Petition from E. J. Pavey, compensation, ground appropriated by Railway Department.

Cape Town, Durban, Port Elizabeth, and Hast London return, showing rates of pay of men employed, overtime, holiday regulations, uniform a regulations, hours worked, and date when last increases were paid.

said that, before proceeding with the Order paper, he would like, with the leave of the House, to make a statement on a matter of great public importance. He referred to the publication in the press that day of certain statements in regard to the alleged serious state of affairs in the Transkei. He regretted that statements of this sort should be published without reference being made to the Government by way of inquiry as to whether the allegations which were published were based on facts. He was sure the quarte from which the publication was made would to the last from which one would expect any sort of recklessness or carelessness in the publication of statements which were calculated gravely to disturb the public mind and to cause public anxiety and unrest, but, if he might be allowed to say so, he did appeal, especially at times like the present, to the public press of South Africa to exercise the strictest care in the publication of statements which it made alleging native unrest within our borders. One knew what effect these statements had upon civilised minds, and they all knew what effect these statements had upon the uncivilised mind. He referred to the publication of an article that morning, in which allegations were made to the state of affairs in connection with East Coast Fever in the Transkei, and was of such a serious nature that it was feared that unless the matter was carefully handled by the responsible authorities, grave trouble might arise. It was stated in the article that there had been extensive shooting of cattle by the C.M.R. at Elliotdale and Willowdale, where East Coast Fever has been most severe. About 141 cattle were shot on March 17, and a still larger number on the following day, and the day afterwards yet more beasts died from the pest. It was said that 500 head were to be destroyed during the next few days. Then the article went on to say that the correspondent of the paper said that a more serious point still was that Bokleni, the Chief of the warlike Pondos, had given notice to the Magistrate that he would not permit the shooting of cattle in Pondoland. “Another disquieting feature,” the article proceeded to say, “is reported, it being said that the Transkei natives have summoned back all their compatriots who are at work on the Rand mines. And from the Rand information has been received that there is a prospect of a general strike among the native workers there. Although there is nothing resembling a panic at Umtata, yet everyone there knows that a native rising may occur at any moment, and if that does occur, the Europeans there will practically be defenceless.” The report went on to say that the natives are fully aware of the isolation and defenceless condition of Umtata, that they are no longer uneducated and they read the newspapers and discus; everything that goes on, and generally that the position there was one of the greatest possible menace. Well, he (Mr. Burton) wished to inform the House that all the information at his disposal showed that the statements he had referred to were entirely incorrect, that they were unjust to the natives, and that they were calculated unnecessarily to cause the gravest anxiety amongst the Europeans. As to the cattle destroyed, the official information was that in the different districts the measure of killing the cattle had been resorted to in the case of 1,323 head, and it was anticipated that another 500 would have to be destroyed in the interests of the country at large. The C.M.R. had been employed, not because of any fear of a native rising, but because a sufficiently large body of trained marksmen was required for work of this nature, to guard against the risk of stampedes. That was the sole reason for the employment of the C.M.R. The attitude of the natives, not only in regard to the shooting of their cattle, but with regard to the whole of the measures undertaken to prevent the spread of East Coast Fever had been, his information was, everything that could possibly be expected. There had been no incidents and no hitch giving any cause whatever for disquiet. The shooting of natives’ cattle, as they all knew, was a thing which went to the natives’ hearts. The natives’ cattle were beloved to them, and one naturally feared that the destruction of their cattle, in the interests of preventing the spread of East Coast Fever, would be a most dangerous and difficult operation; but the natives had not only submitted to all the measures of the Government, but they had gone further, and exhibited on all sides the greatest possible readiness to co-operate with the Government. (Hear, hear.) He took the attitude adopted by the Chief Bokleni, to whom special reference was made, the Chief who, it was said, had given notice to the Magistrate that he would not permit the shooting of cattle in Pondoland. Well, that particular Chief, from the very first, had been keenly alert to the necessity of taking every precautionary measure to prevent the spread of the disease. He had given the Government active and loyal co-operation, and, as far as he (the speaker) was aware, the statement made in regard to him was entirely devoid of truth. (Ministerial cheers.) Now, might he say on that point that, curiously enough, only yesterday he read a telegram from the Chief Magistrate, informing him that the Chief of East Pondoland was applying to the Government for power to increase his jurisdiction amongst his people, so as to be able to enforce their active co-operation in measures to be taken against East Coast Fever. So far from taking up a hostile attitude, he had appealed to the Government to use the powers they had by law to strengthen his hands. Well, generally speaking, the position was: that in face of a grave economic disaster, which would affect the greatest asset that these people had, and which, of course, made stringent measures and watchful care necessary, the country had, as far as he knew, every reason to be satisfied with the entirely peaceful state of affairs, and the active co-operation by the natives generally. (Ministerial cheers.) It was said that the natives on the Rand were being brought back to their homes for the purpose of a native rising. It was also said that there was a general strike impending. Well, he had made inquiries, and there was not a word of truth in these statements. (Hear, hear.) Well, he had only one word more to say, and that was that the Pondos, who were most affected, had voluntarily agreed to a dipping tank, and large sums of money had already been spent, and were still being spent upon precautionary measures taken by the Transkei General Council, and the natives as a whole were co-operating with the Government. (Ministerial cheers.)

said he wished to ask the Minister of Railways and Harbours a question, of which he had given private notice. He desired to ask him: (a) Whether his attention had been directed to the accident which happened through the shunting of trucks over the level crossing at Caledon Station on the 29th March, whereby Mrs. Du Plessis and her two daughters lost their lives; and, if so, (b) whether he intends to institute a thorough inquiry into the circumstances attending the accident; and (c) whether he intends taking steps to ensure in the future the safety of the public at the said crossing during shunting operations?

