from J. M. Bowker, who served under the Cape Government.

from G. E. Mandy, postmaster of Palmietfontein, Herschel.

from inhabitants of Hermanus and adjoining townships for construction of a railway to Hermanus.

from A. A. Dalziel, principal, St. Luke’s English Mission School, Swellendam.

from the Transvaal Native Association, praying for reduction of taxes, employment of native interpreters in Courts of justice, and amendment of the Pass and Squatters’ Laws.

from John Fourie, injured whilst employed on railway works at Uitenhage.

moved that the first and second reports of the Select Committee on Public Accounts (together with the evidence) be printed.

seconded.

Agreed to.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours when the details of his loan proposals would be laid on the table?

replied that they would possibly be ready in the course of the day. He would like to take that opportunity of saying that when the Loan Bill came up, in which provision was made to borrow certain moneys for railway purposes, it would be found that that would deal not only with the loan proposals, but also with the Betterment Fund, so that it would be seen exactly what was required in connection with capital expenditure. He proposed also to give the House detailed information as to how money was to be expended in regard to new lines.

replied to the fallowing question, asked by Mr. Steytler (Rouxville), on March 21: “(Whether, in accordance with a distinct statement by the Prime Minister of the late Orange River Colony in the Legislalative Assembly of that colony on the 2nd December, 1909, the Government intend, out of the fund established for that purpose, to grant relief to widows in the Orange Free State, whose husbands (a list of whom appears on pages 29 and 50 of the report of the Commission appointed by the Government of the late Orange River Colony for that purpose) died on commando or during imprisonment as prisoners of war?” The Minister said that the terms of reference to the Committee of Inquiry appointed by the late Orange River Colony Parliament did not include the recognition of such rights, and the Government did not think it desirable to reopen the matter at that stage.

brought up the third report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities. The committee recommended the award to Hester Fife, widow of Constable W. Fife, of £1 per month, July to December. 1911; to Mary Beck, widow of Sergeant John Beck, Cape Mounted Police, of £2 per month for twelve months; to J. Cooney, late messenger, Table Bay Harbour Board, of a pension of £3 per month, that the breaks in the following services be condoned, namely, S. G. Joubert, teacher; Helen Leonard, teacher; Alice Gray, postmistress. They were unable to recommend that the prayers of certain other petitions be entertained.

The report was set down for consideration on Monday.

moved for leave to introduce a Bill to amend Act No. 38 of 1905 of the Province of Natal in certain respects.

said he thought that the House was entitled to know whether that was a different form of the notice put on the order paper on Wednesday. He thought that some explanation was due. It might be true that no differentiation between European and coloured was proposed; but in the first form in which that matter had been proposed that differentiation was clear; and they did not know what the purpose of the Minister of Finance now was.

If my horn, friend had waited until leave was granted, he would have seen from the terms of the Bill precisely what the terms of the Bill are.

Leave was granted.

The Bill was read a first time, and the second reading set down for Monday.

moved that on the consideration of the Exchequer and Audit Bill in committee of the whole House, Standing Order No. 403, having reference to the amendments made in private Bills by Select Committees, shall apply.

seconded.

This was agreed to.

moved the following proviso at the end of clause 2: “Provided that no services upon which expenditure has not been incurred during the financial year ending March 51, 1911, or for which there is no statutory authority, shall be deemed to be authorised under this section.”

seconded.

This was agreed to.

moved the following new clause (to follow clause 2): “It shall further be lawful for the Minister of Finance to discharge out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund all sums required to pay off or retire any debentures or other similar obligations contracted previous to Union, in anticipation of the lawful provision to be made by Parliament in that behalf.”

seconded.

This was agreed to.

drew attention to the Miners’ Phthisis Bill, which, he said, was going further and further down the order paper; and it looked as if it were going to be “scrapped.” He wished an assurance from the Minister in charge of the Bill that no further delay would take place, as the matter was one of great urgency; and they did not like to see the Bill delayed until the end of the session, when they would be suddenly told that it would not be gone on with.

thought that the Minister should answer the question. A considerable number of men were dying of miners’ phthisis every day, and some provision should be made for compensation. He thought it would be a pity if the Bill were not passed that session.

It is not the intention of the Government to drop the Bill. (Cheers.) It is our intention to get it passed:. There may be some alteration to it, but the principle of giving compensation will be gone on with.

When?

replied that he could not say when.

said that they would like some more definite assurance whether the Bill would be proceeded with as a Government measure, and concluded before the end of the session.

I hope so. It is our intention to proceed with it. More I cannot say Mr. W. B. MADELEY (Springs) said that the assurance was not sufficiently definite. The Hon. the Minister (Mr. Sauer) said it was their intention to bring the Bill forward; but no one knew better than the Minister himself that, with the Government’s cast-iron majority, they could easily carry the Bill through the House that session. Men were dying every day.

The hon. member must not go into the merits of the Bill.

Sir, I only wish to point out that a man dying of phthisis now won’t come under the provisions of this Bill.

thought he had been misunderstood; some people never seemed to know when they were well off. It was the intention of the Government to pass this Miners’ Phthisis Bill if they could; more than that he could not say.

The Bill was thereupon read a third time.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that an additional expenditure of £5,000, which he proposed to add to the vote on agriculture, for material for the destruction of jointed cactus, be referred to the Select Committee on the Estimates.

Hear, hear.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

in moving the second reading of the Bill, said he hoped to have the support of the House in getting the Bill through as quickly as possible. All he was asking for was an amount of £2,000,000, so as to allow him to meet expenditure until the Estimates were passed. The money that he had wanted to expend was based upon the Estimates of last year.

said an important matter in connection with the railways was the inquiry into the Gaika Loop accident, where several people lost their lives. This accident, he believed, might have been avoided if proper precautions had been taken. The curve where the accident occurred was a very dangerous one, and its danger had been commented upon at the former inquiry held in 1904. These dangerous spots upon the railways could be easily identified, and should be periodically inspected. Another very dangerous spot was at Gleneve, where 41 lives were lost in 1896. The Minister proposed to attach indicators to railway engines, which would enable engine-drivers to know at what rate they were travelling; but something more than that must be done. They must make it impossible for the engine-driver to lose his head, and so endanger the train. Certainly, he thought that flat, vertical curves should be introduced, so as to prevent crowding all the train into the engine. A speed of thirty miles an hour was beyond the limit of safety at such places as the Gaika Loop and other dangerous parts, if the brakes were speedily applied. He wished to speak upon the item of betterment, £550,000. Out of this it was proposed in Natal to carry out a series of extensive and most expensive alterations to the Natal main line. One alteration brought forward meant the building of 30 miles of railway at a cost of £300,000. This would not end there, but it would commit the country to a further expenditure of a sum of £400,000, which must be, in the nature of it, part of the scheme. These stood together as forming a scheme for reducing the gradients of the railway from the coal-fields to Durban, making them 1 in 65. The total scheme, he believed, had been estimated to cost £700,000. It was not possible to spend this on rebuilding the main line without their drawing an equal amount of £700,000, which was already invested in the railways, it meant that the main line improvements would cost the country in new capital, and capital which would have to be sacrificed, £1,400,000. He contended that the expenditure would be such as was not contemplated by the South Africa Act without Parliamentary authority

said he would like to point out that the Estimates which were now before the House did not deal with the matter mentioned. The proper time for discussing a matter of that sort was when the Loan. Bill was before the House. It would come on in a day or two.

said that the Railway Grievances Commission, which the Minister of Railways promised some considerable time past, had not yet been appointed. He considered that the appointment of that Commission was an exceedingly urgent and important matter. He suggested to the Minister that it was really time that the Commission was appointed, and that he informed the House precisely as to its constitution.

The Bill was read a second time.

said that his main objection to the debate the other day was that anybody who opposed the proposals of the Government was branded as a traitor to his country, and he objected to that, because everybody in the House wanted to check abuses and to advance South Africa. He thought it was his duty to make what was had something less evil, and for that reason he wished to omit paragraph (b) of sub-section 2 of clause 6; and in sub-section (3) after “section” to add: “Provided that no such differentiation shall exceed in all such sum as shall make the total charges on such goods as aforesaid equal to the minimum charge from time to time payable on similar goods carried in ships owned or chartered by such persons with whom the Government may contract.” By that means, he said, certain power would be left in the hands of the Government to check abuses by combinations which might be detrimental to the interests of South Africa. His reason for moving the amendment was because he thought the rebate system, if checked and supervised, by giving the Government certain power, had very great advantages. Another ground for moving the amendment was that under the common law of South Africa the rebate system was not illegal, and therefore it was an interference with the rights of private persons to try to abolish something that was not illegal. The Minister of Finance, who seemed to be the bargainer-in-chief for the Government, had himself proposed in a letter he wrote to the Union-Castle Company that the Conference Lines should give a reduction in the rates of freight on maize and other South African produce, and that the Government should take the ordinary merchants’ rates, and at the same time should go in as an ordinary merchant. It was quite clear that Government six months ago considered the rebate system not a bad one as it stood, and was one to which the Government wished to be a party. But the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs denied any knowledge of that. That was a disgraceful admission to make, because the fact was set forth by a Minister of the Crown on behalf of the Government, and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was present at the interview at which the matter was discussed. Either the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs did not know what had been going on, or had been making some misleading statements to the House.

