from residents of Potchefstroom, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

from residents of Georgetown and Germiston, praying that the Solemnisation of Marriages Bill be so amended as to prohibit intermarriage between white and coloured races.

as Chairman, brought up the report of the committee of the whole House on the motion for power to the Governor-General to make regulations on dock dues in the Post Office Bill.

moved that the resolution be adopted.

seconded.

asked Mr. Speaker whether the instruction sought to be given to the committee of the whole House upon the Post Office Bill with regard to differentiation at the parts and upon the railways of the Union on goods imported by ships chartered or owned by persons with whom the Government may be forbidden under that Bill to make any ocean mail contract, is a competent or proper instruction in that: (a) The subject matter of importation and transport of general goods is entirely irrelevant and foreign to the matter of the Post Office Department and mail carriage; (b) penalties without prohibition are contrary to the principles of the common law; (c) the procedure contemplated is in conflict with provisions of the South Africa Act? The hon. member (continuing) said that when a Bill had been read a second time, any amendment to that Bill outside its scope, and to be reported upon without the committee being instructed to enlarge the scope, leave was sought to enlarge the scope of the Bill. In Canada it was laid down that if any innovation or anything novel was introduced, the proper procedure was to withdraw the Bill and bring in another Bill instead thereof. At the stage of the second reading, only the broad principle can be properly discussed. Therefore, the rule had been fixed that if the provisions are novel or foreign to the subject of the Bill, the Bill should be withdrawn. With regard to the other point, he would leave it at what he had said the previous day. The Statute might make a penalty, but unless the Statute created an offence it was not consonant with proper practice to create a penalty, which was undoubtedly done in the present case. Suppose that a man wished to import 100 tons of goods, and got a quotation from the Bucknall Line, which was within the Conference, of 8s. a ton, and another line started by the Government offered freight at 12s. Now, as soon as the goods got landed here, the Government, under the proposed clause, would clap on 4s., or something of that sort, so as to hiring the charge made by the Conference line up to the charge made by the lines which they were backing, which he considered no more or less than a penalty to a man upcountry who was importing the goods by one of the Conference lines. The effect would be that a man would not be allowed to freely trade with the Bucknall Line, or be would be penalised to the extent of 4s. a ton.

said that the hon. member had just objected to a clause moved in by his hon. colleague, and in the first place the objection seemed to amount to this—that one could not in any one Bill deal with more than one subject. That was what it came to. It was quite clear that the House was allowed to deal with more than one subject in one measure. The House had done it time after time. He would give one example familiar to members of the Cape House of Assembly—the famous Indemnity Act of 1900, where the Government had been indemnified for what it had done during martial war; secondly, the establishment of tribunals to deal with alleged rebels, and, thirdly, they provided for compensation by the Government to certain people under certain circumstances. Now, no doubt the title of that measure set forth the various objects of the measure, but these objects had nothing to do with each other. (An HON. MEMBER: “The war.”) Well, if the hon. member wanted to put everything in connection with the war in one measure (Laughter.) It was perfectly clear that one could deal in one measure with things which had absolutely nothing to do with each other. Of course, ordinarily it was not convenient to do so, and from the point of view of convenience, they had generally followed the line of dealing with one matter in one Bill. But if they went further, and came to that particular Bill, he did not say that it would not be necessary or desirable to alter the title of the Bill by-and-bye; but the clause now proposed to be introduced into the Bill was not a clause which had nothing to do with the subject matter of the Bill; and it had a specific and clear point of contact with the matter of that measure. What was it that the Minister desired to legislate for? He wanted the House to empower him to enter into contracts for the carriage of mails, and in doing so he asked for certain powers; and told the House that unless he had the authority which he asked the House to give him, it was impossible to enter into a satisfactory contract from the country’s point of view, and unless they strengthened the Minister’s hands by what he now asked for. He was dealing in that Bill with the question of rebates, and said that it was undesirable that the mail contract should be in the hands of those who gave rebates; and in properly carrying out that contract he must have these powers he now asked for. There was a positively clear, sound, and wholesome contact with and affinity with the subject matter of the Bill. As to what the hon. member for Newlands had said about Free-trade in the Union, how much Free trade was there at present as a result of the action of the Conference Lines? (Hear, hear.)

said that there must be some time in which a point of order of that kind must be raised. The previous day the House had resolved, when the Speaker was in the chair, to deal with that matter, and that it should go into committee to deal with the subject now before them. They had done so, and it seemed to him that if that point of order was raised it should have been raised before the procedure had been commenced. The House was to go on with the procedure, and now it was “arrested” to go into a point of order. They were laying serious trouble before themselves, because they might find their whole work stultified. He submitted that the point of order should have been submitted before the Speaker had left the chair. He asked whether in view of the fact that the House had already granted leave to go into committee on the instruction it was competent at this stage to raise this objection.

ruled that as the instruction had not as yet been referred to committee of the whole House on the Bill, the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Struben) was in order.

read the resolution agreed to the day before.

Notice of this question was given to me only a few minutes ago, and it raises a matter of very great importance. This Union House of Assembly is governed by rule No. 263, which also governed the procedure of the late House of Assembly of the Cape of Good Hope in reference to instructions to committees on Bills. This rule has always been liberally construed in the old Cape House of Assembly, and from time to time proceedings of an analogous nature to that now before the House have taken place under it. I agree with the Minister of Native Affairs that it would have been better had the subject matter of this resolution been dealt with in a separate Bill, but I am not prepared to say that the proposed provisions are so irrelevant or so foreign or so contradictory to the decision pf the House at the second reading of the Bill, or that they are not calculated to further the general purpose and intention of the House as not to be within the due province of an instruction. The provisions of clause 5 of the Bill as introduced are not, in my opinion, so distinctly unconnected with the subject matter of the resolution now before the House as to warrant me to rule that it cannot form the subject of an instruction to committee of the whole House on the Bill. It has been the practice to incorporate within one Bill more than one matter, and amongst others there is the example of the Indemnity and Special Tribunals Act of 1900 (Cape) to which the Minister of Native Affairs has referred, in which Act three separate subjects are dealt with. My specific ruling is now asked under the three heads set out above. With regard to the first point I am of opinion that the proposed new clause, if read in conjunction with clause 5 of the Bill, as adopted at the second reading, is not so irrelevant or foreign or contradictory to the subject matter of the Bill as to enable me to rule its consideration out of order. In reference to the second point, I am not aware that this Union House of Assembly, or for that matter the Late Cape House, was bound by any such consideration, and in my opinion it is a matter which should be left to the judgment of the House. With regard to the third point, I take it that the hon. member refers to section 136 of the South Africa Act. That section deals with the question of Customs and Excise within the Union, but does not specifically refer to rates on the railways or rates at the ports. I should like to have given a written decision, but this has been impossible owing to the short notice. I have, however, given this matter my best, consideration, and am clearly of opinion that this resolution is a proper subject of an instruction to the committee on the Bill, and I rule accordingly.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he will be good enough, in answer to the question I put to him yesterday, to lay upon the table the correspondence with His Majesty’s Government in regard to this matter?

I am sorry, but I cannot concede to the request made by the hon. member. The correspondence took place through the High Commissioner and the Imperial Post Office, and I do not think it would be in the interests of the country to put that correspondence on the table at the present juncture. When hon. members have an opportunity later on of seeing the correspondence, they will see the wisdom of not putting the correspondence on the table at the present time. Indeed, I don’t think the Imperial Post Office would like to have it, done at the present moment,

Well, it is very inconvenient. We are asked now to deal with matters which may lead this country into a very awkward position, and then the Government keeps things back, and refrains from letting us see the correspondence between our servants—

The hon. member can make reference to that in committee.

The motion was then agreed to.

moved that, the resolution be referred to committee of the whole House on the Bill, and that the committee have leave to amend the title of the Bill to cover the terms of the resolution.

seconded. Agreed to.

Geological Survey (Transvaal), Potgietersrust,

moved that the House go into committee on the following: “That the committee of the whole House have leave to consider the following licences and fees: District labour agent’s licence, £6, and an endorsement fee for each additional district of £1; Provincial labour agent’s licence, £25; Union labour agent’s licence, £50; compound manager’s licence, £1; conductor’s Licence, £1; employer’s recruiting licence, £1; runner’s permit, a fee of £1; and, if agreed to, that the House do now resolve itself into committee, and that the Chairman have leave to bring up a report to-day.”

seconded. Agreed to.

said that he wished to say a few words. The clause as originally drafted read: “No person shall employ underground on any mine a boy under the age of 16 years or any female.” The word “fourteen” was moved in at his instance on insufficient information, and he regretted very much having moved it in. He hoped the House would not agree to it. He took the clause from the Australian Act. Now it had come to his notice that mere striplings were being engaged in the Territories, and were being sent up to the mines, where they contracted all sorts of vice and disease. Consequently, they were destroying the labour supply of the future. Be hoped the House would not accept the amendment moved in committee, but revert to sixteen years, which was an early enough age for boys to go to the mines. (Hear, hear.)

The amendment for the omission of “sixteen” was negatived, and the subsection as drafted was agreed to.