replied, that when he heard of the accident he had an inquiry made immediately. He had been informed that a cart, which was driven by a Mr. Du Plessis, was passing the level crossing, when it was caught between two trucks which were being shunted. An inquest would be held, but he had given instructions that there should be an inquiry. As to the protection of the crossing, he was informed Mr. Du Plessis had said that he took the entire blame for the accident. It was not necessary for him (Mr. Sauer) to say that every precaution would be taken, as had been taken, to prevent accidents. He regretted the accident exceedingly, but from the information received, the fault did not lie with the railway authorities.

asked it the same measures would foe taken in regard to the Harrismith accident, by which the stationmaster there lost his life?

said that an inquiry would be held, and every precaution would be taken to prevent accidents. He would have special attention directed to this case.

asked Mr. Speaker whether it was competent for a Minister to quote from a document which he did not intend to lay upon the table of the House, as was done yesterday by the Minister of Railways and Harbours during the debate on the consideration of the amendments to the Post Office Bill?

I am net quite cognizant of the circumstances which the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Quinn) refers to, but the hon. member is presumably referring to a cable that was mentioned in the course of debate yesterday by the Hon. ourable the Minister of Railways and Harbours. The rule is that where a Minister of the Grown quotes in the House from a despatch or other paper which has not been presented, be ought to lay it upon the table. This rule, however, does not apply to documents which it would be inconsistent with the public interests to present to the House. I cannot give a definite ruling, as I am not conversant with the full contents of the document in question, and I must leave it to the discretion of the Minister.

said that they had had before them for some time the estimates of expenditure from loan funds. These contained an item “railway and harbour works in progress or proposed, as more fully set out in the estimates of capital expenditure to be presented by the Railways and Harbours Administration to Parliament.” Now they were in the middle of the debate on railways and harbours, and it would be continued to-morrow (Friday). These estimates were not yet on the table; and be wanted to ask the Minister of Railways if they were ready, and whether he was prepared to lay them on the table before they continued the debate on the railway administration? He pointed out that it would be difficult to follow the Minister unless they had the figures before them.

said that he would be very glad to do everything to facilitate the hon. member and others in getting all the information. He had hoped to get the Estimates that afternoon. At any rate, immediately he got them, he would lay them on the table. (Hear, hear.)

asked the Minister of Railways to reply to his question.

Yes, I am quite willing. Mr. Speaker, to reply to what the hon. member has said. I quoted from, a telegram yesterday. I don’t know whether it would be called a State document. I don’t think it is a State document. It is from one department to another, and I don’t know that it can be called a State document. Apart from that I am not prepared to say now—I don’t remember the exact words of the cable, although I know the sense of it— whether it should be laid on the table. Before I agreed to lay it on the table I should like to have a look at it.

Will the answer be forthcoming before the third reading of the Post Office Bill?

moved that Messrs. Whitaker and Rockey be members of the Select Committee on Co-operative Wineries.

seconded.

said he would like to ask the Minister if he would take the necessary steps to hare the inquiry extended to co-operative creameries.

I think the hon. member is not in order; he is not dealing with the names.

said that scarcely any information was given to them when the motion for the appointment of the Select Committee was brought forward. He

The hon. member can only refer to the names at this stage.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the order be discharged, and set down for to-morrow.

Why is that?

The hon. member (Mr. Jagger) is not in order.

The motion was agreed to.

asked whether the report of the Select Committee on the same Bill would not be considered now? It bore on the same subject as the matter before hon. members,

was understood to say that the report could be considered later.

The House then went into committee.

On clause 4,

said that he would like to ask a question in regard to the tuberculin test, because the Prime Minister was shortly going Home, and he could raise the matter at the Imperial Conference. This test was very rigidly applied to cattle when introduced into this country, and very rightly so. The question was as to the tests on the other side. His experience was that as to cattle from. (Holland the tests were undertaken by Government veterinary surgeons, and in no case had he found the test to react, but the principal countries from which cattle were imported here were Great Britain and Holland, and perhaps, Australia. What he would put to the Prime Minister was this, could any arrangement be made whereby anyone could go to the Crown Agents, say, in the United Kingdom, and get them to appoint, an absolutely qualified veterinary surgeon, who would have the animals tested on the other side? He knew of several cases lately where infected cattle had been brought into this country, and the end of it was that some of them might be destroyed.

replied that what the hon. member had referred to it was his intention to do. It was quite true what he had said about there having been too much laxity in connection with the importation of cattle. Although the question was not one which was down for discussion at the forthcoming Conference, he was prepared to do what he could to see that an improvement was effected, and to make an end to the present state of affairs, where cattle, after being tested on the other side of the water, on arrival here showed a reaction on their being tested.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 9,

moved, as an amendment, in subsection (2), line 38, to omit all the words after “forthwith” to the end of the section, and substitute “such sheep or goats to be infected.” The farms in his district, said the hon. member, were not small and compact, and it was not always either easy or fair to quarantine a whole farm just because the disease existed in one part of it. If the Minister of Agriculture could visit his district foe would see that what he (Mr. Aucamp) was saying was correct. He felt it as a grievance that he had not been asked to serve on the Select Committee.

said that the amendment, though an innocent one on the surface, really went to the root of the matter. The object of the Bill was to kill the scab insect, but if they quarantined the sheep without quarantining the farm on which they had roamed about, they would never eradicate scab. The regulations would empower the Government to quarantine either a farm or part of it, and they would act according to circumstances, but it was a fallacy to suppose that only the animals were infected and not the farm. It would be of no use dipping the sheep without disinfecting the kraals and other places where sheep would lie down. Though the quarantining of an entire farm would not always be necessary, he could not accept the amendment.

said that, where a farm was divided into different parts by fences, it would be sufficient to quarantine the particular part affected.

said that clause 16 provided for the trekking of sheep even where scab existed on a farm.

emphasised the fact that special measures would be taken in special cases. The Government would take power to suspend the Act, say in case, of drought.