Perfectly right.

said the opponents of the Bill had been accused of offering nothing in place of the Government’s proposals, but he was suggesting to leave a very valuable weapon in the hands of the Government, and if Government used that weapon properly and with limitations, it would be a very good thing. As far as coastwise freights were concerned, he thought rebates might be disallowed, but he would not, under present circumstances, be a party to legislating against rebates in the homeward and outward freight market at present. He wished to limit the scope of Government’s right to differentiation because it might do more harm to the country than good. He wished to have lower freights—if possible—and to have them kept at a fair level. No serious evidence had been submitted to the House that the freights were excessive. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir Edgar Walton), speaking in the Cape Parliament in 1898, said he thought they owed a debt of gratitude to the shipping companies for what they had done in the conveyance of Colonial produce.

Hear, bear.

Not Mr. Walton—no, no. (Laughter.)

Yes. How in the face of that the hon. member can talk about scandalous and exorbitant rates beats my comprehension. He has also fulminated at some length about the increase in the rates to South Africa. A very careful computation has been made from the books of the Mall Company, and the deliberate finding from these books is that the rates to South Africa have been reduced between 16 and 17 per cent, in the last few years.

So they did.

The goods had not paid under the arrangement which was made, and the steps had to bear the whole of the 25 per cent.

Pure nonsense.

He did not think it was nonsense; they would find it reported in many places. All the overtime had also been paid by the ships, instead of half by the ships and half by the goods. The Government had taken no steps to ensure the same rates being paid by all, and he had, therefore, taken steps to do so. Unlimited differentiation would have the effect of breaking down regularity of sailings, and he could not see how any member of the House could be led away from the fact that the regularity of sailings was of the most vital importance to South Africa; all their exports demanded regularity—gold, diamonds, fruit, and ostrich feathers—and if they lost that regularity, he said that the Government were doing had business for South Africa. It had been stated by a reputable section of the press in England that there was a doubt in people’s minds whether the Government were not playing a game of poker with the Conference Lines; and if there was any truth in that the Government were leading the House into a most undignified position; and if they lost the game the Government must not be surprised if the people of South Africa came and asked them: to return what they had lost. Continuing, the hon. member asked how the Minister intended to meet the artificial lowering of freights in the case of some foreign ships? In a country like that, which was trying hard to encourage industries, it would not be doing a good thing to encourage dumping. Behind that was the whole difference between the British Government, which favoured Free-trade and no subsidies and other Governments.

said that he did not quite follow the statement which the hon. member was making. He asked him to repeat it.

I state, as a fact, that certain alterations appear in the Votes and Proceedings which were not adopted by the committee. How that was done I do not know.

You said how it was done.

I did not say so. I merely stated a fact. Knowing the officers of the House as I do, I do not impute—

I want the hon. member to make a definite statement as to the alteration which he says has been made. What clause is it?

The clause is clause 6. The hon. member repeated what he had said about his amendment, and the alterations which he alleged had been made in the Votes and Proceedings. Continuing, he said that he found that the words “as relieving,” instead “of his relieving” appeared. This entirely altered the sense. He certainly wanted an explanation of this matter. The Minister also rather unwisely challenged anybody to prove that he had made a misleading statement to the House. When the Minister read the evidence of a certain gentleman before the Industries Commission, in regard to the conveyance of mineral water from Cape Town to Durban, he failed to state that this gentleman had rectified the statement in the newspapers. So that the rates, instead of being £3 17s. 6d. per ton were only 17s. 6d. The Minister had also stated that the Conference lines had been used to throttle industries, and he mentioned the mealie industry. The rate of 10s. or 11s. 6d. per ton for the conveyance of mealies was a non-paying rate; but the Union-Castle Company adopted a 10s. rate on represent actions from Natal, and carried mealies at a loss, in order to encourage South African produce. The Minister never spoke about that. Then he gave misleading figures with regard to the passenger fares as between England and the Argentine, and England and South Africa. He for got to mention that there was a stipulation that labourers should come here at 20 per cent, reduction, which brought the fares to £8 8s., and compared very favourably with the Argentine rates.

said if the hon. member would refer to page 881, he would see that this sub-section 4 was moved in the committee of the whole House in the form on which it appeared in the Bill to-day. It might be that the Hon. Minister had not moved it in the manner that notice was given originally; but it was not incumbent on the Minister to do that. There was no foundation whatever for the suggestion of the hon. member.

said it was not fair to say that there was no foundation whatever—

Order, order.

But the foundation that he had in his mind was that he deliberately moved an amendment to the clause as put, and page 881 proved nothing further than that, after the proceedings of the House were printed, it appeared in the form that it now was.

It is a very serious matter for any hon. member to make an assertion that Ministers or officials have altered the notes of proceedings of the House. This is a most serious charge, and in my experience it has not been made before, that an amendment passed in committee has been altered. I will take the trouble to go into the matter with the Chairman of Committees.

said he quite agreed ‘with the Speaker. He could not conceive a more serious charge than that Ministers or officials had altered the proceedings of the House. He was sorry that the hon. member had made this statement, because he was sure it was false.

I rise to a point of order. Is a Minister or hon. member entitled to refer to the statements of another hon. member as false?

I didn’t quite catch what the Hon. Minister said. Will he repeat his remarks?

I said that the statement was incorrect, and in that sense is false.

What statement?

The statement that the proceedings have been altered. It is the first time that I have heard such a statement that the proceedings of the House could be altered by the Government or a member of the Government. There is absolutely no foundation for the statement.

I think the Hon. Minister is perfectly in order in making the remarks referred to. This matter occurred when I was not in the House, and the Chairman was in the chair. I am informed that there is not a shadow of doubt that the amendment was moved in the form it appeared in the Votes and Proceedings. Therefore the statement of the hon. member for Newlands is incorrect, and I must call upon the hon. member to withdraw his insinuation.

I will do that, sir, after you have conferred with the Chairman, as you intimated.

I must ask the hon. member to make no qualifications whatever.

Naturally, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw unqualifiedly, with your leave.

Does the hon. member move an amendment?

said that he moved his amendment, except the portion calling attention to this matter.

in seconding Mr. Struben’s amendment, said he had arrived at the conclusion that it was no use in this matter using any more arguments, or taking up the time of the House any further in attempting to get the amendment which the last speaker had placed before the House carried. The other night he ventured to reproach the Minister in charge of the Bill for having made one-sided statements, which did not fairly represent the facts to the House. He was proceeding to give instances in proof of his assertion, when he found that he was out of order. The hon. member who had spoken last had given certain instances. He (Mr. Quinn) had a number more of the same kind of thing, where statements made by the Minister were not qualified as they ought to have been. He referred more particularly to statements in regard to freights. When these had been looked into, a great many had been found to be wrong. He gave one the other night.

Which one?

If the Hon. the Minister will try to keep cool, I will tell him which one. The one which he gave the other night was one which he gave in connection with the importing of aerated waters, which was grossly misleading, and, in reply to the misleading statement, the only answer he had was that he had seen it in the paper. It was evidence given before a Commission. He came to the House with a report of evidence which he evidently had not checked.

Mineral waters?

Yes, and there are many more.

Name them.

What is the use of attempting to overtake things like that? Proceeding, Mr. Quinn said that the Minister had given freights which obtained at the very height of a freight war, when the shipping companies were at each other’s throats. Had he been as fair as he might have been, and told the House that this was the freight when the companies were at each other’s throats, trying to cut one another out, the statement would have had an opposite effect on the House. However, he (Mr. Quinn) was not going into that. The House was against him on this question. He was sorry that it was. He rose more particularly to remind the Minister of Railways about a promise he made to reply to a point which he had raised in regard to a cablegram from which the Minister quoted in the course of the debate the other night, the point being whether the Minister ought not to read the whole of the communication or lay it on the table of the House.

said he was not aware that, for the purposes of debate and the arguments advanced on this Bill, it would be any advantage to read the telegram, but it could not, in his opinion, he published without reference to the British Government. What he read really was a repetition of what was already known, that the British Postmaster-General expressed concurrence in the view which had been expressed by the Postmaster-General on a previous occasion. The other portion of it was not of any importance. He believed the leader of the Opposition had seen it, but he did not think it could be published without reference to the British Postmaster-General. For this reason he did not feel at liberty to lay the telegram on the table of the House. He must say he regretted it, because he was always anxious to give the House all the information in his power. There was no great secret in it. Some people seemed to know all about it. It was for the British Government to judge whether it should be published or not.

