert after “headman”: “or owner of the land on which the native resides,” and “or” after “induna.”

said that there was much to be said for Mr. Creswell’s amendment, and he would give what support he could to it.

said that he thought it was necessary that there should be a new sub-section to prevent liquor being sold or given to secure native labourers under that measure. He moved: That the following be a new subsection, to follow sub-section (a), viz.: “(b) Sell, give, or supply intoxicating liquor to any native for the purpose of securing native labourers.”

said that it was not necessary to have it, and he could not accept it. Due provision was made for dealing with misconduct on the part of recruiters.

Is the Minister going to accept my amendment?

Mr. Burton shook his head.

Is that the Minister would say why he would not accept his amendment. He could not see why it should be a criminal offence for a native to break his contract. It was a civil matter. If the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) broke a contract, he would be civilly liable, and could be sued for damages.

Unless he is a British seaman.

replied that a British seaman was under special discipline, and, inter alia, British seamen were, he thought, the worst paid white men anywhere in the world.

said as the Minister had declined to accept the amendment, he would like him to give some reason for departing from the principle laid down in the clause. The whole object of the clause was to prevent undue influence being brought to bear upon the labourers, and he saw no reason why the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jeppe should not be accepted.

considered that the amendment was unnecessary for the state of things they were dealing with. They had not the slightest evidence to show that landowners would exercise undue influence in the interests of recruiting

said that the owners of large farms upon which natives resided had as much or greater power over these natives than the chiefs had, and it was easy for them to exercise their influence in the interests of recruiting. He thought the amendment was necessary. Even though the Minister had no evidence to the effect that such pressure had been brought to bear, it was reasonable to suppose that it might be.

said he would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell), not because he thought it was a sound one, but because he wanted to get on with the Bill.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Schreiner was negatived.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Creswell, Mr. Mentz, and an amendment by the Minister of Native Affairs, to omit “or undertake or attempt to recruit or procure for employment,” were agreed to.

On clause 16,

The amendment in line 51, to omit “shall” and to substitute “may”, was agreed to.

On clause 17,

moved: In line 57, after “labourers” to insert “in any labour district.”

Agreed to.

On, clause 18, powers, duties, and jurisdiction of inspectors,

said it was, perhaps, idle to press his opinion on the Minister, but if be really desired to see that these inspections were fair, it would certainly be wise to separate the functions of these officers, so that officers who inspected the mines should not be allowed to try cases and exact fines.

said it was their desire to separate those who inspected the mines and those who exercised judicial functions. The Bill provided for the appointment of judicial inspectors, who would have nothing to do with the administration.

I don’t think you have gone much further than you did in the Mines Bill. Where are the separate inspectors? The real object of the Bill is not to protect the natives, but to facilitate the recruiting of native labour to carry on the recruiting without paying the price for it.

said that really was a most unjust statement. They found this recruiting in progress. Everything that had been done since the old Transvaal Government came into office, and since the Cape Government had any connection with it, was in the direction of trying to ameliorate the conditions of the people there. So far from this assisting recruiting, it had to a certain extent thrown obstacles in the way of helter-skelter recruiting, and these obstacles had been, he must say, perhaps reluctantly, but most fairly, met by the people who were interested. They did not like this class of labour, but it was there, and what they had got to do now was to try to regulate it as far as possible. All the reward that his hon. friend (Mr. Burton) got for his efforts was abuse by the hon. member and his colleagues on the cross-benches. Mr. Merriman referred to the severe restrictions imposed upon white seamen while at sea. This Bill, he said, was a vast advance on anything they had had before, and it was entirely in the interests of the natives, and, incidentally, of course, of the mine-owners.

said that he took the strongest exception to the right hon. gentleman’s comparison with merchant seamen and seamen generally. He know perfectly well that a very rigid discipline was necessary for the safety of life at sea. Such a necessity, however, did not arise in the present case.

No; not with aborigines.

The right hon. gentleman, who has very liberal ideas, I am sure, would be delighted to see the same laws affecting seamen applied to every other path. We don’t want to see these restrictions on personal liberty to go one iota beyond the limit which the necessity of the calling requires. “We are not,” he declared, “going to be called unjust; we are perfectly consistent, and. I am sure that the next few years will show you that we have been in the right.”

The clause was agreed to.

On new clause 19,

moved to add the following new sub-section, viz.: “(4) Nothing in this section contained shall be construed as depriving a Magistrate of jurisdiction to try such offence and to impose therefor penalties not exceeding the penalties mentioned in section 14.”

objected to the principle.