On sub-section 2 of the same clause,

appealed to the House not to accept the amendment moved in committee, which was to the effect that no person under the age of sixteen years should work in or upon any mine longer than eight hours during any consecutive 24 hours, or longer than 48 hours during any consecutive seven days … He asked hon. members to revert to the original “seventeen years.” He did not think they could be too careful in this matter, because they were using up the labour supply of the future by taking these striplings. Ho thought the original figure “17” was much better

said that the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) wanted nothing but black boys employed on the mines, because he had never thought of anybody except black people. He would like to remind him, however, that they were dealing not only with coloured boys, but also with white boys. If the right hon. member’s suggestion to revert to “seventeen” were agreed to, be (the speaker) was afraid it would mean that fewer white boys would be employed on the surface of the mines.

Why?

said the answer was perfectly simple. The workshops everywhere now employed as many white boys as possible. On the surface they had to work 50 hours, and he did not think anybody could object to such hours, which were reasonable, but if the right hon. gentleman’s suggestion were agreed to, it would mean that the boys of 17 years would have to work only 48 hours. Well, he did not think the surface people would agree to that, and the result would be that the whole system of apprenticeship on the Witwatersrand would be upset. He hoped that the right hon. gentleman’s suggestion would not be agreed to. After all, surface work was very different to underground. It was healthy work.

The clause, as amended in committee, fixing the age at 16, was agreed to.

Clause 11 was further verbally amended.

moved the following new subsection (q), “weekly payment of wages.” Be said that since this matter was discussed he had been asked by a number of people to endeavour to get a provision inserted for the weekly payment of wages. He had received a communication from the Boksburg Chamber of Commerce in favour of weekly payments. He said that his experience was that the bulk of the workers on the Rand were particularly anxious to have their payments made more frequently.

seconded the amendment.

said he was sorry to have to oppose this amendment. He opposed it not so much on the ground that he objected to the weekly payment of wages, as on the ground that it was unheard of that the Governor-General should make regulations as to the time when an employer should pay his men. He regarded it as a preposterous suggestion. As he had said on a previous occasion, if the men had expressed a desire to be paid weekly, arrangements would be made to have their wages paid weekly. There was another difficulty that they had on the Witwatersrand in the fact that a great deal of contract work was done. He did not think the Government contemplated putting the industry to the expense of measuring up work every week. To-day any man doing contract work, if he showed that he had done a reasonable amount of work, had no difficulty in obtaining an advance.

said he was surprised at the attitude of the hon. member (Mr. Phillips). Some of them objected to the wide powers proposed to be given to the Governor-General, and the hon. member had given them very little sympathy up to now. He did not agree with the hon. member in his statement of the tremendous difficulties of weekly payments. He did not see any great difficulty in paying the contractors once a week if it were desired. They did not lay it down that contractors should be paid once a week. They merely asked the Government to take powers to make regulations with regard to payment of wages.

said that this matter was argued very fully in committee, and it was pointed out then that if such regulations were made they would be harsh in their application, on account of contract work. That being so, it seemed to him that they should not depart from the sound principle of not interfering in regard to the payment of weekly wages,

put the question, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

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

One would like to know the reasons for this extraordinary proposal. To chuck a thing like that before the House, without a word of explanation, is not very respectful.

said he could not view the Bill with the profound satisfaction of some of his hon. friends. He thought it was a very extraordinary Bill, and that clause certainly placed extraordinary powers in the hands of the Government. There was no reason why Government should not decide to send wool or any other export through the Post Office. It was possible that we were in for a fight and that being so, one was obliged to say at once that the interests of South Africa should stand first. He did not intend to oppose the clause, because he felt it might be very necessary under existing circumstances to give Government these unusual powers; but the House viewed with a great deal of apprehension the Government taking such extraordinary powers into its hands. It should be provided that the cost of the export of gold, diamonds, and feathers should not exceed the present cost. (Hear, hear.) He was afraid that if the clause were thrown out the Government’s hands would be tied very much in the negotiations, and on that ground alone he did not oppose the clause; but he objected to it very much because it was an interference with private trade. (Cheers.) It would be improper for Parliament to allow this to pass without a protest, and without pointing out that it was only very exceptional circumstances that permitted it. The other conditions referred to in sub-section (c) might affect, not only the carrier, but also the exporters, had the Minister arranged with the British Government for the reception of the gold, diamonds, and feathers, because a very awkward position might arise if these were sent through the post, and the British Post Office did not see its way to receive them. The Minister should tell the House frankly whether the other parties to the negotiations were so unreasonable that it was absolutely necessary for Government to take powers of this kind. (Cheers.) Legislation of that description should not have been launched unless the people to be dealt with had proved themselves totally intractable in the hands of the Government; it should not have been launched merely to give Government a weapon. However, being in for a fight, Parliament was obliged to support Government, because if legislation was not passed now, South Africa would be in a parlous state indeed. Having entered into a fight, they must see it out. The great powers now being placed in the hands of Government should nevertheless be used with wisdom and moderation, and there should be no attempt at vindictive treatment of the people concerned. Another point in connection with the clause was, it was stated, that instead of their ships arriving in 17 days, they might arrive in 19 or 21 days. He would point out, therefore, that four days’ delay on each conveyance of the gold export meant a loss of £10,000 a year in interest. This was a vital point, and should receive consideration.

referred to the difficulty experienced in sending ostrich feathers from Oudtshoorn, and hoped the Government would arrange for a weekly steamship service from Mossel Bay.

said he thought he made the point clear at the second reading. Gold was shipped by the Post Office after its discovery in this country. First of all, it was treated as postal matter. The Rome Convention made a provision that, unless a country legislated against the receipt of gold, gold could be sent through the post as postal matter. He believed that one of the reasons why the conveyance of gold through the post was discontinued was because somewhat lower prices were quoted by the companies. Subsequently, there was made a stipulation in the mail contract that the postal authorities should no longer be permitted to ship gold through the post. A further point was that £85,000 a year was being paid to the shipping companies at present for the transmission of the gold. If they sent gold through the Post Office, as well as ostrich feathers, this would give the department an additional £100,000 a year. This would place the Government in a better position to give higher subsidies for mail services. He was glad to see that the hon. member (Mr. Phillips) was not opposing this, and that it was a question of the country first. That was the best spirit to take up. The more power they could put into the hands of the Government to deal with these mail contracts, the better terms they could get. He had intimated before that the intention was not to charge any more for the transmission of either gold or ostrich feathers than the companies charged. For many years diamonds had gone exclusively through the post, and the charges had never been raised. Besides, it would be their opinion that gold and ostrich feathers would be safer in the hands of the Government than in the hands of the shipping companies. (Hear, hear.) The question of arrivals was an all-important one to the Post Office, and the postal authorities had gone into the matter, and had ascertained the number of steamers calling here. There were ships that made the voyage in 19 days, and he was informed that if a 19 days’ service was arranged for, they could get an answer quicker to a letter than with a 17 days’ service. (Laughter.) “Hon. members,” continued the Minister, “will not laugh when I explain the matter.” (Hear hear.) Continuing, he said that at present the mail steamers arrived on a Saturday at Southampton, the mails were delivered in London at mid-day, and the outgoing mail steamer left in the afternoon, so that very few people could answer their letters by return of post. If it were a 19 days’ service and the steamer arrived on Saturday, and left on Monday, there would be a saving of two or three days. He hoped through the inducements which the Government held out for mail contracts, that arrangements would be effected which would given them a quicker service than at present, and he hoped that the present mail contractors would decide between the Combine and the good of South Africa. If the Mail Company decided otherwise, the Government would have to be put in a position to make other arrangements. What they had to do was to put the Government in a strong position, so that they could carry out their intentions. In reply to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Schoeman), the Hon. Minister said that he trusted that the position of the ostrich farmers would be improved by the new means of exportation. The regulations would be made as easy as possible to the people.

Where are the feathers to be received?

The idea is to receive them at the post offices in the villages.

said he had an objection to this on several grounds. He had an objection to the Government mixing themselves up in business matters which they did not understand. They were not competent to mix themselves up in this carrying business, which they knew absolutely nothing about. What did the British Past Office say with regard to it?

said that he was glad the right hon. member had drawn his attention to it. They had communicated with the Imperial Post Office, but they were not the only people who had done so; the shipping contractors had also done so, but he had anticipated them. (Hear, hear.) The subject matter which they had before them now had been communicated through the High Commissioner. He was glad to state that no objection had been raised to gold and ostrich feathers being sent through the post; and that the Imperial Post Office were co-operating with them in the most cordial way. (Hear, hear.) The shipping contractors had communicated with the Colonial Office and the British Post Office that the Union Government were communicating with the German company with regard to the mail contract; and he had at once denied it. He might say that the shipping contractors had not been slow on the other side of the water, and had, in fact, been very active, but he was very pleased to say that they (the Government) had got in first. (Hear, hear.)

thought that it was very unfortunate that that correspondence had not been laid on the table of the House, because it would have been very interesting. Statements of a contradictory nature had been made. One statement was that in every country in the world gold was carried by the Post Office.

I never heard it.

Well, it will be an interesting thing to knew that in no country is gold carried by the Post Office. Proceeding, he said that one thing he wold like to say with reference to the statement of his hon. friend (Mr. Phillips), who came to the assistance of the Government, as be usually did, that his patriotism was delicious when he said “South Africa first.” Well, he thought that in the case of the hon. member there was something which came before South Africa, and that was the gold companies. It was not so many years ago when they heard the cry, “South Africa first” hacked by the gold mines, and it had led them to war. Now, they were going to have another “war,” with the gold companies at the hack, with, the flag flying, and “South Africa first.” (Laughter.) They gave the Government the power now to tax two articles—both of them luxuries. They had only to raise the rates on gold and ostrich feathers skilfully, and would have, extra taxation without the necessity of having to come to Parliament. He wanted to ask what Mr. Schoeman thought about it. Did he want the Government to have the power of taxing ostrich feathers in an indirect manner like that? As to the gold companies, they would, of course, cheerfully pay the enhanced rate in order that South Africa might benefit. “South Africa first!” (Laughter.)

said that he had asked the Minister for an assurance that the charges on gold should not be higher than they were now.