said he would be glad if the hon. member would correct him if he were wrong in What he was about to say. That telegram in its entirety had been shown to certain members of the Opposition. (Hear, hear.) He must say, when he heard that, it made a painful impression on his mind—that the people on that side of the House should be denied information which was freely given to members opposite. He did not think that that was the sort of way in which his hon. friend, particularly in the old days, conducted the business of the House, and he could easily imagine how in old times his hon. friend— than whom there was no greater master of Parliamentary usage in the House—would have insisted upon the rule of the House of Commons being obeyed in these questions, and that was that when a Minister quoted from a public document he was bound, unless there were something extremely detrimental, to lay it on the table of the House. He would Hike to correct the hon. member as to the correspondence that took place in 1889. The telegram to which the hon. member referred was not from the Postmaster-General; it was from the Secretary of the Post Office, and when the Postmaster-General heard of it he took the earliest steps—he was in a terrible fright—to correct the Secretary of the Post Office in that matter. Whether the Postmaster-General in England was responsible for it he (Mr. Merriman) did not know. He must say it had left a most painful impression on his mind that, after all the years he had been in the House, a telegram should be shown by the Government to members of the Opposition which members on that side were denied the right to see.

said he appreciated what the hon. member had said, and he was not unmindful when he deserved to be censured, but when the hon. member talked about his (Mr. Sauer’s) doing now what he would not have done before, he might tell his hon. friend that he was as innocent as the right hon. gentleman was about showing this telegram to anybody. He had not been in the habit of hunting with the hounds and running with the hare. That was not his wont, any more than it was his hon. friend’s, and he must say he was all the more disappointed, because he understood from his hon. friend that he entirely approved of the answer which he (Mr. Sauer) gave the other day when this matter was discussed. “Why he should now censure me,” Mr. Sauer proceeded, “for what I have not done, and, after having approved what I had done, I must say grieves me. There is nothing to hide as far as the Government is concerned, and I wish that I felt free to give the House this telegram, and I must say before now in an Administration in which my hon. friend and I were colleagues—I wish we sat together now—I know we have not laid on the table all the information in our possession—(A VOICE: “Hear, hear,” and laughter)—simply because there was nothing to conceal. The Government always carried on its business as it should.”

Did you quote then?

I did quote,

What occasion was that?

I do not remember the matter referred to, but I will look it up if my hon. friend desires.

Yes, do.

I will convince him that it has been done before. It is a thing which is frequently done in the House of Commons, Proceeding, he said that he did not know that it had been shown to the Opposition. He was not aware of it. If he had shown it to anybody he would have shown it to his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman).

said that he thought it would be of interest if the Minister of Railways would answer the question which he addressed to his colleague the Minister in charge of the Bill the other night as to what he believed to be the attitude of the Imperial authorities other than Post Office officials. What he wanted to know was what the Imperial authorities, who had charge of the foreign and Colonial affairs of the British Empire, had got to say on this matter. He asked for that information the other night, but the Minister in charge of the Bill did not think fit to reply.

said he would like to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill if the differentiation on the railways would be done by regulations?

said that he could not accept the amendment of his hon. friend the member for Newlands (Mr. Struben), as its effect would be to curtail the power of the Government in regard to differentiation at the Docks. In his opinion it would be quite unwise to accept the amendment. The hon. member had said that gross misstatements had been made, but the only case he mentioned was in regard to mineral waters. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Quinn) had also commented upon his (Sir David’s) reference to the freight on mineral waters. Well, he had taken his reference to the matter from the “Cape Times” report of the evidence given before the Industries Commission, and he had the figures verified. His hon. friend (Mr. Struben), and the hon. member for Troyeville as well, said that statements were put from one point of view, and that he (Sir David) did not give the other side of the question. He candidly admitted that he did not intend to give the other side of the question. The Conference Lines addressed a circular to hon. members of the House from their point of view, and did not put forward the other side of the question. No, they addressed the circulars to hon. members before he had moved the second reading. He delayed the introduction of the Bill, because he understood the Conference Lines were addressing an important communication to the Government. But instead of addressing a communication to the Government, they sent a circular to hon. members appealing to them from their (the Conference Lines) point of view. Then a long cable of which every member got a copy was sent setting forth the Conference Lines’ point of view. Did the hon. member think that he would be doing his duty in trying to represent the interests of the Conference Lines? He never intended to do that. So much for the gross misstatements to which the hon. member had referred. The amendment of his hon. friend would only embarrass the Government. In answer to the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin), he might say that the Imperial Government had been acquainted of what was before this House, and they did not take exception to it. He was very pleased to be able to say that. With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Mr. Searle), it would be difficult for him to state what would be the exact form of rebate, but the Government would regulate by regulations and meet contingencies as they arose from time to time. So far as the small man and the big man were concerned, it would be the object of the Government, when a new contract was made, to stipulate, if they could, that the charges should be the same for a small quantity as for a big quantity. The Government would endeavour to protect the interests of the small man. The Government considered the interests of the citizens of South Africa, and not the interests of a shipping combine. He hoped the House would reject the amendment, which was wholly unnecessary, and which would, if accepted, render the Bill unworkable.

The amendment was negatived.

moved to omit clause 119, and to substitute the following in lieu thereof: “119. Any claim against the Government which would if such claim had arisen against a subject within the Union of South Africa be the ground of an action in any competent court shall be cognisable by the said court whether such claim shall arise, or have arisen out of any contract entered into on behalf of the said Government or out of any wrong committed by any officer of the Said Government acting within the scope of his authority as such officer, provided that any such wrong caused by the fraud, theft, or any criminal conduct on the part of any such officer shall be deemed to have been caused within the scope of his authority.” He said that he wanted to refer to the liability of the Government in this big monopoly of theirs. It was very difficult to understand on what ground, other than historical, this non-liability of the Government, under the Post Office Bill, was based. They had very large corporations in this country; and had very large companies; they had large Municipal bodies and Divisional Councils, and all of them were liable in the same way as any ordinary person for loss or injury. On what ground, therefore, did the Government, which, after all, was the country, escape liability in paying compensation, because the Post Office belonged to the people of the country, and the servants of the Post Office were servants of the State? On what principle was it based? As he said, unless they looked at it from an historical point of view, it was very difficult to see on what ground this non-liability was based. They had made a great difference in the law in regard to the railways. The two great businesses of the Government were the railways and the Post Office and its branches. The Government was liable in respect of its railways, and could anybody explain to him why it should be liable upon its railways, and not liable in respect of its Post Office? Let him illustrate by an example of what he called the absurdity of the position with regard to the liability of the Government in respect of railways and not in respect of the Post Office. Hon. members knew that down at the bottom of Adderley-street they had got the Post Office and the railway station, within about 20 yards of each other. Supposing he sent a parcel to Kalk Bay by railway, and his hon. friend sent another through the Post Office, both concerns belonging to the Government. What would happen? (Both these packets were put into the train, and supposing the guard of the train, by some act of negligence, damaged has hon. friend’s packet, and also his, the result would be that he (Sir Henry) could claim compensation from the Minister of Railways, whereas his hon. friend could not claim compensation from the Post Office. If Government were liable for the transmission of goods by railway, it should be liable in the case of the transmission of goods by post, seeing that there was no greater danger in regard to postal matter than there was in regard to railway matter. In fact, it was the other way about. In his profession these claims, unfortunately, were brought before them.

Unfortunately. (Laughter.)

Unfortunately for the other people. Continuing, the hon. member said he could not remember that any material complaints had been made with regard to conveyance of postal matter. On what principle was an innocent man to be made to suffer because a postal official had been negligent in his duties?