The amendment was negatived.

said that a minimum quarantine period should be laid down. Wherever scab existed the farm should be quarantined for at least three months. He moved an amendment to that effect. Unless something of the kind were done, he considered, it would be impossible effectually to clean farms.

said all that was covered by the regulations. He could not accept the amendment. It would not do to make a cast-iron law. Farmers should be enabled to go to market once their sheep were clean, whatever the period of quarantine. The owners of healthy sheep were sufficiently protected by the Bill. It was possible, in some cases, to disinfect a farm as well as the sheep on it.

said he looked on the Bill as an unworkable one.

said he desired to move that all the scab clauses in the Bill stand over.

said he could not accept an amendment of that nature.

said he considered the Bill a dangerous one.

agreed with, the Minister, and said that sheep were not like trees, which remained in one place for hundreds of years. It was going too far to fix the time at three months.

said that if cattle were well dipped scab would be “killed” in a couple of minutes. He hoped the amendment would be withdrawn.

said the amendment was neither fair not feasible.

withdrew the amendment. He said that Mr. Kuhn spoke of scab being got rid of in two minutes. Why, then, was there so much scab in his district? If they wanted to get rid of scab in the country, they must take strict measures, especially as far as the careless farmer was concerned.

said they would perhaps all like to see more drastic amendments put into the Act, and they were at one with the member for Humansdorp in endeavouring to see scab eradicated; but they must realise that the Government were doing their best, and it was their duty to see that the measure was put through practically as it stood.

said it was not true to say that the measure was not going to eradicate scab; it was a much better measure than the scab legislation which had been in force in the Cape up to the present. He regretted the attitude taken up by Mr. Rademeyer. If a man could get his kraal prefectly clean in a fortnight’s time, why should his farm remain under quarantine for three months more? On the other hand, if a man had not cleaned his kraal three months after the disease was discovered, it was only right that the farm should still remain under quarantine

Mr. Aucamp’s amendment was negatived.

On clause 10,

moved: In line 66, to omit “tested and”.

moved: In line 65, to omit “the destruction of”.

These amendments were agreed to.

That the following be a new sub-section: “In every case where animals are destroyed under this Act, the owner, if he so desires, shall have the right to demand that parts of any animal so destroyed shall be sent to one of the Government Experimental Stations in order to be examined by experts, and a copy of the report shall be forwarded to the owner.” Farmers, he said, often doubted whether there really was any disease when animals were ordered to be destroyed.

thought the amendment a reasonable one.

considered that such an amendment was unnecessary, as all necessary tests were made at the Government laboratory if blood smear was sent on. The regulations provided for it.

The amendment was negatived.

moved the following new clause to follow clause 15: “For scab in sheep or goats, an Advisory Board, to consist of six members, to be appointed by the Minister, shall be appointed in each district, and every such Board shall at all times advise the Minister with regard to the administration of this Act in its district.” The hon. member spoke of the results of the Beaufort West Scab Congress in 1906 and the benefit of having a local Board, which knew of the conditions of the district. That would be preferable to having the Act administered from Parliament-street by a clerk, because local conditions varied greatly. Surely, he said, they could find six honourable men in every district to act as advisers.

said that he regretted that he could not come to the assistance of his hon. friend in that matter. If he accepted that amendment the result would be that the block system would be introduced into the country. One Advisory Board would say one thing, and another Board would say something else, so that the Government would be powerless to carry out one policy with regard to scab. It would really be in the interests of the farmers themselves not to adopt the proposal of the hon. member, because what they wanted to do was to eradicate the disease.

said that if the Government did not take the advice of such an Advisory Board difficulties would ensue. There would be no difficulties in the Transvaal, and he could not support Mr. Aucamp.

supported the proposal, and said he did not believe any of the evils predicted would flow from it.

said that the Advisory Boards would have nothing to do with the carrying out of that measure, but would merely have to give advice when special conditions arose in their districts. Were there not six honest and capable men in his district whom the Minister of Agriculture could trust to give advice on these matters? They must trust the people, and it would be no good to go in for autocratic methods. He was well aware that the Minister intended to do all he could for the people and to meet them. He had already met them, but on this matter of the local Advisory Boards he (Mr. Kuhn) must stand out, and he would heartily support Mr. Aucamp. The people wished to support the Minister, but did not want officials whose chief concern seemed to be to send farmers to gaol.

considered that such Boards would be superfluous, and he likened them to the fifth wheel of a wagon. He thought it would be impossible to call such a Board together in large districts such as Prieska to discuss particular cases of scab which had broken out. The Board would merely cause disruption and dissension.

said that the one reason why the Scab Act had not worked successfully in the Cape was because of a lack of co-operation. That proposal was a, step in the direction of more co-operation, and so he welcomed it. Why scab could be easily eradicated in one district, and not so easily in another was due to climatic conditions, and here the Advisory Boards came in, because they would take into account any special local conditions. If there were not more cooperation, he was sure that scab would continue for another 20 years, and autocratic methods would not do. The Cape had asked for these Boards for years. The Minister was going too far in his opposition to these bodies.