The amendment, was agreed to.

New clause 20,

moved: In line 58, to omit “this,” and to substitute “the preceding.”

Agreed to.

moved: Before this section to omit “General and Miscellaneous” and to substitute “Compensation”; in line 18, after “injury,” to insert “or for which he was”; and in line 20, after “event of” to insert “permanent.”

said he did not object to natives or anyone else being compensated, but the question was whether the proposed, method was the best one to adopt. It was unwise to deal with the question of compensation piecemeal, and it would have been far better to attack the question by a consolidating Act, and, if necessary, hold the matter over for a year. So far as the mining people were concerned, they were not in any way opposed to paying compensation, and the mining companies had voluntarily been paying compensation. But other employers and the railways had never thought it wise to pay one shilling in compensation. Continuing, Mr. Chaplin said that he did not think any harm would be done if the matter stood over for a consolidating Act. Here they were going to embark on that matter of compensation and extend the liability of compensation; they were going to add to the burden, for what it was worth, upon the industrial population, when this clause was passed, and upon the employers of labour unless they were engaged in farming or engaged in horticulture. He was not going to object to the principle, but he did suggest that if a different standard of civilisation was arrived at it was a question whether that clause should be adopted without further investigation. The only consolation was that as it became known that, the natives were liable to compensation it would have its effect on recruiting. In conclusion, he moved in line 13, after “permanently” to insert “totally”; and in line 24, after misconduct,” to insert “as defined by section one of the Transvaal Act No. 36 of 1907.”

said that, speaking generally, white and black labourers should be exactly on the same footing, but when they came to investigate the question on its merits they found that that position could not be maintained. If an aboriginal native were killed there was no burden on the community, and therefore he was, against compensation being paid in such a case. But when a native was injured he became a burden and a nuisance. On these grounds he supported compensation in case of injury, but not in case of death.

said he was very glad that provision had been made for compensation to natives. If there was one clause upon which they could all agree it was this clause. He was glad to know that the hon. member for Germiston had been converted to the view that compensation should be paid to natives for injuries received. There must be some definite basis of compensation to natives. He agreed that the Workman’s Compensation Act should apply to the native as well as to the white man.

said he was entirely opposed to compensation being paid to Kafirs, because it had never been done before. If once they started paying compensation to any natives at all the system would afterwards be extended to natives on farms, and he felt it his duty to warn hon. members against the clause. The mines were already paying compensation to natives, and there was no necessity for the clause. He wished to move its deletion.

said that the hon. member could vote against the clause when the question was put.

said that the clause would not lead to compensation having to be paid to natives working on farms. He was not in favour of applying the Workman’s Compensation Act to natives, for whom a special should be made.

The several amendments were agreed to.

moved: Before this section insert the following heading: “General and Miscellaneous,” and in sub-section (h), line 2 (page 14), to omit “the execution and attestation of contracts of natives so recruited ”; on page 14, in line 48, after “Union” to add: “and in the case of the Province of the Orange Free State the regulations may provide that native labourers, notwithstanding the repeal of Ordinance No. 28 of 1907, shall continue to be exempt from payment of poll tax and from any law relating to residential passes and shall continue to pay registration and hospital fees not exceeding the fees prescribed by the said Ordinance.”

said he desired to move an amendment which he was unable to carry in committee, and that was that the Government should have the power to establish the compound system, as it obtained at Kimberley and the Premier Mine.

Oh, no.

His hon. friend said “Oh, no.” Had he read the evidence before the committee? Proceeding, he said he did not think there was anything more horrifying than some of the evidence that had been given. Nothing could be more horrible than that natives had opportunities of having connection with white women, and afterwards come down and boast about it. How could they expect anything but the state of things they had heard about, when these natives had an opportunity of doing such things on the Rand. They were allowed about the town freely; they learned the white people’s vices, and then he was told they should not confine these natives and keep them as close as they did in Kimberley. It was for the good of the employer, the good of the native, and the good of the whole of South Africa that they should have this compound system on the Rand. The only people who would suffer would be the pimps, the brothel-keepers, and the canteen-keepers. He did not want, to do anything hurriedly, but he did want to give the Government power to make regulations for keeping these natives in compounds. How could the Government read the evidence, and not try and do something to stop this state of things? It was said they could not do this for trade reasons. What trade would suffer? Only the brothel-keepers and the canteen-keepers; these parasitical traders would suffer, but they surely did not want these to prosper. They read in the papers about the black peril, and where there was that peril, it was because the white people demoralised these natives. He would move, therefore, that the following be a new paragraph to follow paragraph (r) on page 14, viz.: “(s) The establishment of a close compound system similar to that obtaining in Kimberley and the Premier Mine.”

said he quite agreed with everything the right hon. gentleman said as to the undesirable influences at the large labour centres, and the effect they had upon the native character. His hon. friend wanted to put a clause in the Bill to say that no native should be employed in any mine or works in this Union unless he lived in a close compound.