seconded the amendment moved by Stir H. H. Juta

said there was no doubt a great deal to be said for the hon. member’s argument that the (Post Office should not be relieved from liability for the acts of its servants, whether negligent or fraudulent, seeing that the Government accepted liability for the acts of its servants in other departments. There was much to be said in principle for that, when they were discussing the thing theoretically; but the truth of the matter was that in this particular South Africa was governed, as he believed the whole world was governed, by a feeling of common-sense, as prevailing over the very best principles they might enunciate. Common-sense governed this, and that was why they found not only here, in regard to the South African States, but all over the world, the principle laid down in this Bill had been accepted. In the United Kingdom this liability was not accepted by the Government. His hon. friend had asked the House to adopt a liability which was not accepted, he believed, in any single country in the world. Well, there were very good reasons for this. His hon. friend had asked why they should distinguish between the Railway Department’s servants and the Post Office servants. Surely there was a very obvious distinction. In the one case—the case of the railway—they had a concern where effective control was comparatively easy. They carried things in bulk on the railway, and the Administration and their servants could control that (bulk comparatively easily. On the other side—in the case of the Post Office—they had millions and millions of parcels, carried in comparatively small bulk, and containing, no doubt, in many instances, articles of very great value. Well, if they were to render the Post Office liable (for the defaults of its servants, not only for (fraud but for negligence as well, the immediate answer the Government would (have to give to that would be: “Well, if we accept that liability, the service cannot be performed at the present rate.” It had been on the very basis of this non liability that the public got its cheap postage. Now the work of the department had to be carried on, owing to the pressure of the public, which required its business to be done promptly, with the utmost expedition, and under very difficult conditions. The slightest inadvertency on the part of an officer, which might be held to constitute negligence, might result in enormous loss, entirely out of proportion to the changes, the Government made for the service. Then, when they came to telegrams and cables, they got a condition of things which was even stronger against the acceptance of liability. In the case of cables, codes were frequently used, and the cable was liable to magnetic influence beyond the control of the operators. An error in a single letter might upset the whole sense of a coded message, and the result might be a very great loss. That was beyond the effective control and observation of the operators. Then, in the case of post offices and telegraph offices, this might eventuate in a multitude of petty claims, which could not possibly be verified by the department. He could illustrate by an abundance of instances how unfair it would be to make the Post Office liable. The hon. member (Sir H. Juta) had referred to the fact that claims for compensation were by no means so numerous in regard to the Post Office as in reference to the railways. Well, the reason for that was that at present, of course, everybody knew the Post Office was not liable. But, as soon as the Post Office gave way on this principle of liability, they would find they would be flooded; and, as far as the Sayings Bank was concerned, they would find that, instead of being careful about their books, and warrants, and so on, depositors would grow careless. As to the hon. member’s reference to the case of people falling into holes, if the hon. member looked at clause 84, be would see that the Post Office was responsible under such circumstances Concluding, he said that history was against the proposals of the hon. member and at the last International Telegraph Conference the principle of non-liability was again reiterated and confirmed.

said that the Hon. Minister had given them a very interesting reply, but he had omitted one very great point, if he would allow him to say so—the difference of the present conditions. They were now creating a monopoly, and they forced a man to send his diamonds, his gold, and his feathers by post; and they compelled a man to send them by a channel over which, as his hon. friend had said, they had no effective control, because there was such a difference between that and the railway. They dip have effective control over the railway, and presumably the hon. member meant that they had none over the Post Office. If, then, they declined to have the risks of a common carrier, it seemed to him to be most unfair. A slight negligence on the part of a postal official might cause an enormous loss. One might post a box of ostrich feathers at Some country post office, and from delay or negligence on the part of postal officials it might get lost in the post, it might lose the mail, and it might also lose the sales, so that a tremendous loss might take place in consequence. Well, they were going to exempt the Post Office —which was entering upon business totally foreign to a post office in every part of the world—from liability. It was not right; it was not fair. (Hear, hear.) Of course, they knew that Parliament could enact anything; could do anything, however arbitrary it might be; but still there should be a certain amount of common-sense and justice in what they did. If there was any loss there would be an outcry in the country which would be very prejudicial to the Government. Under the Convention of Rome it was forbidden to send articles like gold through the post, and here they did not only say that they might be sent by post, but they compelled a man to do so. He would like to have that question argued before any impartial Court in the world, as to the right and justice of carrying out a provision of that sort.

said that the Minister had said that the International Telegraph Conference had been against that thing, but could any person in the House talk of that Conference upon a question of that kind? They were not there to represent the Telegraph Conference or the Post Office, but to represent the people, and the people’s interests came first. (Hear, hear.) The only argument they had been met with the last time they had discussed that matter of liability was the original argument of the Minister that they were wasting time.

That’s not original.

It is—for him. (Laughter.) He went on to say that if the Postmaster-General was willing to pay compensation he could not do so under that measure; he could only give his deepest sympathy. (Laughter.) The Minister might say that one could insure against loss; but, to his (Mr. Brown’s) mind, not a single Court would give judgment in one’s favour if it were proved that the loss was due to gross negligence on the part of postal officials. Then a difference was made between the Railway and the Post Office Department, and although one might get compensation from the former, one might get a copy of the clause from the latter. (Laughter.) If a fire took place in a post office, and one’s feathers were burnt, what then? (An HON. MEMBER: “You can insure against that.”) Well, was the rate going to be reduced to meet the costs of the insurance?

said that neither the producer nor the exporter of diamonds, gold, or ostrich feathers would be in any way injured by the Bill as it now stood, because the business people who exported any of these commodities insured from the port in South Africa to their arrival in England. In the case of diamonds he knew that these went through the Post Office, and shippers insured them for all risks, and they got lower rates from the brokers in England by sending their goods through the Post Office than if they had sent them by the ordinary shipping companies. When diamonds were sent through the Post Office in England they were also insured, and the Post Office had no liability. If this amendment were accepted it would be forcing a liability upon the Post Office which people insured themselves against. Why should the hon. member seek to thrust upon the Post Office a liability for delays when the shipping companies did not hold themselves responsible for any delays?

said the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Colonel Harris) was thinking about the existing conditions, but it would be different when this Bill came into operation. An insurance company knew that it could recover from shipping companies if it could prove negligence, but it could not recover from the Government. Then with regard to the Savings Bank, this clause dealing with the non-liability of the Post Office with regard to the deposit books, would affect the poor man very heavily if anyone stole his book. The Minister seemed to think that they wanted to make the Savings Beak liable for every kind of forgery, but a bank was certainly not liable for every kind of forgery, they were only liable for the forging of a customer’s name. The principle that the Government could do no wrong was simply a legal fiction, and had been exploded long ago. Then he would like to refer to the great risk that was taken in the travelling post office. Had hon. members read of the occurrence at Gaika Loop? There it appeared that the lamp was upset, and was very promptly put out by the guard with a mail bag, but they had only to conceive of what might have happened to the mail if fire had broken out. He hoped the hon. member would press this amendment to a division.

said that at the present time the shippers of gold—and he supposed the same thing applied to ostrich feathers—insured their wares. The journey included part of the journey by railway, in the case of gold from Johannesburg to Cape Town. The shippers insured for a certain rate. He took it that the insurance companies in fixing the rate took cognisance of the fact that the railways were liable if through their negligence gold or ostrich feathers were lost. Now, under the Bill the Post Office would recognise no liability. It seemed to him more than probable that the insurance companies—during the part of the journey from Johannesburg to Cape Town, in the case of gold, there was no recourse against the railway in the event of gold being lost—would put up the rates of insurance. The same thing would apply in a greatly exaggerated form where ships were owned by the Union Government, belonging to the Post Office. The Minister had stated that the shippers of gold and ostrich feathers would not be put in any worse position by virtue of this Bill than they were in at present. Therefore, it seemed to him that the Minister must make up his mind, in the event of the insurance companies increasing their charges, either to deduct the amount of the extra charge or to take liability in respect of that portion of the journey as to which there was no liability recognised.

said that our Postal Department was part of the Postal Union, and if the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, were adopted, the whole of the responsibility for any oversea correspondence would be thrown upon the Government of this country.

said he thought the amendment in its present form went too far, but at the same time it seemed to him that on this point the Bill required amendment. He failed to see, if the Postmaster-General were not made by law responsible for loss, how he could make himself responsible for loss. If the Post Office were going to undertake the carriage of these articles by parcel post, which did not usually go by parcel post, they should take liability in regard to loss.

said that this matter of insurance seemed to him a very serious one. He certainly thought that certain specific things should be exempted from the law as to non-liability of the Post Office. The hon. member had net concluded his speech when

interposed, and said that, under the sessional rule, he must now adjourn the debate.