said that he was in a difficulty about the proposal, as he did not know what powers were asked for in regard to these Boards. What would be the use of these Boards coming together, deliberating, and advising the Government, if the Government refused to take their advice? If the Government did refuse to take the advice of these Boards, much friction would ensue, and if they did not have a certain status they would be of no use at all. He did not see that the proposal as it stood was of the slightest assistance to them.

referred to a former discussion on this subject in the Cape Assembly, when he took up the position, that the time had arrived for some radical change to be made in the direction of giving the control and administration of the Scab Act into the hands of local authorities. He attributed the failure of the Scab Act at that time to toe fact that the Act was being administered from Cape Town as what he called a police measure. (Hear, hear.) There was, however, no doubt that the Act had done a great deal of good for the country. (Hear, hear.) They did not hear much about scab in our wool now. Unfortunately, scab was widespread throughout the country, and the position was that toe careful farmer was never safe. He might keep his stock clean for a few years, but all of a sudden something would eventually arise to cause the infection to appear again. One cause of the failure was that from the very start they acted in the wrong way. Instead of teaching people what was required, they at once set about to compel toe people to do certain, things which the people never knew how to do. One of the chief causes of failure was the want of co-operation among the people. His view was that if they had these nominated Boards in different districts, they should have power to administer under the Government. It would become a disgrace for a man to have his name on the list of infected stock-owners. His next door neighbour’s stock might be infected with scab, and he would not know anything about it, but if they had this record the names would be there every month, and scab would be followed up.

said that there seemed to be a mistaken idea as to the Bill, especially on the part of the last speaker. The Advisory Boards were not wanted by the hon. members who had spoken in favour of it for the purpose of advising farmers, but for advising the Government. If they wanted to have this differentiation he would say, let each Province deal with the matter. But they did not want to do that, and they wanted to deal comprehensively with the disease throughout the Union. All the other Governments of South Africa seemed to have carried on the administration of the Scab Act without the assistance of Advisory Boards, and now the Union Government was asked to have these Boards. He did not think that was right. If the amendment were accepted he would rather take scab out of the Bill altogether. The Free State Act was far more stringent than the present Bill. The public would be assisted by their ordinary officials. Moreover, Government could always be appealed to. What were the Boards to do, then? He was prepared! to provide for local Commissions in the regulations, but these bodies would advise the farmers only—not the Government. He thought they would be creating a position which would lead to great difficulties if they agreed to that motion. Suppose that there was drought in a certain district, could not the Government get the advice of a thoroughly competent man, such as a local representative, Magistrate, or Field-cornet, as to what was the best course to pursue under the circumstances?

said the amendment would facilitate the working of the Act, because boards would make it popular. He thought that the Government, or rather the officials, should not be above being educated in such matters by local bodies. The latter could be so constituted as to command the confidence of both the people and the authorities. At present the Government relied entirely on their officials for advice, and the people felt cold shivers running down their spines whenever a new measure had to be put into operation

said the Act was very far from being improved by the amendment. If they wanted boards, they should define the powers and duties of those boards. What would be the relation between the board and the inspector? What would happen if their respective instructions clashed? It was said that Government would need advice, but they could get that from any farmer. The Bill was not a stringent one; it only protected those who did their duty.

said that, though not a cattle farmer himself, he represented a sheep district. Though he respected the wishes of his constituents, the interests of the country as a whole were necessarily paramount. Generally speaking, he was strongly in favour of local self-government, but he doubted very much whether the application of that principle in this particular case would lead to the eradication of scab. How could any Government be responsible for the carrying out of an Act if boards were to have the real power? Had they been able to entrust the entire responsibility to the boards, something might have been said in favour of the amendment, but if they wished to hold Government responsible, power should be given it to see the matter through. His constituents had sent him a telegram advocating local bodies, but it was impossible to divorce power from responsibility; yet that was what the amendment amounted to. It was said that Government could appoint the boards, but he considered such a course would be futile. In order to satisfy the people, such bodies would have to be chosen by the people. Unless Parliament dealt with the matter properly, it would be necessary to fall back on Provincial scab administration. This was not a threat—it was a mere statement of bare necessity. If, however, Provincial Councils were made responsible for the eradication of scab, they would revert to the conditions such as existed in the Cape prior to Union. The result of that would be that the Cape would lose its markets. He sympathised with the principle underlying the amendment, but felt it would not be in the interests of the country if it were carried.

said he was strongly opposed to the amendment, because he had had experience of local boards. In the Free State they had found that it was difficult to get the members together. He believed in a fairly stringent Act, carried out by sympathetic inspectors. Wherever an inspector showed that his desire was to assist the public, matters went on satisfactorily, but officials possessed by the persecuting mania caused universal dissatisfaction. On the other hand, no inspector, could afford to overlook too much, because some farmers would never report scab, and severity was needed to deal with such as those. In the eastern parts of the Union, farms as a rule were not large, and they were properly divided into fenced-off parts. It was easy to segregate sheep there. In the Northwest, however, measures of that description were practically impossible, and whenever scab showed itself, they would find that a Whole farm was infected. Local bodies would only lead to failure and dissatisfaction.

said that the local commissions in the Transvaal had nothing to do with either the officials or the law. They only went round among the farmers to advise them. He did not quite understand what was mount by the particular kind of board as proposed now. The Act and the regulations combined would prescribe all the measures to be taken, and no board would be able to alter those. If they wished to authorise boards to take action, why have a law at all? The amendment was an altogether impracticable one.