His statement was: Are the rates to remain the same? The time would come, he added, when a little additional taxation would be extremely welcome, and what then about his friend and “South Africa first ”? If the rates on gold were doubled or trebled, he would like to hear his hon. friend about “South Africa first.” (Laughter.) The right hon. member went on to speak of the regularity with which gold was now landed every week in London, and said that if that clause were carried that would be at an end. They would have 19-day steamers; and he thought they were all saying that the present service was too slow. Now they were told that 19-day steamers were a positive advantage. At the present moment diamonds were sent by post, but there was no law about it, and they used to be sent hy the ordinary channels of merchandise. To put the power in the hands of the Government of having the exclusive right of shipping any articles from this country was setting up a most mischievous monopoly; one which might do this country an infinite amount of harm, and give the Government the power to tax the country without coming to Parliament. When they saw the extreme friendliness between the mining people and the Government he said that other people should look out for their pockets. (Laughter.)

took strong exception to the offensive suggestions which he said Mr. Merriman had made as regards some of them who sat on the Opposition side of the House. The right hon. member presumed on the number of years he had taken part in Parliamentary life, and he ought to know better. But apart from that, he had insinuated that Mr. Phillips, and no doubt others of them on that side, were primarily concerned with their own interests; and then he had proceeded to try to show that that, policy was contrary to their own interests. The right hon. member did not know whether he (Mr. Chaplin) was in favour of the clause or not. If they were so dead to any interests except their own the right hon, gentleman might pay them the compliment that they knew their own business best. He did not intend to argue the matter now; he simply rose for the purpose of making a most emphatic protest against the right hon. gentleman’s insinuations and suggestions. The right hon. gentleman had had a career of many years in that House, and the people of the country knew that record. If the people had not known his record as well as they did, he would have been sitting on the Treasury benches, and not where he was sitting now.

said that at one time the Imperial Government refused to have anything to do with ostrich feathers through the post. He would like to know what the attitude of the Imperial Government now was on the point, and he would like information also as to whether the Imperial Government had expressed any opinion on the proposal to establish a Government monopoly with regard to ostrich feathers.

said that he and others were anxious to be assured that the Government would still charge the rate at present paid by the mining companies for the transport of their gold. They were rather suspicious because of the understanding there seemed to be between the right vying of the Government party on the Ministerial side of the House and the left wing on the Opposition benches. As to Mr. Chaplin’s resentment of what he called the insinuations and suggestions of Mr. Merriman, he would remind the House how free Mr. Chaplin was with insinuations and offensive suggestions against any member who sat on the Labour benches, or, indeed, against any members outside the charmed circle. (Laughter.)

said he wished to sound a note of warning in connection with the ostrich feather industry. He did not know whether the Minister was fully aware of how the shipment of ostrich feathers was arranged. He believed the effect of the measure would be to break down the monopoly, and he knew the desire of the Minister was not to injure the ostrich feather industry. He would point out, however, that the ostrich feather exporters had the shipping of feathers organised to a nicety. They had the sorting done here, and knew their markets on the other side. Now, if they were going to have irregular sailings, the consequence might be that shippers would miss a market, and the general result would be to injure the industry. He just wished to point out these difficulties, so that the Minister could take every precaution to avoid a disorganisation of the industry.

said that the whole point was how they could best bring about the change which they all wished to bring about. There was no reason for the exhibition of ill-temper which had been going on. Now, as to whether this Bill was the best way of bringing about the desired change, he thought the proper place for the discussion of that was on clause 6. He would point out that some of the figures given by the Minister in his second reading speech were wrong, and that the Minister had put a wrong complexion on the matter by not giving certain figures, and by the half-statements he had made.

said that he was sorry the Minister had decided to include ostrich feathers in this clause, because, after all, the freight on ostrich feathers only amounted to £22,000 per annum, and was a very small factor in the proposition which had been put before the House. If ostrich feathers were included, why not wool and mealies? He did not see why ostrich feathers should be singled out. The Minister had said that he had made arrangements with the English postal authorities, but was he quite satisfied that these arrangements would cover shipments to America and the Continent? All shipments were not sent to England. There was a great tendency to ship direct to America and the Continent. Another thing to which he would like to refer was that as a rule shippers received more expedition in these matters at the hands of private people than at the hands of Government officials. The hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. Becker) had referred to the probable loss which would be sustained by Harbour Boards, But he took it that shippers of ostrich feathers would not be exempt from harbour dues. He supposed that the charges would be collected by the Post Office, and that the Harbours Boards would get their share. With regard to the transport of ostrich feathers, he said that any irregular sailing would be a disturbing factor to those engaged in the trade. There was also the question of the arrival of shipments in England. He thought that irregular arrivals would be resented by the people engaged in the trade in England. As regarded the proposed freight on gold and feathers, supposing no mail contract was entered, into, and they were dependent on casual steamers for shipments through the Post Office, could the Minister give any guarantee that these casual steamers would not be able to charge a higher rate?

Can the hon. member who has just spoken—he is an authority on the subject —tell us how often do feather sales take place in London?

Six sales a year.

And, therefore, two days’ delay on the steamer would capsize it?

replied that, supposing feathers arrived two days later for a sale, it meant that they had to be kept over until the next sale, and the loss of a market might mean a very serious loss indeed.

said that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Quinn) had expressed apprehension in the matter; but he (the speaker) saw no reason for such apprehension. He did not think the Government were animated with any spirit of animosity in the matter. It had been said that this was novel legislation. That was perfectly true, but the situation itself was also novel. The position was that the trade had been dominated by one company, and he was strongly in favour of giving the Government extensive powers to fight the fight. The more power the Government were given, the more able would they be to fight to a successful issue. He granted that it was going to be a monopoly, but it was going to be a Government monopoly. It was practically a monopoly to-day. He would like to know if any shipping company other than the Union Castle Company carried gold? What the Government proposed to do was to take the carrying of gold out of the hands of a private company, and place it into the hands of the Government. Apprehension had been expressed in regard to the handling of ostrich feathers by the Post Office. He, however, did not share that apprehension. He instanced the parcels post system to show that the Government had been in the carrying business for a good many years, and had managed it satisfactorily. Parcels were collected in all parts of the world; brought here, and distributed all over South Africa. Now, where would the difficulty be, with the extensive organisation the Government had, in collecting feathers in the same way? They would be shipped just as parcels were shipped together, and he did not think there would be any difficulty at the other end in regard to delivery. He could not conceive any more difficulties than there were at the present moment. He did not anticipate any difficulty in regard to the shipment of gold. They had been taxed for the benefit of a combine, and they now proposed to transfer that power to the Government. Was it not probable that they would get far more reasonable treatment from the Government than from an independent combine? Personally, he would sooner be in the hands of the Government than in the hands of an independent monopoly with its headquarters outside this country.

said that nobody had shown a distrust of a Government monopoly, and nobody had been a severer critic of the railways than the hon. member who sat opposite (Mr. Jagger), and now he proposed, simply to gratify his own feelings, to put all his arguments on one side, and advocate a thing which he (the speaker) thought was impracticable, and was sure to add most tremendously to the complication of Government work, and to increase the Government officials. He was really surprised at the attitude of the hon. member (Mr. Jagger), because he was a man who had constantly preached the opposite thing. Now he had thrown overboard all his old arguments in this matter, and stood up and advocated a monopoly. True, they had a monopoly, but it was a qualified monopoly, which had been established by legitimate means. He had always argued that they should leave them to break down themselves; but no, the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) wanted to stop it by one of the most detrimental things in the world—a Government monopoly. Proceeding, he asked: Was the freight on gold too high now? The freight on the produce shipped from this country was £84,000. He did not think it was an excessive figure. Then there was £2,000,000 worth of ostrich feathers, and the freight was something like £25,000. That was not excessive. His hon. friend knew that the testimony of everybody was that the shipment, rates of produce from this country were moderate, and that the trade was carried on with the utmost advantage to those concerned. Now, his hon. friend wanted to throw all that into the melting-pot simply to have a little more State Socialism.

said that his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) wanted to make a monopoly of one of the worst things that had ever existed in this country, His right hon. friend’s memory must be very short. A few years ago he was preaching the enormous advantage of having a monopoly in alcohol. He said that how they should deal with the wine and brandy industry in the Cape Colony was to establish a monopoly in alcohol. What was he doing now? He had been advocating the maintenance of a monopoly by a private combination, which had acted injuriously to the interests of the people of this country. He had asked: was the freight upon gold too much? He (Sir Thomas Smartt) was not going to discuss that, but he would point out, as he mentioned the other afternoon, that the combination had since the Bill was before the House recognised that the freight upon other articles, especially articles sent along the coast, was far too high, and they had reduced the rates even by 10s. a ton. (Hear, hear.) If they were going to deal with a combination which had made it impossible, owing to the Government mail contract and the Government freights which they had received, for any independent competition to come in in the future, they could only do so by accepting the clause moved by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. He hoped his hon: friend would understand that it was his duty, as a member of that House, to help to break down the monopoly which had had this country by the throat for years. He hoped they would at least be in a position to get justice for the people of this Country.