The debate was adjourned until Monday next.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said he wished to raise the question of Ministers’ salaries. He did so for two reasons. In the first place he objected to them as being excessive, and in the second place, he brought up the question this time because he thought the House was in a more economical mood than it was some months ago. The Public Accounts Committee had been twitted with not having been able to reduce officials’ salaries Well, he could answer that. The committee went through the votes, and the impression left upon it was how excessive some of the salaries were in the higher ranks, but it found it was impossible to cut down one or two salaries. It recognised that the salaries must be taken as a whole, end made co-ordinate, and that could only be done by the Government, who had all the information. In his opinion, and it was the opinion of others, it was the matter of the Ministers’ salaries that really set the pace in regard to the high salaries in the Service. Now, he held very strongly that it was impossible to have economical government in this country so long as they had one of the highest paid Ministries in the world. He only knew of two Ministries which were more highly paid—some of the Ministers in Great Britain and the Viceroy’s Councils in India. These were the only two sets of Ministries who were more highly paid than ours. He did not want to go into details—he had given them on a previous occasion—but he just wished to remind the committee that Great Britain herself, with her enormous expenditure, amounting this year, he noticed, to £180,000,000, had some Ministers who did not get as much as the Ministers in this country. He took the case of the Minister of Education. He administered £14,000,000 annually, and only got £2,000. The Minister of Agriculture got £2,000, and the President of the Board of Trade up to quite recently only drew £2,000. Now it had been raised, but we paid our Minister of Trade no less than £3,000, and he did not think that he was exaggerating at all when he said that that Minister had not an hour’s work per day to do in his office. Yet he was paid £3,000, and his private secretary drew something like £640 a year, and he did not think he was doing him an injustice when he said that his work did not average one hour per diem. In fact, they were going to the extent of paying private secretaries almost as much as Ministers got in Natal before Union. One private secretary got £800 a year, and many others got £600. He took the Ministers of the United States, which was perhaps the wealthiest country in the world. There they got £2,400. As he had said, no Ministry in the world, with the exception of the two he had mentioned, got more than ours. Besides such big salaries, the Ministers got free railway passes over the South African railways so long as they lived. From now onwards a Minister of the Crown in South Africa would get a free pass over 7,000 miles of railway. Of course, he knew there was an explanation to offer, and that was that, owing to the dual capital, Ministers had to live part of the year in Pretoria and the other part in Cape Town. Even allowing for that, he thought the salaries were too high. He considered that £2,500 was quite sufficient and would move that the Prime Minister’s salary be reduced by £500. He thought that £2,000 would be sufficient in ordinary circumstances if they had not the double capital question to consider. To his mind, it was impossible to have economical administration in this country unless the Ministers’ salaries were smaller. They could not expect Ministers to be able to reduce salaries and to force economy in the Service of the country unless they set the example. It was example they wanted, and so long as they had highly-paid Ministers, it was quite impossible for them to enforce economy. The Prime Minister had said on another occasion that his great object was to make the Union a success. He (Mr. Jagger) agreed with him; he believed that that was one of his greatest ambitions, but two essentials were necessary for the success of the Union. The first was that they must have good government, and the second was that they must have contentment amongst the people. They must have economical government. When they came into Union they led people to believe, and he himself believed, that they would have reduced expenditure. But they had not got it, and the expenditure was going up, and the Minister of Finance had hinted at fresh taxation. That would not mean contentment amongst the people.

Readjustment.

We have talk about an income tax and a land tax, but these would be entirely unnecessary if we had economical government. From the item Prime Minister, £4,000, he moved a reduction of £500. Concluding, the hon. member said that if Ministers started and reduced their salaries it would place them in a strong position in regard to economy of the Service. He would like to say that that was not a party move. He had brought it forward on his own initiative. It was a non-party move, and as such he commended it to the House.

said that, so far, he had avoided speaking on that subject, because naturally one avoided a question which might appear to have a personal aspect, and it was not in the least the personal point of view that weighed with him. He knew perfectly well that many Ministers made sacrifices by having to accept £3,000 a year; on their merits they were worth more; and to pay for the individual services rendered by Ministers they ought to get more. But that was not the principle on which the Government was or could be, carried on. The first point of all which had struck him was why should they pay for ten Ministers when they did not achieve the purpose for which the ten portfolios were created? Why were they all paid equally? They did not all render equal services. The principle of not paying all the Ministers equal salaries was observed in England, and he thought that that Parliament should lay down a rule that there were three or four positions which were so important to the country as to require that the men occupying them should be better paid than the others. Coming to the question of economy, there was a necessity for setting an example, as Mr. Jagger had raid. The greatest mistake for any of them to make was to suppose that by entering public life they were going to be compensated for the sacrifices they made. The second point which struck him was a very serious one: their position to-day in South Africa was due to gold and mineral development, and with that development they had set the pace—a pace which had never prevailed before; they had awakened an appetite, and they were satisfied with things in the early days which to-day looked like poverty The State must not put itself in that position and that condition of things could not last. The mining industry was not booming, but the conditions were booming conditions; the cost of living was too high, and luxuries were too great. If they were going to make that a big country, based on sound lines, they could not do it on the present scale of expenditure, and the present scale had got to come down. There was the writing on the wall, and they must take a lesson. The pace had been set, and they could not keep it up. They were all to blame. Continuing, he said that individual members gave up five months in the year for which they received £400, while Ministers, who gave up 12 months, received £3,000. Ministers had to make sacrifices, and did so; but unless the example of economy and sacrifice were set at the top it would be impossible to impose the proper conditions on all the others. They must set an example and preach by their example, not by their word.

said that one could not but regret that they had come back to the old question of Ministerial salaries, because the matter had been before the House already, and its feeling had been duly tested. Must they discuss this matter, of Ministers’ and members’ salaries every time? The matter should now be finished with, and he thought nothing would be gained by personalities. Although he could see that there was something to be said for discussing the matter in the first instance, there was more important work to be done now.

said that the subject was the most unpleasant and distasteful in the world, and he did not think one could complain of the tone of Mr. Jagger or Sir-Percy Fitzpatrick. There was no doubt, whatever, as his hon. friend on the back benches said, that there was a great deal of feeling in the country about that matter; that they had pitched the salaries of Ministers rather too high; and that if they wanted economy in this country they must begin at the top, and reduce these things down to what was the true and proper level. He would like to see this thing settled. He had thrown out the suggestion before, and he was sorry that it had not been taken up, that a committee consisting of members of both sides of the House should sit quietly and discuss the matter thoroughly, and bring up a report, which should be embodied in an Act of Parliament, so that they would not have that matter coming up for discussion time and again. As it was now, it was most distasteful. Some particular Minister might become unpopular, and a vote might be moved to reduce his salary, and might find favour with a majority of the House. He agreed entirely with what Sir Percy Fitzpatrick had said that the position of Ministers was not one of public gain. It was not what he was worth, because no one could measure it. What the attraction of Minister was was the ambition and the sense of power that he had That was the reward a Minister had in this and every other country. What the amount of money was had never been taken up, although, of course, there was a time, if they went back into the history of Parliamentary Government, when Ministers did make a profit out of their salaries, but that was long past, and now in every country of the world they found that the salaries were such as to enable them to keep up their position—and no more. Therefore, he hoped that the matter would be taken into consideration, and he would be glad to hear one of the Ministers move for a committee on the subject. It could be composed of members on both sides of the House, they could discuss the question quietly, and the decision could be embodied in an Act of Parliament. He took it that his hon. friends did not bring the matter forward to press it to a division, but simply to have the question ventilated. His strong opinion was that a committee should discuss not only the question of Ministers salaries, but the salaries of other high officials.

said that he had spoken on this matter before, and he would incur the odium of speaking again. (Hear, hear.) It was a most unpleasant matter—most un pleasant. He did not complain of the tone of the speeches; he thought they had been of the best possible tone and order. It was a most unpleasant matter, and his opinion was that Ministers should not be paid a penny piece, but should serve their country for the honour of the thing.

The rich men.

Oh!

I object to it.

said that the hon. member for Pretoria East had said that a false standard had been set up in South Africa. Unfortunately, that false standard had been accepted by a higher authority than that House. Continuing, he said that members of the old Cape Legislature were paid a very different sum of money to what they were paid at the present time. Let them consider the salaries of the Governors of South Africa. These were indications of the situation in South Africa. Ministers, he admitted, might have erred in selecting the salaries of one part of South Africa, and applying them to the whole of South Africa. If they erred in doing that there was the excuse that there was no comparison between the work the Transvaal Minister had to do before the Union, and the amount of work that the Union Minister had to do for a number of years. He did not mind Ministerial salaries being singled out for attack but he thought there should be a general attack all round. If they started with Ministers, let them go on with the salaries that were paid members of Parliament. (Opposition “Hear, hears.”) But they could do nothing with the Civil Service. It was the National Convention, and not the Government, that set the high standard, and they could not reduce the salaries of Civil Servants who were in the old service. He proceeded to read the clause in the Constitution dealing with the position of Civil Servants. He thought that hon. members should bear this point in mind when they talked about reducing salaries. The only way to economise would be to retrench. There was no other way; they had either to retrench and swell the pension roll, or allow these men to go on at the same salaries. He said that if an error had been made, it was made in the Constitution, Which increased the salary of the Governor-General, largely increased the salaries of members of Parliament, and entrenched the salaries of Civil Servants. Proceeding, he referred to the remarks made by the hon. member for Pretoria East, and the cost of living, and said that it could not be compared with the cost of living in Australia, England, or America. Let them take the case of the miner on the Witwatersrand, ‘and compare his wage with the wage drawn by the miner in Australia, and they would see the difference. He did not blame the miner on the Rand, because the circumstances, the style, and cost of living were entirely different to those which existed in Australia. Continuing, he said be considered that if reductions wore made, the end would be that they would find the country ruled by the power of money—a most lamentable situation. If Ministers had erred in connection with salaries, then they must entirely revise the whole position. But don’t let them single one branch out for attack, for the result would be that their authority would be undermined, and people would lose confidence in them and in the country. He and his colleagues would leave the matter in the hands and to the good sense of the members of the committee.