moved an amendment to the new clause to omit all the words after “for scab in sheep or goats” for the purpose of inserting the following: “The Government shall have power by regulations to provide for the appointment or removal of Advisory Bounds, and to lay down powers and duties of such bodies, provided that in no case shall such regulations be in conflict with the provisions of this Act.” He thought his amendment would meet the view not only of the hon. member for Hope Town (Mr. Aucamp), but also of the Prime Minister, who had stated that it was his intention to do something of this kind.

said that he sympathised with the hon. member, and he wished to point out to him that provision was made in a subsequent clause for the framing of all sorts of regulations.

said they were trying to water down the Bill by means of amendments. It should be made more stringent so as to come down on the obstinate farmer. Whoever had had experience of local boards in the Free State would not wish to re-introduce them.

said the amendment of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet nowise compelled Government to appoint boards. It merely authorised them to do so. In the Free State the boards were composed of practical sheep-farmers; they had administrative powers. At present, all that was proposed was to make it possible for advisory bodies to be appointed. There was no harm in that; on the contrary, purely advisory bodies could largely contribute towards making the Act a success, and he hoped the Prime Minister would take pity on the amendment.

said he hoped the Prime Minister would not accept any amendment. Once they began tinkering with the law, they might as well throw out the whole thing. He trusted that they would have a good stiff law admin stored by officials responsible, not to the farmers, but to the Government.

said that he admitted that if he had had to deal with the powers of the proposed boards in his proposal, the Chairman would have said that extra expenditure was involved, and so the motion would be ruled out of order. His intention was not that the Government should be educated in that regard, but certain of the officials, who badly needed it. What was wanted was more decentralisation. Cape Town could not effectively administer the Act without a buffer between the public and itself. He had left all details as to the boards to the Government, and he entrusted the fate of his amendment to the good sense of the committee.

said he hoped the Prime Minister would accept the advice given by Mr. King. This point had been thrashed out in committee, and he could not understand the attitude now taken up by the hon. members who were assisting the member for Hope Town in this attempt to destroy the work of the committee. He would like to know what the amendment of the member for Hope Town meant. For his own part, he considered that local boards were chiefly responsible for the failure of the Scab Act to rid this colony of scab. If they passed such a clause as was now proposed, they would have a tremendous outcry from certain districts for the appointment of local boards. In other districts there would be no such outcry, and the result would be that they would have two different systems of administration at work in the country. If they were to give these boards certain powers, it must necessarily follow that these inspectors would be under these boards. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Kuhn and other hon. members had mentioned cases of hardship in regard to the administration of the Act, but it seemed to him that their arguments told against the establishment of these boards. If these boards were to act individually, then they might as well Chuck the whole thing. They on that side of the House had been appealed’ to by hon. members on the other side to back them against their own Government. What they wanted to do was to see that the Government passed this Bill as it stood.

said the Government could fix the powers of the boards by regulation.

said that, the Advisory Boards could perform a good service in regard to the appointments of inspectors. He thought, however, that three persons were sufficient, and that a board need not consist of six. The amendment of the hon. member for Graaff Reinet was a fair one. Personally, he would have preferred dealing with scab in a separate Bill.

said that if the boards had to deal with applicants, they would not be in a better position to deal with them than the Government, because the applications would come in from all parts of the country.

withdrew his amendment. He desired to know if he could move it again in clause 23?

Notice must he given.

also withdrew his amendment.

In clause 16,

moved an amendment empowering the Minister to order all “land-owners”—instead of “persons”—to erect dipping tanks at their own expense. He also moved a proviso to the effect (that owners of adjoining farms, the combined size of which did not exceed 150 morgen, might erect one dipping tank for their joint use.

said he could not accept the (amendments. The first amendment was out of place because there was no definition of “land-owner” in the Bill. The second amendment was inadvisable because (the present Bill was not one in which they should go too closely into details regarding dipping tanks. They could do so when dealing with the special Bill on the subject.

withdrew his amendments.

asked what the Government would do in order to apply the clause in native locations?

said natives would have to pay 7 per cent, on loans granted in respect of the erection of dipping tanks.

thought this clause might give rise to some hardship to the tenant—(hear, hear)—as he might be obliged to build a dipping tank on someone else’s property.

said compensation was paid to the owners whose animals were destroyed in consequence of being infected with certain diseases. Why should not that principle apply in the case of East Coast fever? He moved the omission of the words providing that in the case of stock infected with East Coast fever no compensation should be payable.

moved: In line 19, sub-section (o), to omit “person,” and to substitute “owner,” and certain amendments in the Dutch version which do not occur in the English version.

Agreed to.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said he could not agree to paying compensation for the shooting of animals actually suffering from East Coast fever, because they were practically valueless. Of course, for healthy animals that were slaughtered, compensation was paid. That only occurred, however, where the disease broke out in isolated spots, and the destruction was undertaken in order to prevent it from spreading. The Government did not resort to slaughtering except where it was urgently necessary, so as to keep down the amount of the compensation paid.

On clause 17,

moved: In line 25, after “Minister” to omit “and” and to substitute “or”; and in line 30, after “restricts,” to insert “the Minister or”.

Agreed to.

On clause 18,

moved: In line 36, after “shall” to insert “except in the ease of compensation payable in respect of the loss of sheep caused by any dipping carried out by an officer.”

Agreed to.

On the motion of the MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE,

put the amendment in line 40, after “landowners” to omit “or” and to substitute “and”.

moved: after “landowners” to omit “or occupiers” and to substitute “in actual occupation.”

Agreed to.

On clause 21.

On the motion of Mr. J. A. VENTER (Wodehouse) the Chairman put the amendment in lines 74 and 75, to insert “if by the change or interference the disease is likely to be spread.”

moved, as an amendment to this amendment, to omit “likely.”