said that the Minister would require all the ammunition he could get if he were going to carry this war on which he had entered to a successful issue. He would ask him to consider his position very carefully. He would like the committee to consider the clause in respect of another aspect, viz., that of insurance. What was to be done in regard to the question of insurance if the department itself refused, as it had refused, in the clauses of the Bill which had been already dealt with to accept the additional risk which would be created? What were the means available to the shippers to protect themselves against these risks? Unless these points were provided for, a great deal of injustice would be done.

said in this clause they were interfering with the liberty of the right to contract. Where, he asked, was this kind of thing going to end? By all means take power to send by post gold and ostrich feathers, but the sting of this provision was in the penalty—£500, no more, no less. The Government were going to try by hook or crook to force this company to their bended knees. He feared the House was going to give them the power. He warned the Government that they were taking too much power. He did not think they had embarked upon the thing sufficiently carefully. The Minister had not yet told them at what stage negotiations were broken off with the company. Mr. Nathan protested against any member insinuating that an, hon. member had come to that House to fulfill the office of interrupting.

warned the Minister to beware of his advisers. (Laughter.)

said he thought if ostrich feathers were taken out of the clause there would be no mail service for Mossel Bay, which would force exporters to make entirely new arrangements. The hon. member referred to the large quantity of feathers exported from Oudtshoorn, and said he understood that arrangements were going to be made for the local post office to deal with them. The House had given an assurance on that point, and as the Government had undertaken not to raise the tariff, hon. members should trust them. He did not think there would be any harm in accepting the clause.

said a ton of bran could be shipped from Cape Town to Durban for 15s., while to send it by rail would cost £3 Os. 9d. A ton of beans could be sent from Cape Town to Durban by sea at a cost of 20s., as against £3 0s. 9d. by rail. These rates had been in existence for years. Hon. members in quoting rates should be fair to the Mail Company. Mr. Jagger had always said, “Don’t trust the Government,” but now the hon. member said, “Give Government all the power.” Why this sudden change? This sort of thing made hon. members feel that there was something wrong, and was not the way to get them to vote solid either for or against the Government.

said he would like to put the case from a plain backvelder’s point of view. Let them assume that Government gained a monopoly. Then they would have one monopoly against another. Let them then of two evils choose the lesser. On the one hand, they would have a monopoly which was not under control, and the other monopoly would be in the hands of the Government, which was controlled by public and Parliament. The Government wanted a monopoly to open the door again; the others desired a monopoly to keep the door shut. Although some importers might desire the retention of the present system, it was the consumer who had, indirectly, to pay the high freights, and not the importer. We were paying almost as much for the conveyance of our goods 6,000 miles as other countries paid for double that distance.

Quite wrong.

The hon, member is a Free-trader, and now he is working for a private monopoly as against the public interests. (Cheers.) Continuing, Mr. Fischer said the protection of the public was the broad proposition before them the protection of the man who wished to produce and export as well as the protection of the importer. With regard to the remark of the hon. member for Victoria County (Mr. Henwood), when they saw that those who differed on general questions were combined upon this matter, then they must see that it was a national question, or they would not combine. Another argument was, if the Government did this with gold and diamonds and ostrich feathers, why not extend it to wool and mealies? All he could say was that if the Government were successful they should extend their system to these also. (Hear, hear.) He believed that it would be best if the Government took charge of the wool and mealies, and agreed to deliver them on the market. (Hear, hear.) They could do that if they were successful, or they could leave them alone if they were not. If there was a battle to be fought, let the Government fight it with the full forces at their disposal. (Hear, hear.)

said he did not know much about shipping matters, but he knew something about business. The question, to his mind, was that the Government were seeking to create competition, and was this competition in the interests of the South African public? If the action of the Government would bring about competition he would certainly vote for the proposal. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) suggested that the Minister should publish the correspondence between the Union and Imperial Governments on the matter of these new postal arrangements, but it would be most unwise to do that. He would ask the hon. member to go to other colonies, and ask them to publish their correspondence on these matters.

moved that the clause stand down for further consideration. He suggested this because he did not think they should decide upon clause 121 until they had decided on the more vital clauses 5, 6, and 7. If they agreed that the Combine was to be fought, then he thought the Hon. the Minister should take into consideration the points raised by the member for Uitenhage.

moved that the words “ostrich feathers” be struck out. (Cries of “No, no.”) There was a large trade in ostrich feathers to America. Were the Government going to control the rates to America, and if they were not going to do so, were they going to give an advantage to a foreign country that they would not give to Great Britain? Germany was also a very large dealer in ostrich feathers, and there was nothing to prevent Germany or America taking feathers at lower rates, and thereby reducing the market prices. He would say to them: “Don’t injure this trade that occupied such a big position in the country.”

said that the Minister of Lands had taken up rather a comical position, and he had talked worse Socialism than the hon. members on the cross-benches. Having referred to some correspondence which had passed between the Government and the Union-Castle Company, he said that while negotiating with the company the Government had published the clauses which it was proposed to add to the Bill, which would have the effect of making it impossible for the company to carry on its business in the way it had been carrying it on. On February 23 the Government had said that it hoped that satisfactory arrangements would become to with the company, and, funnily enough, the Government had proposed that the Conference Lines should take freight from the Government, as from an ordinary shipper, and give the Government rebates just as were given to the ordinary shippers. Now it objected to rebates. Was that a dignified manner for the Government to go on? He said that the Government must try to be consistent. In regard to what had been said about 19-day boats, the hon. member read a statement which showed that three steamers of the Aberdeen White Star Line made the passage in 19 days 8 hours; the steamers of the Holt Blue Funnel Line in 20 days; P. and O. Branch Line, 21 days; Union-Castle Line (intermediate steamers), 22 days on the average. He asked what business men would think of the arrangements when they had fast and slow boats taking mails, and when letters which had left England later than others arrived here first? It might suit backveld ideas, but would not find favour in a business community. He proceeded to ask whether the Government was taking the power to compel any steamers to go to any port? What guarantee was there going to be, under the Government’s proposal, that any steamers were going to Mossel Bay?

asked whether the hon. member was in order, and whether he was discussing new clause 121?

said that clause 121 was closely connected with clauses 5 and 6. He said that the hon. member could proceed.

I am very glad you ruled that, Mr. Chairman, because you can’t separate these things. The hon. member said that he did not agree with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Smartt), that one could not ship goods by sailing ship without disadvantage. It could be done.

asked whether the Government, under that clause, were not becoming common carriers?

replied in the affirmative.

Because if they are, I take it they will assume the liability that all common carriers have?

Yes.

In that case, clause 117 will have to be amended, because clause 117, which was passed last night, is quite different. That shows the unwisdom of rushing through clauses as we did last night. Continuing, he said that if the Government became common carriers, and did not take the liability of common carriers, then it would mean that the rate of insurance on shipments of feathers and gold would be increased.

read a letter from a Port Elizabeth wool merchant in favour of the retention of the rebate, and denying that the Chamber of Commerce at Port Elizabeth were unanimously in favour of abolishing the rebate, as had been stated. The continuation of the rebate was all in favour of the wool farmer.

said that the Conference Lines had only reduced the rates on wool, because certain large shippers had threatened to send their shipments by sailing vessels.

thought the Minister should inform the committee whether the Imperial Government was in agreement with this clause, and with the general policy of this Bill. Continuing, the hon. member said it was not clear under the terms of the Bill that the Government accepted responsibility as common carriers for feathers, etc., shipped through them. He urged that Government should not be given a monopoly in this matter. He moved, as an amendment to the clause, to the effect that the Government be allowed to carry the goods mentioned in the clause without being given a monopoly.

said he could not accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Uitenhage. It would destroy the whole object of the clause. He would like to add that the Government preferred to go on their own lines rather than go on the lines proposed by the hon. member, who was opposed to the Government. It would be an extraordinary thing if the Government were to allow somebody, who was wholly opposed to them, to come and prescribe the manner in which they should proceed. As regarded remarks made by previous speakers, he said there was no doubt that shippers would be much safer in the hands of their own organisation than in the hands of a company. It was not proposed to charge shippers any less than they were paying at present; neither did the Government propose to charge more, and on the question of responsibility there was no difficulty whatever. The, Government was not going to add 33s. per cent to the freight, as was done at present under the rebate system, and so the shippers would benefit to that extent. As to the correspondence dealing with the negotiations between the Government and the Conference Lines, he said that all up to the point where the negotiations were broken off had been laid on the table, and the Government were not prepared to give any further correspondence at the present juncture, as they thought it would not be in the public interest to do so. As regarded the question by the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Vintcent) relative to the delivery of ostrich feathers in America and on the Continent, he pointed out that provision was made in the clause for sending them through the post or any other channel. He denied that the Government had ever made a demand for a rebate, as suggested by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Struben).

referred the Minister to a letter contained in the correspondence laid on the table.

asked what was the position going to be in regard to the insurance of these articles if the Government were to be exempt from liability altogether? What were the insurance companies going to say? With regard to the clause, generally, he said that they were putting a most dangerous power into the hands of the Government, and he trusted that if the Government were successful in their object they would not keep the power given in the clause any longer than was necessary.

referring to liability, said that the Shipper would be in no worse position than h.e was now.

said he did not understand clearly the position. He was proceeding to ask the Minister a question, when

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that he was prepared to give the Government the extraordinary powers they asked for because he recognised that they were dealing with extraordinary circumstances, but he thought they ought to have an unequivocal answer in regard to one point. At the present moment, if he shipped through the Union-Castle Company and they were negligent, he could sue them for damages.