said he agreed with a great deal that had been said. He would say that if the authority of the highest officers of the Crown in South Africa was to be undermined, according to the statement of the hon. member for Pretoria West, it would not be due to the discussions that took place in the House, but to the general feeling in the country. He did not blame the Ministers more than themselves for the high salaries that were being paid. He said that in taking these high salaries they had set a standard which, in the opinion of the public, was far too high. What he wanted to put to the committee was this: He was one of those unfortunate persons who came into office in 1904. They had a time of unbounded prosperity. Advantage was taken of that prosperity by the Government in power to increase expenditure, and the Estimates were swollen to a considerable extent, until they had an expenditure for the Cape Province alone of 11½ millions. They had to deal with the situation, and they had to reduce expenditure by four millions in four years. None could have had a more tragic experience than they had, and they had almost to bring about a crisis in the country. The result was retrenchment, and that was what hit the people so very hard. What he feared was that they of the Union were following a course that would lead to the same position—it would inevitably lead them there. If this large expenditure was to be maintained they would have to cut down somewhere. The salaries they were paying were out of proportion to the services rendered or the salaries the country could afford. He did hope that Ministers would accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Victoria West. There was no personal feeling about the matter; they simply wanted to do the right thing. If the Ministry would ‘accept such a suggestion it would make a considerable difference so far as the people of the country were concerned. There would be more confidence in the country, and in the financial position. So far as Parliamentary salaries were concerned, they on that side were prepared for a reduction. He did think that Ministers should set an example to the rest of the country. He hoped that the committee would make a start in this first item, and that the Government would meet them in the matter, and agree to the suggestion of the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), and consent to a reconsideration of this question.

said it was absurd to compare the conditions at present prevailing in this country with those in other countries. He thought it would be useless to refer this matter to a committee. The public had become excited owing to misrepresentations, but when he explained matters his constituents were satisfied. It was necessary to keep Ministers independent, i.e., out of the clutches of the mines. American politics should not be quoted, because the Administration there was corrupt.

said he feared that if the matter were referred to la Commission it might mean that salaries would be doubled. He was opposed to high salaries, but was prepared to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, who had promised to economise. He regretted the way in which the matter had been brought forward.

said that the vote for agriculture was £712,000. Well, that looked big, but they found that of that amount no less than £430,000 was to be paid in salaries and transport. It seemed to him that they would have to make a beginning somewhere in the matter of reducing these salaries, and he did not see how they were to attack the salaries of officials if the Ministers were unwilling to have their own salaries touched. The object of moving the reductions was not so much a desire to reduce the Ministers’ salaries; it was rather to show that the Ministers were ready to begin with themselves before attacking the salaries of their subordinates.

said that they believed on that side of the House that if they paid small salaries to Ministers the result would be that they would only get rich men to take office or indifferent men who would be able to do little for the country. Now, he understood the National Convention fixed the salaries of the Civil Service, as well as the allowances to members. The Convention also fixed the two capitals. If hon. members were sincere in their desire to economise, their duty was first to reduce the expenses of the Ministers. Well, they all knew the expenses of Ministers were considerably increased by the fact that there were two capitals, and two sets of establishments were necessitated. Now, if they wished to reduce Ministers’ expenses, the best thing to do was to have one capital. And, of course, if it were at Bloemfontein it would be much cheaper than elsewhere. (Laughter.)

said that that unpleasant matter was fully discussed in that House a few weeks ago— (cheers)—and he had hoped that it would be allowed to rest until next session. A comparison had been made between the salaries of Ministers in England and here. But we had no leisured classes here as they had in England, where Ministers drew very large salaries, and, in addition, some of them had official residences which were worth large sums. The Ministers in England made no sacrifices at all, but a great many of the members of the South African Cabinet were making very large sacrifices indeed. The office of a Minister was not a permanent one, and it was desirable that members of the Cabinet should be able to maintain their positions. In these days, for instance, motor-cars were a necessity —(hear, hear, and cries of dissent)—while living in this country was very expensive. If they drew an invidious distinction between members of the Ministry they must draw a similar distinction between members of Parliament, because some hon. members were worth considerably more than £400 a year, and some considerably less, especially those who took up the time of the House so much. (Laughter and cheers.) He thought the matter might; now be allowed to drop. (Hear, hear.)

said the subject was of importance to the whole of the people of the Union, and the representatives of the people had a perfect right to express their opinions on the subject. If anybody had introduced the personal element into the debate it was the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Fichardt). It had been said that Ministers gave their whole services to the State, but surely Ministers did that before Union, and they did that in the Cape for £1,500. If it were insinuated that because only £1,500 were paid the Ministers were second-rate men, he would point out that three of the principal members of the Union Cabinet drew only that sum. (Opposition cheers.) They drew that sum, not because it was considered that the emoluments were sufficient for the services Ministers rendered, but because, as Mr. Merriman had pointed out, they were prepared to sacrifice a certain amount of personal pecuniary consideration in the general interests of the State. He was perfectly prepared to accept the committee suggested by Mr. Merriman. Ministers were themselves to blame for the question cropping up, because they refused to bring in a Bill fixing their salaries. He hoped the matter would be treated in an entirely non-party spirit. As the amount of work done by the Ministers varied, perhaps a distinction could be drawn in the amount of the emoluments they received. (Hear, hear.)

said if the question were referred to a committee the question of the dual capital would be certain to come up. (Cheers ) And in some parts of the country they were not enamoured of the dual capital system. (Hear, hear.)

said he did not recognise that there was any danger to the dual capital system from his motion. He agreed that the motion was an unpleasant one, but he did not bring it forward to please himself. Members’ allowances and Ministers’ salaries were entirely out of proportion; he did not know of any country where the disproportion was so great. As regarded the salaries of the Service, he was well aware that the members who were in the Service at the time of the Union could not be reduced, but other appointments were made from time to time, and While this lasted they were going to appoint them on the same basis as they had done up to the present time. They did not, want that. As regarded the salaries of Governors, there, again, there was no proportion between the salaries paid to Governors and the salaries paid to Ministers. It had been said that there was probably no part of the world that was as dear as this. He had been in the United States. The cost of living in Washington was, he found, dearer than it was in Pretoria. The cost in the United States generally was higher than it was in this country. It was said that if they reduced the salaries they would hand over the Government to the rich men. His answer was, that they paid £1,500 to the Government in the Cape Colony, and that they had had some of the best men in South Africa as Ministers, and men of the utmost independence.

said that the hon. member had said that the cost, of living was higher in Australia than here.

(interposing) said that he had not referred to the cost of living in Australia. (Hear, hear.)

said that he had taken a shorthand note—(hear, hear)—but he accepted the hon. member’s statement. He had Jived in three of the capitals in Australia, and he knew something of the cost of living. If the Australian ministers were entitled to £1,500, then the Ministers here were entitled to £4,500, taking the cost of living and other costs as well. He took it that the word “economy,” in connection with Government, did not mean spending as little money as possible, but getting the best return for what they did spend. He had travelled about the country a good deal, and spoken at a good many meetings since Union, and he had never heard an objection raised to the salaries of Ministers. He did not think there was a single working-men’s organisation that did not approve of the salaries.

said it struck him, as an unfortunate thing that when the National Convention fixed the number of portfolios, they did not fix the salaries of Ministers. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, he did not think the salaries as they had been fixed were too high.

The amendment was negatived.

urged that in view of the congestion of the order paper, it was extremely desirable that the Government should, at the beginning of the session, give the House an opportunity of discussing the main items of their policy. He also thought they should adopt the procedure of publishing important Bills some time before they were introduced into the House. They had had 46 Bills introduced into that House, and he believed Ministers were living in hopes of bringing in a few more. A good number of the Bills had been introduced with only a few days’ notice.

said he wished to support the hon. member for Denver (Dr. MACAULAY). Many important Bills had been discussed and passed before the people in the backveld knew anything about them. Bills had been passed, and his constituents had not had an opportunity of advising him upon them.

said that be associated himself with the remarks made by the last two speakers, especially with regard to the publication of Bills which were to be brought before the House. In some cases Bills were introduced and read a first time before they were put into the hands of hon. members. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs introduced important clauses into the Post Office Bill, and they were never laid before the country. He associated himself with the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) in regard to the Government giving hon. members an opportunity of discussing general affairs at the beginning of the session.

asked the Prime Minister to indicate which measures on the agenda paper were going to be taken this session.

supported the last speaker, and said he thought the Government would do well to consider the advisability of introducing the practice of having a debate on the Address.

asked the Prime Minister to state when the Government intended to get beyond the second reading stage of the Miners Phthisis Bill? He did not want the Bill to be left over until the last moment. He also wanted to know whether it was going to be passed in its present form.

said that the Bills which figured on the order paper had certainly not been placed there for the fun of the thing. Government was hopeful of getting these Bills through. (Opposition laughter.) The Government certainly hoped to do so, and hoped that hon. members would give them every assistance in getting these measures through as speedily as possible. It was impossible to say which Bills they did not think of importance, because the Government considered that all these Bills were Of the greatest importance. (Laughter.) If they were not of that opinion they would not have placed them on the order paper. With reference to what Mr. Creswell had asked: as to the intention of the Government with regard to the Miners’ Phthisis Bill, he could only give the same answer, The Government would earnestly endeavour to get the Bill passed, and if time allowed, it was their intention to go on with all these Bills. Dealing with Dr. Macaulay’s question, he said it was difficult to give a definite assurance, but he was personally in favour of publishing the text of Bills as early in the session as possible—(hear, hear)—(but during the present session it had been absolutely impossible to do that; and hon. members would admit that. They had just had the general election; and then they had the opening of (Parliament by Royalty, and the removal of the Government from Pretoria to Cape Town for the session. In forthcoming sessions matters might crop up which necessitated immediate legislation, but the Government was in favour of publishing the text of Bills at as early a stage in the session as possible.

said that did not cover the point that he wanted to get at. What was done had been done because the Government did not take the country into its confidence.