The amendment proposed by Mr. Venter was put and negatived.

On the motion of Mr. J. A. VENTER (Wodehouse) the Chairman put the proviso on page 12, lines 15 to 20.

moved: In line 19, to omit all words after “imprisonment” to the end of sub-section (1) and to substitute the following: “any fine imposed as aforesaid being recoverable in the same way as a sentence of a court of resident magistrate in a civil action.” He said it was going too far to impose drastic penalties for merely touching a fence without the officials’ permission. How could a man he taken to court for the “probable” spread of a disease as contemplated by the Bill? Altogether, he was opposed to imprisonment as a punishment for scab delinquencies. A man who had a couple of scabby sheep surely was not a criminal.

said that he could not accept the amendment. They were not always dealing with angels; and it was necessary that in some cases there should be punishment as provided for in the Bill. If a sufficient penalty were not provided, the measure would be a dead letter. They had not only to deal with Europeans, but a large native population, too. How were they to be compelled to pay up? Some people absolutely refused to co-operate. Similar provisions had worked well in the Free State and the Transvaal. The Magistrate could not impose a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine.

said that only if the fine was not, or could not, be paid would imprisonment be inflicted.

said that he could not help sympathising with Mr. Venter. The matter was a very serious one indeed, and he thought it would be much better to accept the amendment.

said that in his opinion it was not right that a man should be sent to prison for a contravention of that Act. He could not but support the amendment.

said that where a man deliberately allowed his scabby sheep to infect those of other farmers, and even to infect a whole district, he should be severely punished. It was not right that such a man should be allowed to escape scot free. No Magistrate would punish innocent people.

said that their legislation would be of no avail at all if they did not provide for imprisonment for contravention of the Act in the event of a fine not being paid, especially in districts where there was a large native population, who would scorn the whole Act if no severe penalty were provided. He asked the mover to withdraw his amendment.

said that severe penalties were necessary where they had to deal with natives, who often simply slaughtered their cattle if they became infected, instead of reporting an outbreak of the disease. He did not think that one European would be imprisoned as a result of the provisions of that Act.

said that some hon. members spoke as if that measure only applied to natives, but, as a matter of fact, it applied to all of them. It was dangerous to give such large powers to officials.

said he was quite satisfied with the clause as it was at present. The law was not only applicable to the native; it was applicable, as it should be, to all.

said that he would support the amendment. He hoped that the Minister of Agriculture would not think that they were opposing him, but he (Mr. Aucamp) was opposing the principles of the Bill.

said that the opposition originated with Cape members, who had been met as far as possible by the Select Committee. No whites would be imprisoned unless they richly deserved it. He opposed the amendment.

said that there had never been such an alternative in the Cape Act, and yet they had a large coloured and native population. If they did not have the people with them the measure could not be a success.

The amendment was put; the Chairman declaring that the “Noes” had it.

called for a division, but subsequently withdrew.

On clause 23, regulations,

moved as an amendment to add a subsection to the effect that the Governor-General shall have power to make regulations for the removal or appointment of Advisory Boards, and for laying down the powers and duties of such bodies.

said that it was impossible to accept such an amendment. He could not understand the opposition, because the penalties which had been imposed for contravention of the Scab Act in the Cape had, as a rule, beer, low. As to Advisory Boards, the matter had been discussed by the Select Committee, but they had been unable to conic to a decision. In the Transvaal they had successfully fought scab without those beards.

said that it seemed that when once a Bill had been referred to a Select Committee it was hopeless to get any amendments accepted in the House or to speak against certain provisions of the measure. An Advisory Board would be something on the same lines as the Railway Board. The amendment left the Government a perfectly free hand. It was the essence of fairness, yet the Government opposed it.

said that if the amendment were agreed to the Minister would have deputations every day asking for a board to be appointed in their particular district. He thought it would be better to withdraw the amendment. He did not like boards, because, although he might agree with the principle of local self-control, yet if they had these bodies they would only have to increase the number of secretaries and other officials. Every individual farmer could approach the Government.

said that it was not right to say that none of these amendments were agreed to because the Bill had been before a Select Committee. The real reason was that the House was against them. A certain number of Cape hon. members stood alone against that Bill, and they were playing with fire. For Heaven’s sake, let them be careful.

said that they were not children to be frightened with bogeys like that. If everything had to be thrashed out in Select Committee they might as well go home. The request for Advisor? Boards was a reasonable one; it was a bona fide request, and he would rather that Ministers should listen to their demands than to scare them.

said that his experience of local boards did not predispose him in their favour.

said that the discussion seemed to turn on Advisory Boards again, which he thought was finished with as he had withdrawn his motion dealing with that matter.

said that the Prime Minister agreed that co-operation was necessary between the department and the people. That was just meeting what he (Mr. Maasdorp) wanted, and he was pleased with the concession of the Prime Minister. Still, he thought the amendment would deal with the matter better. What they wanted to see was successful administration of a Scab Act. There should be no going back. He wanted to strengthen the Act. He would leave the amendment in the hands of the House.

Mr. Maasdorp’s amendment was negatived.

moved a new sub-section: “(b) prescribing the circumstances in which compensation shall be paid by the department in respect of loss of sheep caused by any dipping carried out by an officer, and prescribing also the amount of such compensation ”; and in line 63, after “thereof,” to insert “and for securing co-operation between officers and owners.”

Agreed to.

On the first schedule,

moved: In the fourth column “Extent of Repeal,” page 14, line 2, after “The whole ”, to insert “except in so far as penalties are provided for contraventions of any provision of a law not hereby repealed. ”

Agreed to.