That’s a question.

said he would like to know whether the Minister was prepared to give them an assurance that if he shipped, and any negligence was displayed by the carrier, compensation would be payable to him?

said he was one of those who held that the Government should get the powers asked for in this Bill, but they raised this difficulty, that the fact that the Government, in terms of the Bill contracted themselves out of liability in case of negligence might have the effect of increasing the premium of insurance upon goods so consigned.

referred to certain evidence before the Royal Commission in South Africa by a representative of the Chamber of Mines, and added that he was prepared to give the House an assurance that the Government would put the shippers of gold in no worse position than they were to-day in regard to the question of liability. (Hear, hear.) It will be a matter for regulation, and he was prepared to assure the House that regulations would be framed accordingly. The same assurance applied to feathers.

read a telegram which he had received from Port Elizabeth, and which, he said, would commend itself to the farming community. It was as follows: “Port. Elizabeth Produce Association is undoubtedly sympathetic with Government in its endeavour to secure reduction in existing rates of freight and passenger fares. Members are however, of opinion that the rebate system is the only means of securing for the export trade regularity of sailings”—(hear, hear)— “and fixity of rates, both of which are essential for the well-being alike of the trade and of the produce merchants, and for that reason it cannot concur in the proposals contained in the Post Office Bill, having for their object the abolition of rebates.” They had, Mr. Brown proceeded, the Minister telling them that he was going to place the shippers of gold and ostrich feathers in the same position as they were in at present. In face of clause 117 of the Post Office Bill, even the Minister could not do that, because he could not by regulations over-ride an Act of Parliament. This provision would affect the produce man, it would affect the small shopkeeper. The only persons who would benefit were the big shopkeeper, the big trader, and the Wholesale merchant importing large quantities of stuff. (Hear, hear.) He thought the views of such an association as he had mentioned ought to carry great weight in that House, He pointed out that the members representing such ostrich districts as Uitenhage, Oudtshoorn, Riversdale, and Ladismith, were opposed to the clause.

said the hoped the Minister would seriously reconsider the question of accepting the amendment of the member for Uitenhage. He could assure them that in supporting the hon. member for Uitenhage he did not wish to handicap the Government in their negotiations with any company. He was anxious that there should not be any disturbance of the freight for the shipment of feathers.

said he was in entire agreement with the Government’s proposals, but the Government should be responsible for the safe conveyance of ostrich feathers.

said that under the international postal regulations adopted at the Rome Convention a certain size was set down for parcels carried through the post. How would that affect the conveyance of ostrich feathers through the post?

said largo quantities of feathers had been sent from Mossel Bay. His constituents at Ladismith were sixty miles from the nearest railway station. What would be the position? Would the feathers be accepted at any post office, and could they be sent by post from Ladismith? Gould the Government carry them as cheaply as they were carried now?

said the Rome Convention did not regulate the size of parcels, only letters. His hon. friend (Mr. Becker) need not be concerned. Surely if Government undertook to do a thing, he could trust them to do it. (Cheers.)

thought the Government would not be able to control the charges for the conveyance of feathers, as it had a large political backing, which would have something to say on that subject. He was afraid the end would be that articles which the Government carried would be conveyed at half the proper charge.

The amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage was put, and declared lost.

called for a division.

The committee divided on the question that the word “all,” proposed by Mr. Fremantle to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

moved: That the following be a new clause to follow clause five, viz.: 6. (1) The Governor-General may enter into contracts in writing with any persons for the conveyance by sea of postal articles to land from the Union beyond the limits of South Africa. (2) The Governor General shall not enter into any such ocean mail contract with any person who: (a) Is connected directly or indirectly with any such shipping or other combination as the Governor-General may deem detrimental to, or likely to affect adversely, South African trade or industries; or (lb) gives, offers, or promises to any person any rebate, refund, discount, or reward upon condition that such person shall ship, or in consideration of such person having shipped, goods by vessels of particular lines to the exclusion of any others. (3) The Governor-General may make regulations: (a) Differentiating as regards dock, wharfage, transshipping, or any other like dues at any port or harbour of the Union on goods landed from, shipped in, or transshipped from vessels owned or chartered by persons with whom the Governor-General under sub-section (2) may not contract; and (b) differentiating as regards freight far the transport, over any railway belonging to the Government of the Union, of goods which have been landed or transshipped from or are to be shipped in, vessels owned or chartered by persons with whom the Governor-General, under sub-section (2), may not contract; and (c) prescribing the returns and other particulars which shall be made or furnished, and the manner in which such returns and particulars shall be made or furnished by persons landing, transshipping, or shipping goods from or in any vessel or transporting goods upon any railway of the Union; and generally for the better carrying out of the objects and purposes of this section. (4) Nothing in this section contained shall be construed as affecting the right of the Postmaster General to call upon the master of any vessel to carry out the duties imposed upon such master by section thirty-six of this Act, or as relieving such master from any penalties imposed by this Act in respect of a failure to carry out such duty, notwithstanding that such vessel be owned or chartered by a person with whom the Governor-General, under sub-section (2), may not contract.”

said he wanted to say something, because this was a very important matter indeed. He was afraid that there was little chance of carrying he views before this committee. This was not the first time that he had been in a minority, and it was not the first time that the majority had regretted their action. Certainly at one time he had his friend the present Commissioner of Railways with him, and he was sorry, very sorry indeed, that Mr. Sauer was not with him then. Very much the same arguments, or rather absence of argument, had been used on these occasions, where people were carried away by a wave of sentiment, when a man was sentenced before he was tried. Afterwards it was found that a mistake had been made, which landed them into a disastrous war. The next occasion was when the introduction of Chinese labour was foisted upon the country, when a few of them protested again. In a few years’ time they found that they had made a great mistake over that. Here the House had taken up a position of hostility to a business firm, simply because it was prosperous and managed its business well. This was a had beginning. He saw that the Government had entered upon a system of State Socialism. He did not allude, although some people might, to the evil effects of this attack upon prosperous institutions, particularly if they were supported by foreign capital, without any case being made out, and upon excited statements of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. They were trying to ruin institutions that had come to the country. That was a had beginning for their new South Africa. It was not that the attraction of foreign capital to the country was likely to make it, prosperous, but they should not go and destroy an industry by legislation. They had an illuminating speech from the Minister of Lands—the latest recruit to the Socialist crusade. He would not try, however, to bring home to the House the real meaning of these revolutionary proposals. They went far beyond what was originally proposed. Indeed, the Bill that was introduced was bad, but these new proposals were most serious. They would wreck the confidence of investors, and they would disorganise business. If these proposals were carried out they would have the effect of ruining Cape Town and the ports short of Durban. People in England had adopted another course before legislating. They inquired, and the result was contained in five huge volumes. The Commission sent out from Croat Britain found, with the exception of one member, that it was not wise to abolish the rebate system. Now, what were rebates? Rebates were a thing which the Commission found was good from the modern conditions of the shipping world. In olden times they had sailing vessels, and everybody was on exactly the same foundation. Everyone had a chance. No one knew when their letters were coming or when their goods would arrive. Then there was no need for rebates, because trade was open. But when there came to be steamers, and people began to demand all sorts of things, such as superior accommodation, regular sailings, and, above all— which was the principal thing—to demand that a steamer should start on a particular day, even if she had only one ton of cargo, it became absolutely certain that no steamers in the world could carry on their trade on that basis unless they had some protection. They had to do what every other person in every other trade did, and that was to give an advantage to those people who promised to support them by their trade. Now, the British Commission found, first of all, that the advantages of rebates were that there were uniformity of rates and regular sailings, and that it was enormously to the advantage of the small man. Now, that was a point which he did not think hon. members, and particularly those from up-country, had sufficiently considered. The rebate system, had as it might be—and he confessed he was not a great admirer of it—had the effect that it enabled the small man to get his goods at exactly the same rate as the large man, and the result had been that up-country traders were now no longer in the hands of the large merchants down at the port, but were able to order their goods out regularly by steamer, to get them up-country, and to be perfectly sure they were going to get a uniform rate of freight. There were two strange things about this. One strange tilling was that one could bring right upcountry clothing and articles of that kind cheaper than one could buy them in Cape Town; and another most extraordinary thing was that the opposition to the rebate system, strange to say, came from the large merchants on the coast. There was unanimous testimony by the evidence, and the reports of the Commission, that if there was one thing that had been assisted and aided by the rebate system it had been the producers of the country. It had given them uniform export rates, so that producers were able to calculate months beforehand at what rates they could put their goods down in the European markets. At first what they had been aiming at was an open freight market—the subject aimed at by the Minister—that was, the large man could make advantageous terms, and the small man upcountry could not do so. The large man would have the small man by the throat, as he used to have—that was one result —and the other result was that one could never rely upon a uniform rate for one’s produce, because, naturally enough, a tramp steamer came in and quoted as good a rate as it could for produce; but when it found it could not fill up a lower rate would be charged; and so the produce agent never knew what rates he would have to pay, and this had a, prejudicial effect on the farmers up-country. Was it not a remarkable thing that after all these inquiries, the Commission had come to the conclusion that it was not wise to disturb rebates? He thought that hon. members who were so fond of talking about “having the country by the throat,” should consider what they had got from the shipping business; how admirably they were served, and how excellently the whole service went on; and he thought that it was a very exaggerated statement to make about the shipping companies “having the country by the throat.” Government interference in these matters would do more harm than good. The whole shipping trade was so bound up, and they were so involved with foreign countries, that if they struck at one of the vital sources of British prosperity, which was the shipping trade, and the way it was conducted, they were entering upon very dangerous ground, and ground which made a statesman hesitate about the “drastic methods” which were advocated so lightly in South Africa. If they were going to have drastic methods, he would like to remind his hon. friend of the words, “However kings may quarrel, it is the people who always suffer.” Upon entering this course, it was not the Government which was going to suffer—his hon. friend was there, and he was happy —(laughter)—he would no doubt make some illuminating speeches on the subject —but it was the man up-country who was going to suffer—the man on the farm—the passenger—these would feel it. His hon. friend had not yet brought in his “drastic methods” that passengers would have to be posted; that might come be and by. (Laughter.) Places were also going to suffer by this open freight market, because the system on which freights were now arranged was on an artificial basis, and if things were left only to shipping companies they might, for example, prefer to unload all their goods at Durban and not at Cape Town. Continuing, he said did hon. members know that in Australia the steamers had charged a lower rate to Sydney than to Melbourne, because the former was an easier port to discharge at? Of course, he would admit that if it could be shown that the condition of affairs was desperate—if half the wild statements made in that House about the mail contract were true—he might say that perhaps it would be time to consider, after careful inquiry, whether desperate steps were not needed. They were acting unwisely as a Legislature in passing abnormal legislation merely on the statement of people outside, and they would regret it very soon if they did so. They could not get away from the fact that statements had been made in the House which ware absolutely contrary to fact. Sir Thomas Smartt had said that under that infamous combine a man was not allowed to ship by a sailing vessel.