I didn’t ask you to do that.

He proposes to give the Minister the power, and if he has that power it should he in the Bill. At Kimberley the natives are close compounded from the time they go in until they come out. That system, no doubt, is the best for the natives morally, and for the country at large. The same conditions prevail at the Premier Mine, but we know that there are special reasons for it in connection with diamond mines. But you have not got a principle like this in any measure in your Statute-book up to the present, and I hope to God you never will. You are starting to introduce a principle which is directly in conflict with the liberty of the subject.

Tut, tut.

You cannot pin men down in that way. I take no heed whatever from my own point of view of the practical hardship. I base my opposition entirely upon this, that I say you cannot, much as you would like to encourage this thing, put such a thing into one of your laws, and give the Government power to do it, for that is exactly the same thing in principle as putting it into our law.

I do not do this from humane motives at all—not in that sense at all—but I do it from motives of the protection of the white races in this country first; and, secondly, for the protection of the natives from demoralisation. I do implore hon. members to read through this evidence. I don’t believe that they have read this evidence of Mr. Mavrogordato; I don’t believe they have read the evidence of Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Stanford—how the natives go back from this centre of demoralisation, and boast that they have had connection with white women. How can you blame the barbarians for the crimes which they are led to commit— perhaps not so often as people would have it so, but, still, they do commit them. We are gradually causing the demoralisation of the whole of our native races by drink, and by these hideous practices. We have had evidence before us in that committee which ought to shock every European. It is a dozen times worse than working in the mines on Sundays. It is going to have effects which, if we don’t, take some steps to stop it, believe me, we shall reap the fruits of in the future. The children of those who are listening to me to-day will have cause to rue the day when their fathers did not take some steps to prevent this hideous demoralisation. I will withdraw the amendment now, and put it on the paper to move it on the third reading, in the hopes that hon. members will be induced to read that evidence, and it is their duty to read it in the interests of their wives and their daughters, because we hear a great deal about the protection of those who are dear to us. How can we expect them to be protected when we set about deliberately and shut our eyes to the effect of this demoralisation which is going on? (Hear, hear.)

said that the right hon. gentleman should have made this impassioned appeal on the second reading. His whole argument was contrary to the recruitment of natives under State auspices.

Not at all.

said that the right hon. gentleman wished them to go back to the position that they were going to carry out this Dill to its logical conclusion, and that was to make these natives slaves. He wanted to give the Government authority to lock up these people in compounds. The farthest they had ever gone in their law was to lock up criminals. (Hear, hear.) The compound system at Kimberley, and on the Premier Mine, was purely a matter of voluntary contract. As far as the Premier Mine was concerned, the law said that they should not lock these natives up for more than three months. The law protected the natives there from being locked up for more than a certain period. He thought this was a most extraordinary proposition to bring forward at the committee stage.

said he was not prepared to admit that the circumstances on the Rand were any think like what Mr. Merriman had represented. (Cheers.) Although very had cases had occurred, it was by no means the case that the general state of affairs was anything like as had as might be imagined from the hon. member’s speech. There were thousands of honourable traders, whose business would be ruined if the Kimberley compound system was introduced on the Rand. They did not accept the insinuation that because a man was a trader on the Rand, he was necessarily less honest than a trader in Cape Town or Port Elizabeth. Only a few years ago there were Chinese on the Rand, and the whole of England resounded with stories of slavery. But he did not remember that Mr. Merriman made the slightest protest against these attacks which were made on the Rand. The right hon. gentleman knew very well that the Chinese were treated exactly the same as natives were treated to-day, and had! exactly the same liberty. But he did not remember an occasion on which Mr. Merriman raised his voice in protest against the calumny. He (Mr. Chaplin) protested against the introduction of the system, which was unnecessary, and would work infinite injustice to a very deserving community. (Hear, hear.)