On the second schedule,

said he thought they should increase the compensation in respect of animals dying of glanders; if they reduced the compensation, he thought it would be a penny-wise-pound-foolish policy. They would only get more claims for compensation.

said that if the compensation was paid on too high a scale, he thought that they would not stamp out the diseases.

objected to the sale of carcases and skins of infected cattle.

said the sale in question was allowed where the cattle suffered from tuberculosis. He explained that a higher amount was paid by way of compensation for lung-sick cattle, as compared with tuberculosis, because such lungsick cattle as were destroyed would be immunised specimens, or at any rate that was how they were looked upon by farmers

asked whether the compensation in regard to cattle suffering from tuberculosis could not be on the same scale as the compensation for cattle suffering from lung-sickness. Why should the former be only half the latter?

moved that in lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the scale of compensation under “East Coast fever,” to omit the word “maximum,” and after “compensation” to insert “one-quarter of valuation, not to exceed.” He said he thoroughly appreciated the remarks made by the Prime Minister that the Government had endeavoured to got a uniform scale, but they had not got it.

said that he could not accept the amendments.

that he would withdraw his amendments, but he regretted very much that the Prime Minister had not seen his way clear to increase the compensation for glanders. It would be economical to increase the compensation, and it was only by increasing it that they could hope to stamp out the disease. He was pretty certain that the Veterinary Department would back him up in what he had said.

The Bill, as amended, was reported, and consideration of the amendments was set down for Monday.

said: Perhaps the Minister of Finance will be able to tell us whether there is any possibility of this vote being reduced.

It is very difficult indeed to answer a general question of that kind. To which item does the hon. member refer?

said that he referred to what seemed to be heavy expenditure in connection with the clerical staff, and the question he wished to put to the Minister was whether there was any prospect of reducing that staff?

said that the item was examined very closely, and the committee was assured that the staff was necessary. No doubt economies would be effected in the future, but at present all were necessary.

said he did not want to hinder business, but he thought that this vote was excessive. It was not usual to refer to what took place in the Select Committee, but if he (Mr. Hull) was satisfied, he (Sir E. Walton) did not think that the rest of the committee were. He wanted the Treasurer to go into the vote, and see if it could not be reduced.

said that he did not refer to what took place in the committee; all he said was that the vote had been considered by the committee. He would deal with the matter in the recess.

said that that was not satisfactory. The Treasurer was trying to shirk the position which he took up in the committee, and throw the onus on those who had been members of the committee.

said he regarded the position as very unsatisfactory, because all these votes had been considered by the committee, and no reductions —serious reductions—had been made. If the policy of submitting estimates was going to mean that members of the committee were to be responsible for the Estimates as well as the members of the Government, then the sooner the policy was abandoned the better. If the Government were going to adopt the old attitude with motions for reductions, then the Budge) Committee was worse than useless. Members of the committee on that side of the House should not be made responsible for the Estimates together with the members of the Government.

said that he agreed with what had been said by the last speaker, but hardly thought that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth should take up the attitude he had done.

The vote was agreed to.

said that the committee should realise what it was doing. Considerable increases had been voted all round, and the committee should really study the position. The £1,200 granted to the President of the Senate was altogether too much for services rendered. He pointed out that the President of the old Legislative Council only got £500, and he thought the whole vote should be reduced by £850. He moved to reduce the amount by £700, being a reduction on the items under Vote 2a, as follows: “President” by £200, “Chairman of Committees” by £100, “Clerk-Assistant and Accountant” by £200, “Record Clerk, etc.,” by £100, “Assistant Committee Clerk and Translator” by £100.

said the salaries of the officers of the Senate were awarded by an Internal Arrangements Committee of the Senate, and were settled on a certain basis, being afterwards approved by the House of Assembly. If there was to he any reduction made they should, out of common courtesy to the Senate, pursue a different procedure, and have the matter re-submitted to the Senate.

said he had understood, when these salaries wore approved of, that they would be brought up again for reconsideration. It was not possible for the House to go into the details of these salaries; they must be dealt with as a whole. He was going to bring forward a motion on the Ministers’ salaries, because they were really at the head and front of these excessive salaries. That, he would suggest, was the right time to go into the whole thing.

said that they had been accused of not reducing the expenditure. Now, he wanted to throw the responsibility on the Minister. Here was one case of a Clerk assistant in the Senate getting £700 a year, and their own Clerk-assist ant, who did much more work, getting £600. The Minister of Finance had neglected the understanding which he left in the minds of the Select Committee, because they understood from him that certain action would be taken by him, and it had not been taken. The Minister had persuaded the Select Committee not to pass resolutions reducing these items, and to trust him to take action. Then the Minister met the committee Of the whole House, and no action was taken.

said that in regard to this particular instance he would like to say a word in defence of the Minister. The committee felt that it was most difficult to do anything in this matter this year, but it had given the head dearly to understand that it must be reduced next year The Minister quite agreed with the view the committee took with regard to the Senate establishment. He thought the Minister of Finance agreed with him that the Senate staff was overmanned. But this was a matter of extreme delicacy, for hitherto the Senate had always claimed the right that the Assembly did of passing the salaries of its own officers. The Assembly would not wish to get into conflict with the Senate. It had been left to the Minister of Finance to make representation to the Senate on the subject. It would not be wise to bring about an undesirable state of friction by moving reductions, but they should wait to see the effect of the delicate negotiations carried on by the (Minister of Finance. If that did not effect the purpose the House would do its duty next year.