The vote was agreed to.

hoped that the Government would take measures to supply proper statistics relating to agricultural production. As matters were now, it was very difficult to see the trend of trade, and it was of great importance that there should be proper statistics.

said that there were agricultural societies which suffered greatly from lack of funds, and so the shows had suffered too. He had one society in particular in mind, and that was the one at Bloemfontein, which served a very useful purpose. Yet, owing to lack of funds, there had been insufficient accommodation for the exhibits, and he hoped that if the Government could do so, it would give additional assistance to the societies of the bigger towns, such as Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Durban, Pretoria, and Bloemfontein, as these big shows served a most useful purpose.

supported the hon. member, and desired so know the exact amount which the Government was giving to the Bloemfontein Society. He hoped that next year Parliament would adjourn for a week, so as to enable hon. members to visit the Bloemfontein Show. This year it had been a really excellent show, and they should make it the great central show of South Africa.

And make Bloemfontein the capital. (Laughter.)

I am not asking for that.

asked if the Government were prepared to accept the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee with regard to the policy to be pursued in connection with the disposal of the steam ploughs in Natal, on the working of which there had been a loss?

said the steam ploughs should be sent to the Western Province for experimental purposes, under farmers’ guarantees. He supported the request of Mr. Jagger in regard to more agricultural statistics being required, especially in regard to grain. He thought the Government would do well during the recess to see whether the Adulteration Act in connection with wine and brandy could not be applied over the whole of the Union. He also desired the Government to take steps to see that the importation of acetic acid, or vinegar essences or extracts, were combated, so as to encourage the manufacture of South African vinegar. They should not encourage bastard industries if the latter killed genuine local production. Wine vinegar was more wholesome than other varieties, and viticulture would derive great benefit from this auxiliary industry.

said he was one of those who took very strong exception to the purchase of steam ploughs by Natal. The ploughs, however, had been of the utmost service to farmers, and it would be a great loss to them if the ploughs were sold, as had been suggested. Farmers had to pay £5 10s. a day for the hire of these ploughs, the cost working out at 22s. 6d. an acre. Other machines had been purchased without any authority by anybody, and these machines had arrived in Natal since the commencement of Union. The Hon. Mr. Deane also purchased other agricultural machines without the authority of the Natal Parliament.

said that there had been serious complaints about the poison which was furnished by the Government for the extermination of pests, and he hoped that a better duality would in future be provided, even if they paid more for it.

agreed with the hon. member. If these pests were not exterminated, he said, they should not allow their cattle to run about free. Same of the poison (furnished was not powerful enough to kill a man. (Laughter.)

asked for (particulars about the S.P.C.A. grant.

urged that the best thing the Government could do with the steam ploughs imported into Natal was to sell them as soon as possible. He did not think the Prime Minister was likely to get a balance between revenue and expenditure on these ploughs.

regretted that the vote for the administration of the Wine, Brandy, and Whisky Act should have been reduced.

said that there appeared to be an omission from these Estimates of any direct provision for the encouragement of horse-breeding, except what was contained in the prizes and grants to agricultural shows and associations. He thought the question of horse-breeding was of great importance in this country, more especially as they were about to enter upon a scheme of defence. They had the nucleus of a fund for this purpose in the amount expected to be received as tax levied on the totalisator in the Transvaal. He would suggest that prizes at shows should be offered for stallions, mares, and young stock, and that prizes should also be offered at country race meetings, as was done in France. They ought to be in a position to supply their own requirements, and in the second place he saw no reason, if a scheme were properly worked out, why they should not be in a position to supply horses to other parts of the Empire. He suggested that the Government should take the matter into consideration and formulate a scheme on the lines he had suggested. If necessary, a Board could be appointed to have direct control of the matter, as was done in England and other countries. As regarded funds, they had £15,000 which they took from horseflesh, so to speak. That sum was the amount of profit from the totalisator, and it should be the nucleus of a fund towards encouraging horse-breeding. There was a distinct understanding when the Totalisator Bill was passed by the Transvaal Parliament that something of that sort would be done. He thought steps should be taken to apply the fund to the encouragement of horse-breeding. He did not move anything, but simply commended the matter to the Prime Minister, and hoped that some scheme would be formulated.

said that he had been requested by certain people of Vryheid, with regard to steam ploughs, to ask whether the terms could not be reduced, because it was considered that the terms were at present too high, and that that was the reason why these steam ploughs were not more used. If it rained, the ploughs did not work, but payment had to be made just the same. It should be based on results. The poorer farmers found that it was difficult for them to pay for the transport of these steam ploughs, and he hoped that the Government would meet them, and see that the terms of the contract were a Battle more reasonable.

said he would like to see the Government encourage the breeding of mules. Could the Government not send a couple of experts to select a number of suitable animals, and bring them to this country from Spain? The Government could obtain better donkey stallions than farmers could.

said that if the ploughs were kept in constant employ there would no doubt be a difference in the figures. However willing they might be to assist agriculture, he thought these ploughs should pay their way. He agreed with the hon. member for Germiston that action should be taken to encourage horse-breeding, and that the £15,000 mentioned should be earmarked for a scientific horse-breeding scheme.

asked for a statement in regard to the reorganisation of the Agricultural Department. The scientific branch, to some extent at all events, had been subordinated to the administrative branch.

attributed the decline in horse-breeding in the Cape to the fact that the totalisator was not allowed in the Cape. (Hear, hear.) Government might take into consideration the legalisation of the totalisator in the Cape as in the other Provinces of the Union. (Cries of “No,” and “Yes.”)

said that no one felt more strongly about the desirability of agricultural statistics than he did, and it was the idea to adopt the Transvaal plan throughout South Africa. A beginning had been made in a small way; and if it worked well no doubt the amount on the Estimates would be increased in future. As to the centralisation of shows in four or five big towns, he admitted that it was very desirable, but the present was not the best time for doing it. The pride and views of other people had also to be considered who did not have an opportunity of visiting the big shows, and so had to have their own little shows. (Hear, hear.) Dealing with the Natal steam ploughs, he had said some time ago that it was the intention of the Government to dispose of the ploughs, but they could not do so in a hurry, because then they would not obtain the best prices. The Government thought it would be better to sell them to co-operative societies on reasonable terms. At present there was a loss on them, but he did not see how that could be avoided owing to the condition in which Natal found itself owing to the ravages of cattle disease. In such circumstances they must come to the assistance of the people, and if he had been in the place of the Natal Government he would have acted in the same way as it had done, for the ploughs had been of great use. Every farmer paid £5 10s. a day for the use of these ploughs, which would pay for them; but where losses were incurred was when the weather prevented work, or when the ploughs broke down, and so were idle for some days. Transport of heavy machinery such as that was expensive, and they could not go far from the railway line. Replying to Dr. De Jager, he said that they had many Bills on the order paper, and it was not the intention of the Government to add to their number. Nothing could, therefore, be done that session in the way the hon. member desired. As to poison for jackals, he thought that a good quality was furnished, but probably the jackals alluded to by Mr. De Beer had become “salted.” (Laughter.) As to what Mr. Chaplin said, the Government was doing all it could in regard to the breeding of a good class of horses and mules. He thought it was better, however, for the Government not to give prizes, or contribute in that direction, for horse races; but he certainly agreed that it should support the breeding of a good class of animal by assisting shows. With regard to Catalonian jacks, he said that farmers were being asked what their requirements were. A veterinary surgeon would be sent to Spain to see which were the best animals which could be sent out to South Africa. In reply to Mr. Blaine, he did not think that the experts should be the administrative section of the Agricultural Department. The administrative section should be the permanent officials at the head of the department, while the experts should go about the country educating the farmers. The S.P.C.A. had done good work for many years.

said he thought the sound policy would be to get rid of the ploughs, even if there were a lose.

said that in his part of the Country the ploughs had worked out at 10s., instead of 30s., an acre. Land in Natal that would otherwise lie idle was being worked.

appealed to the Prime Minister to report progress.

asked how many votes he expected to finish that night, and pointed out the importance of the subject of East Coast fever.