I never said any such thing.

If the hon. member was misreported, I apologise to him. Proceeding, he said that the rates had been entirely wrongly quoted. If they took the rates on wool from Australia, not only were these rates higher than from here, but wool was so pressed and packed! in Australia that a great deal could be put into a ship. Of course, they liked to have rates lowered; everyone did. It was said that the rates were so high because the companies were over-capitalised; but was that the only trade where there was over-capitalisation? Why ware goods so much dearer in Cape Town than in Durban and Maritzburg? They had only to look about Cape Town to see the sky-scrapers and the plate glass. They were over-built, just like the shipping companies were said to be. These people (the shipping companies) were willing to sell freight just as his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) sold goods, and just as the sold his goods, if he had any to sell, and could find anybody to buy them. (Laughter.) They could not expect these people to do it unless they got remunerative rates. And were the rates remunerative? From the evidence he had gone through —he was not going to weary the House by reading any—he had come to the conclusion that the rates were not what they would call excessive. They were not outrageous rates. They might be reduced, that he believed, and he believed the proper way to go about the matter would be by going to the companies and using arguments, and not by holding sticks to their heads. (Hear, hear.) The steamship companies said: “Guarantee us four or five per cent on our capital, and you may arrange the rates just as you like.” That was quite reasonable, but to go to people who were in business, and say, “You must come down in your rates, whether it pays you or not; you must give regular sailings; you must start whether your ship is full or not, or whether you have got a pound or a full cargo, you must start on a given day; you must visit ports which you would much rather not visit; you must start back without any cargo at all,” it seemed to him that that was no logical argument at all. The only thing to do in his mind was to have a thorough inquiry into the case. By attempting this by legislation, they were creating a most evil precedent. They were now attacking steamship companies, but later they might be attaching other institutions or private individuals. He advised them to beware before they entered upon what the considered a very false and foolish step. He could never give his vote to measures of this kind. There was an enormous majority in the House—he believed an ill-informed majority—and for that he did not blame them—but were they prepared without any inquiry as to the truth of the allegations made against the shipping companies, to strike at the shipping mainstay, to strike a fatal blow which might recoil on the heads of those who dealt it? (Cheers.)

said he would lay before the committee some of the evidence which the right hon. member for Victoria West wished to hear. The right hon. member spoke about a thorough inquiry, but how many thorough inquiries were they going to have in South Africa before they took action? The last inquiry in South Africa was held in 1904-5. That inquiry was held, not at the request of the big merchants at the coast, it was held at the request of the United Chambers of Commerce, which met in Johannesburg. The great majority of those who attended the Congress of the Chambers came from the up-country towns, and not from the coastal towns. At the request of that Congress, the Shipping Conference proceeded to take evidence. The hon. member went on to quote the opinions of the gentlemen who gave evidence before that inquiry. The opinion of the East London Chamber of Commerce, as expressed through its representative (Mr. Nesbit) was that the rates of freight were unfair and grossly excessive, and that the rebate system should be abolished.

They have changed.

I have no evidence as to that, Proceeding, he said the opinion of the Durban Chamber of Commerce, as expressed through its representative, was that the rebate system was an iniquitous one, that the freight charges were too high, and that the rebate system should be abolished. The opinion of the Bloemfontein Chamber of Commerce, which represented the small merchant, who was going to be crushed by this legislation according to the right hon, member for Victoria West, was that the rebate system was a most pernicious one, and that it should be abolished. The Johannesburg Chamber of Trade was of opinion that the present rate was excessive, and that the rebate system was at the root of all the evils from which merchants suffered at present Mr. Macintosh, on behalf of the Port Elizabeth Chamber of Commerce, said that the tariff was excessive, and that the rebate system gave the shipping people an altogether undue hold on the trade of the country. Another representative of the Port Elizabeth Chamber stated that the rates were excessive, and that the rebates ought to be abolished. The Bulawayo Chamber of Commerce was of opinion that the charges were excessive, that something should be done to remedy matters, and that the rebate system should be abolished: The Kimberley Chamber of Commerce was of opinion that the rates of freight were excessive, and that the rebate system should be done away with, as it hampered merchants from entering into arrangements which would be most beneficial to them. The Maritzburg Chamber of Commerce had passed a resolution in support of this principle, and a similar resolution had been passed by the Cape Town Chamber.

said that, as a small up-country importer, he would like to speak for himself on this question. The right hon. the member for Victoria West had spoken as the champion of the small, importer. For over 20 years he (Mr. Oliver) had been a member of the Chamber of Commerce in Kimberley, and up to a few months ago he was president. He admitted that there was an advantage in the rebate system in that it placed the small importer on a level with the large importer. It gave them regular sailings and regular arrivals. The question then arose: Did those advantages equal the disadvantages under which they laboured? To his mind, the advantages were outweighed by the disadvantages. He took it that the rebate system had had the effect of working their freight to this country to a higher level, as had been indicated by the freights to Australia being practically the same, although the distance from Great Britain was twice as great. This high freight did not affect the importer, whether large or small. If they paid high freight, that freight was added to, the cost of the goods, and the consumer had to pay. As far as the importer was concerned, the higher the freight the better the profit, provided everyone paid the same freight. But it was a very different matter when they came to deal with the export trade. When they considered that the whole export trade hinged upon their export freight, it was a very serious matter. The export freight affected the pocket of the producer. The right hon. the member for Victoria West said that, because these freights being equal, they were able to buy goods up-country at a lower price than they could in Cape Town. The freight, he would tell the right hon. gentleman, had nothing to do with it, because they paid exactly the same freight as the people in Cape Town paid. It had been said that if the rebate were done away with, it was going to crush out the small importer. He wanted to say to that House that it was not going to have that effect. The freight did not make any difference where soft goods were concerned, the matter of freight being so small that it was not to be compared with the present high railway charges. With regard to heavy goods, on which freight was an important consideration, the up-country storekeeper did not import himself, as he could buy them cheaper here. The large wholesale dealer bought big quantities of rough goods, obtaining special prices, and had them brought, out by sailing ships at a third of the freight charged by steamers. If freights were reduced, the large importer could reduce his prices, and the up-country storekeeper could then buy cheaper. Ever since he had been in business —which was for thirty years—he had refused rebate on principle, but he was quite aware that his people on the other side took advantage of it and got the rebate. The Conference Lines had used the rebate System with which to build up a monopoly, (Cheers.) He objected to the principle of the clause, as he did not think it was the best thing to use the harbours and railways for the purpose of regulating freights. He did not take it that the Minister meant, that if a new line charged first-class goods 30s. a ton, and the Conference Lines carried them at 5s. less, the Minister was going to penalise the latter.

How do you know?

I take it not.

Wait and see.

I take it that unless Government has a very strong weapon, the new line would stand no chance at all, and although I do not like the clause, I am going to support it. It is in the best interests of the country to stamp out the rebate system. Proceeding, he Said it had been argued that if the mail contract were taken from the Union-Castle Company it would be wiped out, and we should not have regular sailings. He did not believe anything of the kind. (Cheers.) We could build our own ships if we liked.

In a day?