said that it was all very well to talk about “next year,” but “next year” was very much like “tomorrow,” which never came. Now he agreed that the matter was a delicate one, but his object in bringing it forward was to bring home to the Senate and the Minister of Finance that in their (the House’s) opinion, considering the position of the finances of the country, these salaries should be reduced.

said that he most emphatically protested against the charge of shiftiness brought against him by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. Walton). The charge was wholly uncalled for. He was as anxious as any hon. member to see some of these heavy salaries reduced, but he was informed that there were three votes on the Estimates, namely, the vote of the Senate, the vote of the officials of this House, and the vote for Parliamentary expenses. These votes were fixed by the two Houses. He could not exercise the power he had in connection with other departments, and out down the expenditure with regard to the three votes. The House would not give him the power. The salaries of the staff of the Senate and of this House were pre pared by Government upon a certain scale, a scale very much lower than the scale laid down in these votes. But what happened? A committee of this House in creased the scale without any reference to the Government. The committee reported to the House, and the latter adopted the report. A committee of the Senate did the same thing. How in the face of all that could he interfere with these votes? He should be delighted, even now, to bring the salaries down, but he had no power, and he agreed that the matter was a very delicate one indeed.

thought it was undesirable to have the Minister of Finance as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. That position should be filled by another member from the Ministerial ranks. (Hear, hear.)

moved a reduction of the vote by £5,870. They could not possibly pay the Senators more than £250 before the end of the next financial year.

thought that the salary of the Clerk-assistant should be reduced by £100,

said they could not possibly accept the proposal of the hon. member for Cape Town. The Treasurer had to be prepared for any eventuality in regard to Parliament.

said suppose Parliament met in August and sat to the end of October, members would have only £100; that was all they could get. He thought the item should be left, as for all they knew the Ministry might take a fancy to repeat the November experiment. It might be wise to reconsider the mode in which hon. members were paid their allowances. (Cheers.) They might follow the New Zealand plan, which was to pay a monthly allowance and give 16 days of grace each session during which a member might be absent without incurring a deduction. He did not think that was a bad plan. After the explanations of the Minister of Finance it would be unnecessary to pursue the matter any further. It would not be respectful to the Senate to reduce the salaries by a stray vote in that House. The proper way would be to have a fresh meeting of the committee.

withdrew his amendment.

said that the report of the committee was laid on the table of the House, and he supposed that not two members of the House knew what was contained in the report. It would be unfortunate if there were friction with the Senate, and he hoped that the Treasurer would respectfully intimate to the Senate the view of the committee on the subject.

The vote was agreed to.

moved to reduce the amount by £400 from the sub-head, “Allowance to members.”

moved to reduce the allowances to members by £11,100, on the ground that the Minister could not spend more than £35,300 before March 31 under the present arrangement.

referred to the case of the Clerk of the Papers, and suggested that the Minister should consider the question of increasing that official’s salary. He drew a very small salary when compared with the corresponding official in the Senate.

moved a reduction of £1 on the vote to get an expression of opinion from members as to the procedure of the House. He referred to the Reply to the Address from the Throne in the House of Commons, and said that the Budget debate here was not on all fours. It appeared to him if they had a debate on the Address that so much time would not be wasted on the Budget. Their experience that session was unfortunate, a great deal of time having been wasted over discussions which led nowhere. They must be very careful that Parliament did not become a machine to register the legislative desires of Government. If the debate on the Address did occupy a fortnight, he thought that at the outset of its career the Union Parliament should cling very closely to any sort of constitution which gave Parliament an opportunity of fully discussing any matter of national policy.

said that whilst on the subject of wasting the time of the House he wished to point out that this House had not yet adopted its own rules. It had been acting under the rules of the old Cape House, and he thought hon. members of the House would agree that these rules could be improved upon.

withdrew his amendment.

Mr. Oosthuisen’s amendment was agreed to.

The vote, as amended to £54,415, was agreed to.

said that if the suggestion of the Hansard Committee were agreed to, then the vote would be reduced by £2,000.

pointed out that the committee’s report had not yet been adopted. Many hon. members were not satisfied with it.

said he had very strong opinions on the question of “Hansard,” and so, apparently, had other members too, but possibly they might not agree with his. (Laughter.) He had lived so long in Parliament that he was not quite so fond of “Hansard” as some hon. members were. (Laughter.) He thought some people if they found their speeches reported verbatim would be astonished. (Laughter.)

And grieved. (Renewed laughter.)

We might be grieved or we might be proud.

asked for an expression of opinion from a responsible Minister. If they were under a moral obligation to pray they should pay up.

desired to know, if the Government published an official “Hansard,” on which reports appearing in the newspapers it would be based? He wished the Minister of Finance to give an answer.

said that the time to consider the question of “Hansard” was when the report of the Select Committee on the subject was under consideration.

said that it would be wrong to base the official “Hansard” on newspaper reports, because of insufficient reports of some speeches. The hon. member for Edenburg had recently made an interesting speech which was reported as follows: “Mr. Grobler also supported the motion.” (Laughter.) A “Hansard” of that nature was not worth the expense.

The hon. member has asked that question three times, and he must give the Government an opportunity of answering. The question of “(Hansard” is not a question for the Government, but for the House. Here we have the report of the Select Committee on “Hansard” before us, and it must be dealt with to-morrow; and it is impossible for the Government to say what must be done. After the matter is dealt with, the House will come to a resolution on it. He moved that the head stand over.

It was agreed to allow the vote to stand over.

appealed to the Government to report progress.

moved to report progress. He wanted to bring up the question of Ministers’ salaries on this vote, and it was not fair to take the vote at such a late hour. He wished to assure the Ministers that the matter was not a personal one.

Agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave granted to sit again tomorrow.