said that members had already approached him about getting home, so he wished to push on business as fast as possible, and discuss important business only.

moved: On p. 30, B 4, after “slaughtered,” to insert “including expenses of Boards in connection therewith,” and to insert the following item under B. 6, transferred from T 2 on page 44, viz.: “Allowances to Field-cornets and others in connection with investigation of Animal Diseases,” £2,500.

moved: To reduce the amount by £200 † from the item “Principal Veterinary Surgeon, £1,200,” in order to obtain from the Government an expression of opinion of policy. He contended that the policy had not been consistent or satisfactory. He described the policy /as one of fencing, of shooting, and of leaving dipping to the people of the country. The fencing of immense areas, he thought, had been found unsatisfactory, and meant money thrown away. It was a pity that Government had taken such a long time to find out that the fencing of large areas was a mistake. He was glad to know that Government would not go in on a large scale † or the shooting of cattle; if that had been attempted in the Transkei it would have brought about tremendous difficulties. Dr. Theiler had urged frequent dipping, but in order to do that dipping tanks were necessary, and in that matter Government had been remiss. Natal had fought East Coast fever by constant dipping, but the people did this themselves, the Natal Government rendering no assistance. However, he was not blaming the Union Government, which appeared to have been † feeling its way. Unfortunately, though, valuable time had been lost. He did not know why the Prime Minister had non the courage to introduce a Compulsory Dipping Bill. At the same time he agreed that the people should not leave everything to Government; but in the Transkei the natives had spent money on the construction of dipping tanks. There was a difficulty, however, in obtaining sufficient dipping supervisors.

said he had the greatest respect for the last speaker, but if he had la little more experience he would not have made the speech he had. (Cheers.) He (Major Wiltshire) had lived for three years in a district of Natal which was infested with East Coast fever. So successful were the efforts of the people in that district to combat the disease that they received the public thanks of their neighbours. He agreed with the hon. member that dipping was about the only successful treatment they had at present. That dealt with the disease only in this way, that it prevented the insect which carried it from spreading the disease from one animal to another, but it did not cure the animal. The erection of fencing certainly was useful, and certainly did help to keep back the disease. But they could not control the movements of the natives. One of the methods of dealing with the matter would be to restrict the movements of the natives, and prevent them † from rambling about. They never knew where the disease was. The Prime Minister was thoroughly acquainted with the position of affairs, and he believed that the conduct of the business was quite safe in his hands.

The amendments proposed by the Minister of Agriculture were agreed to.

said that within the last week or two the disease had broken out in the Umtata district, and the people there were in a great state of excitement about the necessary regulations. He feared that during the last ten days hundreds of cattle, if not thousands, had, notwithstanding the Proclamation, been removed from the district. The policy suggested by the people in the district was that the place where the outbreak occurred should have been isolated, but not the whole district, and then the natives would not have got frightened. He cordially endorsed what the Minister of Native Affairs said the previous day. There was no unrest amongst the natives, and there was no fear of a rising. They were cordially co-operating with the Government in the Transkei. Of course, they felt the loss of their cattle; they might shed tears, even, but he did not believe that there had been any desire to show hostility to the Government because of the necessity of shooting their cattle. The condition of affairs at Umtata was, of course, very, very grave indeed. At the present time the supplies were very low; the prices of goods had gone up to famine prices. Umtata was almost in a state of siege.

said he was sorry the right hon. gentleman had not reported progress or allowed the vote to stand over. When he considered that they had a million and a half head of cattle in the Transkei, and that the loss of these cattle would mean a loss of £10,000,000 to the country, he was surprised at the small attendance of farming representatives. He hoped that later, when they got an opportunity of discussing this important question, the attendance would be larger.

agreed. Here they were discussing the most important plague they had ever had in South Africa, and the hon. members who represented the farming community—where were they?

appealed to the Prime Minister to say how long the sitting would last.

The motion for the reduction was negatived.

said a large number of members on the Opposition side of the House sat perfectly silent the whole of the previous afternoon when the Stock Diseases Bill was before the House, because they wanted to see the Bill through in the interests of the country, and it did not come well from the Prime Minister when the important matter of East Coast fever was under consideration to say that they might have discussed it yesterday. The Prime Minister did not realise how many of them were deeply interested in the condition of affairs in the Transkei. It was a monstrous thing, and he had never known important Estimates like that to be taken so late. He wanted to know what the policy of the Government was, because the Government had not explained its policy so far as concerned East Coast fever in the Transkei. The House had a statement regarding the Transkei from the Minister of Native Affairs yesterday, but let them look at the condition of Umtata itself. In the past a garrison always had been kept there. At the present moment the garrison was far less than he had ever known it to be. This was not the time to reduce garrisons. The thing was to have sufficient strength there, but the garrison had been reduced. What means did Government intend to take to prevent a condition of affairs which might become very serious indeed?

said that he must only say that he exceedingly regretted the unfriendly tone of Colonel Crewe, the only hon. member who had adopted such an unfriendly tone that evening. Mr. Schreiner found fault with the Government, and he also regretted that, because if hon. members came to the assistance of the Government, instead of finding fault, it would be of some use, and they might stop the progress of the disease. Colonel Crewe seemed to convey the idea that the garrison had been reduced, and that there was unrest amongst the natives. Well, he thought that was wrong. Then Mr. Schreiner had asked, what was the policy of the Government? It was not correct to say that the only policy of the Government was to fence and to destroy cattle. He could refer his hon. friend to the whole administration of the Government in combating East Coast fever in the Transvaal, where they had had more experience of East Coast fever than in any other part of South Africa. They had dealt with the disease there for eight years, and they had combated it successfully, without having recourse to dipping. How had they then set to work? By wire fencing, and by strictly quarantining every farm where the disease had broken out. The restrictions had been very severe, but the measures had been attended with great success. The disease had spread through the whole district of Pretoria, and yet they were now farming there with healthy cattle. But there they had had the hearty co-operation of legislators and local authorities, instead of fault being found with the Government. By finding fault with the Government, one gave the impression that the Government was the body which was really responsible for spreading the disease; and they must not let that impression go about amongst the people. Unless they got the co-operation of the European and the coloured people, they could not stop the progress of the disease in South Africa. In Zoutpansberg they had had the co-operation of the natives, and they had gone in for wire fencing in a certain location. The cattle there were saved, whereas in a neighbouring location all the cattle had died. The policy of the Government was that they would do everything to help the country, and in the Transkei they had a Chief Magistrate whom the Government consulted before the Government did anything. Nothing was done without his advice. If they only looked to dipping to combat the disease, the Government would be cursed, and Mr. Schreiner would ultimately have to admit that it was wrong. Experience had told them that if one began dipping when the disease had broken out in a district, the cattle would be dead before the ticks were killed. There were more guards in the Transkei, and more money being spent there, than in any other part of South Africa, and there was Jess East Coast fever there than in any other part of the country. The Government would only agree to the shooting of the cattle as a last resort. Hon. members had complained about the Umtata road having been closed, but that measure was necessary in order to stop the progress of the disease. In regard to dips, people should co-operate, because the State could not do everything. Organisation was required in order to stop trekking by natives. The hon. member for Springs was right: hon. members did talk too much ! The debate on East Coast fever ought to have run its course when the Cattle Diseases Bill was under discussion, but what did they see now? Hon. members threatened to bring the matter up again when the Supplementary Estimates were dealt with. He did not wish to convey the impression that he wanted to rush the vote, because he would rather see a protracted discussion than a discontented House. However, it would take some weeks yet to finish the Government programme, and, as he had to go to England, it was necessary to sit late. The Government wished to get the Estimates passed so that it might pay attention to other matters. He had stopped the Natal system of shooting cattle because his policy was to save them—not to kill them off. In isolated cases, however, dipping and fencing could not alone cope with the disease. The three policies would have to supplement each other. (Cheers.)

said he would like to inform his right hon. friend that he agreed with a great deal of what he had said. He said he wanted the best understanding with the hon. members, and the co-operation of the House and of the country, for the purpose of dealing with one of the direst diseases stock-farmers had ever had to deal with. But was it possible to get co-operation if they were not prepared to give the fullest discussion to a matter of this sort? Surely the Prime Minister would recognise that this was one of the most important questions the committee could discuss. It was generally known that there was a great deal of alarm owing to the spread of the disease. He had letters from gentlemen in several districts in the Cape Province praying for a compulsory Dipping Act. Continuing, he said it was held in important cattle districts that compulsory dipping should take place, and thus check the disease. It had been acknowledged that it was an important subject. Would the Prime Minister listen to suggestions when the vote on the Supplementary Estimates came up for discussion? If he would do that, hon. members on his side of the House would reserve anything they had to say.

said it should be distinctly understood that he did not wish to curtail the discussion. Hon. members could speak again on the Suplementary Estimates.

The increased sub-head was agreed to.

moved to report progress.

The motion was agreed to.