Said the Union-Castle Company would not stop running if it lost the contract, and he believed its ships would be run faster and carry cargo cheaper than they did now. (Cheers.) When the Houston Line commenced running, he instructed his London agents to ship some heavy goods by it. Immediately the Conference Lines found that out they stopped his rebates which had gone to his agents in London. Subsequently, he wanted some of his goods sent out in the usual way by the mail boats, and the Union-Castle people informed his agent that they would not carry his goods under 90s. per ton. (Cries of “Shame.”) He had never received their rebate, but they were bound to carry his goods at the prices of others. The result was that he asked his agents in London to take his goods from the Un ion-Castle Line, and ship them by the Houston Line. They compelled him to bring his goods by the Houston Line, and he got them sent out at 12s. 6d. a ton cheaper than by the Conference Lines. One of the agents of the Conference Lines said to him that he was very foolish to ship his goods by the Houston Line, as he could not depend upon regularity of freight, and he would only save a few hundred pounds. He said: “The money is as good in my pocket as in that of the Union-Castle Line, and I will take the risk of the uncertainty of delivery.” Having kept the rebate, they were not justified in refusing to carry his goods. Well, the result was that he went to the Houston Line, and fixed up a contract with them for five years, and he saved a good many hundred pounds. Continuing, the hon. member said that he imported £500 worth of goods by parcel post, and found that the cost worked out at 5 per cent less than, the charges of the Union-Castle Co. (Laughter.) Eventually the Union-Castle Co. took over the Houston Line, and for years they had to carry his goods at 30s. per ton. (Laughter and cheers.) He had no animosity against the Union-Castle Line, and if they gave up these rebates he believed they were going to continue carrying their mails and freight. It was a very unfair weapon which they had invented, and the Government had only taken hold of the weapon to protect the public.

said the arguments advanced in favour of throwing out the Government proposals seemed to him to be extremely weak. They were all proud of the service of the Union-Castle Co. between this country and Great Britain, but they could not sit down and submit to the Shipping Combine dictating the conditions under which the business of this country should be conducted. It had been argued in favour of the rebate system that lit had the advantage of giving regularity of sailings and, stability of rates. Well, it seemed to him that in any case they would get regularity of service; the necessities of this country demanded it. And as to the stability of rates, it seemed to him that the rates, while stable, were excessively high, and that the conditions had helped to maintain the rates at an abnormally high figure. He acknowledged that the service was an excellent one, but the people of South Africa had paid for it. He did not think there was any force in the argument that Cape Town would suffer. The ships would go to the port which offered them most advantages. Even if Cape Town should suffer, which he did not believe, it was no argument in favour of the rebates. The whole point seemed to him to be: Who was to be the master in South Africa—the Shipping Combine or the people of South Africa? (Hear, hear.) He supported the Government’s proposals as tending to add to the welfare of the country.

said he did not think for a moment that the Government’s proposals would be regarded by the world as an attack on vested interests. If he thought so, he would be the last to give the proposals any measure of support, because no one was more convinced than he was of the necessity for protecting vested interests and for treating capital fairly. That being the case he felt that under the existing condition of affairs there was no alternative but to support the Government’s proposals, which, while abnormal, were designed to moot an abnormal state of affairs. He did not think that the Government would treat the Union-Castle Company harshly because it was successful. He believed that the Government, armed with these powers, would deal with the company fairly and equitably, and he hoped: the result of the negotiations which would follow the passing of this measure would be that the Union-Castle Company would still have those trade relations with South Africa that they had had in the past. (Hear, hear.) But it would be under conditions, at once fair to themselves and not oppressive to South Africa. (Cheers.) They would not be left in the position of handling the trade of South Africa in a fashion which suited themselves and themselves alone. Now, Mr. Merriman had made a speech that night which, in the matter of language, was delightful to listen to; but he (Mr. Phillips) must say that in the matter of argument it left him entirely unconvinced, and he had made many statements, for some of which, at least, he had not produced his foundation. One of them was that the Union-Castle Company would allow them to fix the rate, if they were guaranteed 4 or 5 per cent. He thought that the right hon. gentleman had been drawing somewhat on his imagination. He presumed that they were never going to have regular traffic, regular freights, or regularity in connection with the shipping business, which were necessary to the trade and welfare of South Africa. He did not believe for a moment that they were not going to have these. But there was a vast difference between treating the Union-Castle Company vindictively, and leaving the country in the hands of the company. He did not see the alternative. The Government had openly said that it was necessary to have certain powers in order to carry on certain negotiations with the Union-Castle Company, and what was going to be the effect of withholding these powers? That they placed themselves unreservedly in the hands of the shipping company. It was for this reason that they would support the Government not because they were the right wing or the left wing of the Government—but because they intended to do something which was for the welfare and the stability of the country. It was better, as a last resort, to suffer temporary inconvenience and disadvantage than to place themselves for all time under the heel of an organisation of that kind. When Mr. Merriman accused them of being the left wing of the Government, might he not with justice ask the right hon. gentleman what his own relation was with the Government, or on what side he had been returned as a member to that House? The hon. member went on to speak of having the welfare of the country at heart, and said that he thought it his duty—his patriotic duty—to protect the mining industry, as any member on the other side of the House protected the agricultural industry, from any measures which were likely, in his opinion, to do it wrong. A condition of affairs had now arisen which called for a strong remedy, and there were strong remedies in the Bill which was now before the House, and which he hoped the House would pass.

in reply to Mr. Phillips, said that he had said that he would support the Government so long as it went on the right lines, and the administration was economically carried out. He thought that that Bill was contrary to the best traditions of government. It was most dangerous legislation, and he said that they were not justified in passing such dangerous legislation, even if they had such a moving story as related by Mr. Oliver. The right hon. member proceeded to quote from a report of the Board of Trade. The view of the Board was that in a matter involving such important interests a full and impartial inquiry should have been held. Strange to say, what the hon. member (Sir Edgar Walton) considered a full and impartial inquiry was not so considered by the Board of Trade. (Hear, hear.) Again, the Board of Trade regarded the proposals by the Johannesburg Conference as open to serious objection. A full and ample inquiry was held in London, and a full and ample inquiry was held by the Commission sent out to South Africa, and both these inquiries came to the conclusion that the system of rebate had its disadvantages, but it was not such as to call for legislation, and he agreed with that entirely.

said that today under Union they were in a position to safeguard the rights of the public in a way which had not been possible under the four separate Governments. It was their duty to do so, although he greatly appreciated the services rendered by the Union-Castle Company, towards whom he felt distinctly friendly. They were in such a position to-day that it would be a crime if they did not now—when they had that opportunity—adequately protect the public. Mr. Merriman had said that more investigation was necessary, because the information they had at hand was inadequate or faulty; but his right hon. friend must remember that if they now entered into a contract it would bind the country for another ten years. They had had negotiations with the Mail Company, which had resulted in failure, for the company was not willing to meet the Government; and was the Government to go out of its way and ruin the country? If they had made the contract they would have bound South Africa for the next ten years, and they would have put a stop to its development as far as the export trade was concerned. There was no other way open to the Government, if they wanted that stability and development of South Africa which they had so eagerly been looking forward to, and which was now at hand under Union, than to introduce such legislation as was now before the House. The Government had to take the responsibility, not on its own behalf, but on behalf of the people of the whole of South Africa. It would surely be a pitiful kind of Government if at this stage it neglected the best interests of South Africa in favour of a private company. He only stood up to speak on behalf of the interests of South Africa, and he did not have any feeling at all against the company. South Africa, in future, he hoped, was going to be self-supporting, and not only that, but compete with other countries; and they would not be able to do that unless they got cheap export rates. (Hear, hear.) He did not understand how the right hon. member for Victoria West could stand up and face his constituents after pleading against a course of action that would secure those low rates. The Argentine, though situated at the same distance from England as South Africa was, enjoyed far lower rates, which prevented the Union from competing. When they had the Prime Ministers’ Conference in London they had a consultation with the general manager of the Mail Company as to the mealie rate; and a certain fair rate had been fixed, as the result of which mealies had been exported from South Africa to Europe. In those five years the whole mealie export trade had been built up, and the time would come when from 30 to 40 million bags would be exported annually. Farmers had started to go in for the mealie trade, and yet what had the company done? It arbitrarily raised the rate to 11s. 6d. as soon as the export began to flourish. At present the company wanted to raise the rate to 14s., which would practically kill the mealie export trade from South Africa. A deputation from fruit-growers had waited upon him that morning, and had stated, that although the past season had been one of the worst yet there was not sufficient accommodation on the Union-Castle steamers by which to send their fruit to Europe. Must the fruit trade be hindered and impeded simply because of the action of the Union Castle Company? There was no stability at present if the company could raise the rates when it desired: and it was in the best interests of South Africa that there should be low export rates and stability. It had happened that large quantities of mealies had been refused transport at Durban, the company desiring them to be shipped via Cape Town. That meant sending them to Cape Town by train at enormous expense. Such a condition of affairs could not be tolerated, and since protests were of no avail he had clearly stated, when in London, that the mail contract would not be renewed without proper provision being made in regard to freights. There was a prospect of an early meat export, but what were they to do in the present circumstances? Let them not go hat in hand to the company, but take up a firm, manly, independent attitude, as had been done in Australia. In America there had been legislation against the rebate system, for no other reason than to protect the people. The same attitude should be adopted by the Union Government; and for that reason be was in favour of that clause. He did not wish to fight the company or to do anything unjust, but they could not allow a monopoly which would control South Africa. (Cheers.)