said that he had been asked by the Minister of Native Affairs to go on with this matter, so as to get an expression of the views of the House upon it. Let him warn Mr. Chaplin that if he persisted in not taking some steps in this matter, if he could not awaken the hon. member’s conscience by the evidence given before the Select Committee, a cry would arise in this country to stop this recruiting altogether. The country would say: “if you can’t keep your natives in order, if you allow these things to go on, let the consequences be what they may, we will stop that demoralisation and stop your recruiting.” Mr. Stockenstrom knew very well that it would have been quite wrong to have moved the amendment on the second reading, or to object to the second treading, at which time evidence had not been given as to the length to which this state of affairs had gone. Why would the natives be any more slaves than were sailors, who, when their ships were in docks, were not allowed to land? It was playing with the matter to try to find an excuse and to deaden their consciences about this hideous evil. (Hear, hear.)

wished to know if it were competent at that stage to introduce a provision of that kind? The provision did not seem to come within the scope of the Bill. Mr. Merriman brought the matter up in the Select Committee, and many of the members of the committee sympathised to the very uttermost with what he had said, but the point was that, trying to give Government these powers was like trying to sweep back the Atlantic with a broom. In his view, Government’s powers were too great, and a great deal of the evil was due to the want of proper local government on the Rand. He protested against the Union Government being saddled with the job; if Government had to undertake the work, the whole thing would be in just as had a mess in twenty years as it was now. The proper body to deal with the matter was a local governing body on the Rand.

ruled that Mr. Merriman’s amendment was quite in order. The title of the measure was “A Bill to Regulate the Recruiting and Employment of Native Labour.”

Not for the segregation?

That is my ruling. If you like, you can have the Speaker in.

regretted that Mr. Merriman had moved’ the amendment, for the matter had been debated in the committee as to whether the compound system, as it was in vogue in Kimberley, should be introduced. Mr. Merriman seemed to consider the interests of the natives rather than those of white traders. It would be a great advantage to the mines themselves to have that system adopted. The right, hon. member seemed to convey the idea that the whole of Johannesburg was a hotbed of vice, but that was not the case at all, and there were very many respectable traders. If the compound system were introduced, the whole of the shop trade would fall into the hands of the mining companies, which was undesirable. If the mine natives had to be kept in compounds why should not all the kitchen boys and Kafir servants of Johannesburg go there, too? (Hear, hear.) As to what had been said about Kimberley, they all knew how much trade was done before the compound system had been introduced, and how quiet things were now. He would certainly not be an favour of putting all the trading rights into the hands of the mines.

said that a good service had been, rendered to South Africa by Mr. Merriman by the amendment he had just moved, because it showed what would be the result of that artificial system, unless the natives were strictly compounded. The Minister of Native Affairs talked about the liberty of the subject; but, good heavens, let them look at the treaty with the Portuguese Government by which they practically paid 15s. 6d. for each native. The whole of the present system was artificial, and would lead to more artificialities. They (the Labour party) had in season and out of season been trying to prove that that state of affairs would be the ruin of any governing class in the country, and must ultimately be the ruin of the working classes of the white population. He ventured to say that the only people who were consistent on that subject were Mr. Merriman and themselves (the Labour party), but Mr. Merriman looked at the matter more from the native aspect, and they from the white aspect. If Mr. Merriman looked at it from the Latter aspect too, he would have been as bitterly opposed to the recruiting as he had been opposed to the introduction of Chinese labour. He agreed with Mr. Chaplin that it would be unjust and unfair to say that the traders on the Witwatersrand were scoundrels too black to be painted. That was not the case at all, and the majority were respectable men, as he could say from personal knowledge of them. If he had spoken intemperately against this measure during its various stages, he had done so because he was absolutely convinced that it was necessary for the country to take stock now of the policy it was pursuing with regard to State-aided recruiting. He considered that, instead of continuing the course they were now pursuing, they should take such measures as to stop the present state of affairs.

said that if this resolution had been brought forward at the beginning of the session, when there was time to discuss it, some useful end might have been served in educating the people up to the seriousness of the native problem in South Africa; but they were not going to get a solution by its being suddenly brought forward now. Nothing could illustrate the extraordinary difficulty of this problem more than the two speeches made by the hon. member for Heidelberg and the right hon. member for Victoria West. If the hon. member for Heidelberg objected to State-aided recruitment, with the idea of stopping this evil, then he must go a step farther, and if the right hon. gentleman wanted to compound the natives on the Rand, then he must go a step farther, and compound all natives. If they were going to deal with these evils, they must compound all. He had some knowledge of the Witwatersrand, and he said that the evils existed among semi-civilised natives in the town to a greater extent than among the natives on the mines. (Opposition “Hear, hear.”) If they were going to deal with this evil, where were they going to draw the colour line? And why go to Johannesburg, a thousand miles away, when the problem was at their very doors here?

In Cape Town?

Yes; but you will have to go very much farther than Cape Town to find the remedy. I absolutely despair of finding the solution in a hurry like this.

said that from 20 years’ experience of the Rand, nothing could be more exaggerated than, the description of the state of affairs given by the right hon. gentleman. The right hon. member for Victoria West had given an exaggerated idea of the extent of the evil which did exist, and he wished to say frankly that the evidence of Mr. Mavrogordato was altogether misleading. No figures were produced. He gave, as a police officer, only his impression. He admitted that the evil was bad, but he thought it was being remedied every week; and if the Minister of Justice would only see to it that the police on the Rand were in sufficient numbers, and were equipped and given proper powers, he said that the evil would soon be non-existent. They had got the same evil in Cape Town. They had only to walk down St. John-street. They had it in Durban also. But they could not stop it by means of a compound system.

said he was glad to see the position which the right hon. gentleman had taken up. He would like to point out that his proposal was permissive. It provided that if the Government saw fit it could establish the compound system. Of course, he believed it was impossible to have the compound system established on the Rand at once. Even at Kimberley the compound system was confined to the mines, and there were locations round about. The compound system was started there, not only to stop the theft of diamonds, but because of the terrible state of things that existed there.

put the question that the new sub-section moved by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) be adopted, and declared that the ‘“Noes” had it.

called for a division, which was taken, with the following result:

moved: In line 66, to omit “or engagement ”; and in line 67, to omit “or engaging or attempting to recruit or engage.”

Agreed to.

On clause 25,

moved: In line 10, to omit “therewith,” und to substitute “wherewith.”

Agreed to.

On now clause 27,

raised the question of whether the amendment in regard to Ordinance No. 28, 1007, of the Orange Free State, could not be given effect to in the schedule. He asked the Minister whether the time had not arrived when distinctions as to the taxation of natives in certain classes of employment should be abolished?

In is the intention of the Government before long to do away with all these distinctions throughout the Union, but we cannot deal with that in this Bill. I agree as to the necessity of uniformity in these things, and we intend to carry it out.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 28,

moved: In line 50, to omit all the words from “one month” to the end of the section, and to substitute “on a date to be fixed by the Governor-General by Proclamation in the ‘Gazette’.”

Agreed to.

On the schedule,

moved: To omit the word “refers” wherever it occurs in the fourth column, and to substitute “applies”; and in the second column, Orange Free State Laws repealed, before “No. 6 of 1906,” and “No. 28 of 1907,” respectively, to omit “Act,” and to substitute “Ordinance.”

Agreed to.

On clause 5,

The amendments were withdrawn.

The clause was negatived.

moved: That the following be a new clause 5, viz.: “No person shall recruit natives for employment by him or on his behalf upon any mine or works or for employment outside the Union unless he be the holder of an employer’s recruiting licence issued under this Act, and recruit in accordance with the conditions of his licence, the provision of this Act, and the regulations. No such licence shall be required by any person (a) who engages natives for employment in farming, agricultural, horticultural, or irrigation operations, or in domestic service, or in any shop or store, or (b) who engages natives at any compound of a Government labour bureau, provided such person is authorised there to in writing by the Director; (c) who employs not more than twenty natives at any one time.”

moved to include stevedoring in the operations described in sub-section (a).

asked Mr. Jagger not to press the amendment, but, looking at the clock, he would— in order to save time—accept it.

The amendment was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments.

moved: That the amendments be now considered.

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 4: to omit “or conductor,” and to substitute “conductor or runner, unless he be duly authorised: by licence or permit and,” and after “licence” in line.5 to insert “or permit.”

moved: In line 2, to omit all the words from “and unless” down to “issued” in line 3.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

moved: In clause 2, after line 18, to insert the following new definition, viz.: “‘ Employer,’ shall, in respect of any native labourer, mean the person to whom such labourer is registered under this Act or the regulations.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

The remaining amendments were agreed to, and the third reading was set down for Monday.