suggested that progress be reported, and leave obtained to sit again. (Cries of “No.”) He Held no brief for the shipping companies, but he had been a large importer, and also had acted as agent for a shipping: company, so he could speak with knowledge on the subject, which he would do at length. The Minister had not quoted all the figures. There were very many cases where the freight to South Africa compared very favourably with that charged to other parts. Comparing the rates for goods by mail steamer to Cape Town with those to Melbourne, they would find that the change to the former port was 33s. 7d. per ton, as against 65s. to the latter. Even allowing for the greater sea voyage, this was a very fair comparison. On Class 1 goods the charges were 46s. 3d. as compared with 65s. per ton. The intermediate steamer rates were: Cape Town, 42s. 6d.; Melbourne, 50s.; rough goods, Cape Town, 22s. 6d.; as against Melbourne, 37s. 6d. With regard to the River Plate, the rates from London to the River Plate compared very favourably with the rates from London to Cape Town. With regard to the rates on maize, which were really at the bottom of the agitation, he thought that the Conference Lines had treated South Africa very well. When every allowance was made for the space taken up by bags and so on, the freight on mealies from South Africa worked out at 7s. 8d. per ton. It was misleading to compare the Argentine rates, because there the mealies were shipped in bulk. Little profit was left to the shipping companies on the carriage of maize, and if the Government tried to force any line to take maize at lower rates they would have to guarantee such line against loss. The result would be that the general public would have to pay. As regarded the sending of mails by any steamer that might come along, he said, he was sure that every business man would prefer to have certain dates for the arrival and departure of his mails. He did not think the statement that the freights were higher now than they were 12 years ago would bear very close examination. During the past few years there had been considerable alteration in the classification of goods. Goods which ware formerly carried at a high rate had been reduced to a lower class, and were now carried at a lower rate. The hon. member went on to refer to the findings of the Royal Commission of 1903-4, and quoted the evidence given by certain up-country importers before the Commission as an answer to the views expressed by the hon. member for Kimberley (Mr. Oliver). He wished to emphasise the point mentioned by the Commission that if they did away with the Conference system the result would be very disastrous to the small importer. Neither the majority nor the minority report, he pointed out, recommended any legislation on the subject. Mr. Henderson proceeded to urge that there was no compulsion in connection with the Conference systems and that members could keep themselves out of it if they liked. He next alluded to the adherence given by the produce merchants to the present system. They heard a great deal about how the rebate system was strangling the produce trade of the country. But the farmers could combine, and charter ships for the conveyance of their produce to Europe. The farmers did not do so because they knew they were better off under the present system. It was evident that the Government did not understand the matter. (Cries of “Stem” and “Vote.”) The Conference Lines were quite open to make a bargain, but it must be a fair bargain. He thought the House was proceeding on very dangerous lines by attempting to get at the Conference Lines through the means proposed by the clause. Let the House pause and take more time to consider the matter which had been sprung upon the country. Let the House delay for a fortnight so that the subject could be debated by the various Chambers of Commerce.

rising at 11.5 p.m., said he did not know whether it was any use suggesting that progress be reported. (Loud Ministerial cries of “No.”) Well, the responsibility was the Government’s, and the House was not to be allowed to discuss the matter with satisfaction to itself and the people members represented. The speech that seemed to have made more effect on the House that day than any other was that of Mr. Oliver. (Ministerial cheers.) That speech had amounted to this, that Mr. Oliver entered into a bargain with the shipping company He broke his agreement—(An HON. MEMBER: “No.”)—and he admitted they were justified in depriving him of his rebates.

I said so.

said why should Mr. Oliver then complain because the other side penalised him for breaking the agreement? The hon. member for Kimberley said they charged him double fares, but this was one of the punishments for breaking his agreement he had entered into. The hon. member did not tell them that the particular company he mentioned had made a loss of a quarter of a million.

Why?

Because they carried the freight at such a cheap rate that, they found it was not possible, to make a reasonable profit. If there was to be a freight war it would be the smaller shipper who would suffer. There was one matter that be noticed had never been mentioned during the debate, and it was that all efforts to come to an agreement with the Conference Lines had failed, and that the Government were compelled to adopt these methods. Do not let them introduce legislation which simply meant spoliation. (Hear, hear.) The Minister was asking for powers to say to any other shipping company than the one he chose that they must not land goods in South Africa. That was what the proposal really amounted to.

said the Government had given no adequate reason for a departure which was extremely serious and far-reaching. It seemed to him that the consequences of the course proposed to be adopted had not been fully appreciated. As to the effect of the policy on the producers, he asked the House to consider in the first place, when comparing the rates with those operating in regard to other countries, the fact that here we shipped our grain in bags, and not in bulk, as was the case in other countries. The diminution in the carrying capacity of vessels, as a result of this, was, he pointed out, very considerable. If they threw themselves into the open freight market, then the advantages which they at present enjoyed would disappear. He went on to deal with preferential rates in regard to South African products. For years past he said they had been making efforts to destroy these rates, and what would be the result of the preferential system which was proposed in this clause? He believed that in passing this clause they would be placing a weapon in the hands of the Government which was not reliable, and one which would injure their cause.

said it was undoubtedly very risky to place such enormous powers in the bands of any Government; but in this case be certainly approved of placing powers in the bands of the Government which would enable them, as the Prime Minister had said, to go to the great monopoly, not with their hats in their hands, but in the name of the people of South Africa, to demand what they wanted. What they hoped the Government would succeed in doing was to obtain for South Africa the cheapest rates obtainable, the best and most regular service, and got it on terms of equality, as far as possible, both for large shippers and small shippers. He believed that was the object, and for that reason he should vote for the clause before the House. He had some doubt, however, because the Government proposed to tie themselves in regard to the question of rebates.

said that they had the significant fact that the leading members of the Opposition were prepared to sink all differences, and to give the Government the powers that had been spoken of that evening, in order to break down this opposition. That fact, he thought, showed that the country was determined to put an end to this state of things. He thought the greatest advantage resulting would be in connection with the export trade. He felt satisfied that, if this combination were broken down, the rates for exports would be considerably reduced, He hoped the House would show that they were determined to break this abominable combination. (Hoar, hear. )

asked whether, supposing the favoured company had the Government’s support, and supposing the Conference Lines decided to go into competition, and do away with the rebates, the Minister still proposed to use the differential rates against them?

said it seemed to him that the Government were tying their hands much tighter than they thought they were. He thought it was necessary for the protection of the Government to propose some amendment which would enable it to make a contract with some line of ships which was not within the Ring. He moved, as an amendment, in line 9 of the clause, after “person” to omit “any”, and to substitute “such ”, and to add at the end of the sub-section (2) (b) “as the Governor-General may deem detrimental to or likely to affect adversely South African trade or industries;” and in sub-section, (4) in line 41 thereof, after “or as his”, to omit “relieving such master from” and to substitute exacting from such master.” The question was, he proceeded, what they wanted from the Conference Lines; no one had yet stated what they wanted, and that was his objection to that procedure. Let them show what, they wanted, and that the company had absolutely refused to meet them. Substantial alterations were made in the freights from month to month. What he objected to was the partial statements which had been made. He himself had not been satisfied with everything that had been done by the Conference Lines in the past. They had driven their advantage too far, but even in that case they were being punished much too severely. He would suggest, however, that they should be approached on the specific points raised, and see if some agreement could not be arrived at.

supported the last speaker. This proposal of the Government would go out to the world as the first hostile British measure passed by the Union Parliament. If the amendment moved by the hon. member was adopted, it would be a happy method out of the difficulty. A few years ago the Prime Minister was lionised in Great Britain as the first man in the land, but they would find a revulsion of feeling over this matter. He pointed out that it was impossible to get a lower rate because ships could not get adequate return cargoes. He himself had put money into ships, but he was glad to take it out and reinvest it in the Colony. He would suggest that the Government never ought to take the extreme measure of driving these shipping companies out of the country.

said he wished to ask the Government a question. On the second reading the point was raised that the contract be made only with a British company. The answer then came: “Propose it and we will accept it.”

said he might say with reference to the question of the contract only being made with a British company, that nothing else was contemplated as far as the Government was concerned. The statement that was circulated in England and other quarters that the Government was negotiating with a German company was absolutely untrue. (Cheers.) The Government refused to make contracts with any but British companies.

said with regard to sections (a) and (b) of clause 2, it would be in the interest of the country and the interest, of the exports of the country, if the Government accepted the amendment proposed by Mr. Struben. It would greatly aid the maize export.

asked whether, if the Government supported any company, and any of the Conference companies dropped the rebates, the Government would still charge differential rates against such companies?

It would be difficult to say exactly what the Government is going to do. The Government will act according to the requirements of the circumstances. According to the Bill, the Government will have the right to give preferential treatment to ships not in the combine.

Even if the Conference Lines drop the rates?

Yes.

supported the amendment. The clause, he contended, would operate against British companies employing a great number of British seamen. He protested against the Bill being rushed through. No opportunity had been given to members to consult their constituents. He moved to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Struben’s amendment was negatived.

The new clause was agreed to.

Clause 52, standing over,

These amendments were agreed to.

Clause 72, standing over,

moved: In line 62, to omit “ten” and to substitute “five.”

Agreed to.

Clause 89,

moved: In line 23, after “provided)” to insert “that subject to regulation nothing in this section contained shall be held to prevent precedence being given to any class of telegrams under such conditions and upon payment of such special rates of charge as may be prescribed: And provided further.”

Agreed to.

Clause 110, standing over,

moved: In line 23, after “under” to insert “sub-section (4) of.”

The amendment by Mr. Stockenstrom was negatived, and the amendment proposed by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was agreed to.

Clause 112, standing over,

The amendment was agreed to.

On the title,

moved to add at the end: “and to impose certain charges to discourage shipping combinations.”

Agreed to.

The Bill, with amendments, including an alteration in the title, was reported, and it was resolved that the amendments be considered on Wednesday.