from residents of Barkly West, Hay, Herbert, and Kimberley, in support of the petition of H. J. le Riche (two petitions).

as Chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on Railway Land Expropriation, and moved: That the report and evidence be printed and considered on Friday.

seconded.

Agreed to

Amended return, showing: number of white men employed by the Department of Railways and Harbours receiving three shillings a day or less; number receiving more than three and not more than four shillings; and number receiving more than four but less than six shillings a day.

asked the Minister of Finance whether he was aware that the transfer to the Treasury Office at Pretoria of the payment of pensions granted by the Government of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope had taken away the legal remedy which a creditor had of attaching pensions for the purpose of bringing a Cape Colony pensioner within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Cape Province, and, if so, whether he would arrange that pensions granted by the Cape Colony Government would in future be paid at Cape Town or elsewhere within the Cape Province?

I am advised that, from the legal point of view, the position is in no way changed by the transfer to the Treasury at Pretoria of the responsibility for making periodical payments of pensions due to persons resident in the Cape Province. This departmental arrangement does not abridge the power of the Court to interdict the local representative of the Treasury, through whom the pension is actually paid. It should be understood, that although the pension records are now maintained in Pretoria, the actual payment of pensions is still effected through the official channels available in the Cape Province—mostly through the agency of the various postmasters. I might add that, even if I had been advised that the position was as indicated by my hon. friend, I should not have regarded that position as entirely unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it seems to me to be a very great hardship indeed that the pensions of Government servants should be liable to attachment at the instance of creditors. (Hear, hear.)

asked the Minister of Justice whether he was aware: (1) That under the existing laws of Rhodesia, attorneys-at-law who had qualified by passing the Cape Law Certificate Examination of the Cape University, were admitted to practise in Rhodesia; (2) that attorneys-at-law who had qualified by passing the Law Certificate Examinations of the Transvaal, Orange Free State, and Natal, which were held under He auspices of the Cape University, were not admitted to practise in Rhodesia; and (3) whether the Government was prepared to take into consideration the advisability of making representations to the Government of Rhodesia with a view to similar treatment being accorded to attorneys-at-law from other parts of the Union, to that which now prevailed in regard to attorneys-at-law from the Cape Province, by means of amending legislation?

I have been in communication with the Hon. the Attorney-General of Rhodesia, and find that under existing conditions only Cape attorneys are eligible for admission to practise in that colony without examination. Transvaal and Free State attorneys are required to have passed the Examination in Law and Jurisprudence mentioned in section 19 of the Cape Act, No. 16 of 1875, or an equivalent fixed by the Administrator of Rhodesia, and also an examination in Cape or Rhodesian Statute Laws. No provisions exist with regard to Natal attorneys. The Attorney-General will further communicate with me on the subject after further consideration, when I shall be in a position to review the whole position.

asked the Minister of Public Works: (1) Whether among the tenders received for the construction of the Union buildings at Pretoria tenders were received from Messrs. Reid Knuckley; (2) whether this firm tendered to carry out contracts Nos. 1 and 2 for the sum of £585,000; (5) whether the tender of Messrs. Meischke for the same contracts was £622,500; and (4) if the answers to the above questions were in the affirmative, why the tender from Messrs. Meischke was accepted in preference to the lower tender received from an admittedly well-known and re putable firm?

replied that tenders were received from the firm mentioned, and a number of others, and these were passed over for various reasons, financial and otherwise. It must be remembered that, besides professional ability, financial standing had also to be taken into account in dealing with so large a contract. The tenders had been very carefully considered, and it was deemed best in the interests of the public to pass over these tenders.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) What was the number of injuries which had been sustained by station-masters, engine-drivers, foremen, guards, shunters, and examiners in the employ of the South African Railways (a) since Union, and (b) during (last six months; (2) what compensation had been paid to sufferers; and (3) what was the nature of the injury in each case?

laid a return on the table giving the information asked for.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether his attention had been drawn to the fact that a large number of transport wagons, drawn by oxen which were covered with ticks, are on their way from East London, via Dordrecht, to Barkly East; (2) whether he would take the necessary steps to pre vent such tick-infested cattle from passing from the coast to the interior; and, if so, (3) what steps did he intend to take?

(1) My attention has been drawn to the matter. (2) and (3) The magistrates of East London, King William’s Town, Komgha, and Cathcart have been informed of the occurrence, and have replied that the Cattle Cleansing Act is being strictly enforced in their districts. The Magistrate of Stutterheim will again lay before his Divisional Council the question of proclaiming this Act in force in that district. One specific case brought to my notice was inquired into, and the Magistrate of Komgha, from whose district the wagons in question had gone to Barkly East, was satisfied that the cattle were cleansed before they left the owner’s farm. The remedy is in the hands of the Queenstown, Wodehouse, and Barkly East people themselves, who can apply through their Divisional Councils to have the Cattle Cleansing Act proclaimed in force in their respective districts. Cattle on public roads within these districts could then be ordered to be cleansed.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether the attention of the Government had been drawn to reports in the press alleging (a) unnecessary cruelty in the methods employed in the shooting of cattle in connection with East Coast fever, and (b) that the carcases of the cattle so shot were allowed to lie unburied; (2) whether if these reports were correct, the Government would take steps to prevent the continuance of these evils; and (3) whether the Government would take steps to provide for the skinning of animals slaughtered on account of East Coast fever, and for the disinfection and sale of the bides?

asked that the question should be allowed to stand over in order that further inquiries might be made.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance of the subject matter of the report of the Transvaal Liquor Commission of 1908, the Government would cause the evidence upon which the report was framed to be published for general information?

said he had no intention of recommending that the evidence be published. He was informed that the evidence, in bulk, was about two feet high, and would cost several thousand pounds to publish. There were copies at Pretoria and Johannesburg, and facilities would be given to anyone to peruse these.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it had been brought to his notice that the German South-west boundary along the Gordonia district had been closed through fear of cattle disease, and that the farmers of Gordonia were thereby suffering great inconvenience, and, in ease this was so, whether, seeing the feared cattle disease was still hundreds of miles from the said boundary, he would take the necessary steps for making representations to the German South-west African authorities in order to obtain relief?

A serious disease known as “Surra” has made its appearance in German Southwest Africa, and in consequence no livestock are permitted to enter the Union from that territory. It is not known at present whether the disease is confined to camels only, or to what extent it exists in German territory. Information on these points is awaited from the German Government, and when it is known to which area the disease is confined the question of allowing equine movement between German South-west Africa and the Cape will be considered. Meanwhile it is regretted that no other stops can be taken in this matter.

asked the Prime Minister whether he was aware that certain South African produce was not admitted into Australia, while large quantities of their produce was imported into this country; and what steps, if such was the case, he purposed to take to have the matter remedied?

The hon. member presumably refers to ten bales of wool shipped from Port Elizabeth to Melbourne in January. Inquiries have been made into the matter, with the result that the Government of Victoria pointed out that their regulations had not been complied with. These regulations provide: (a) That the importer shall give notice to the Chief Quarantine Officer of his intention to import; (b) that the importer shall obtain a permit to import. After importation, the wool has to be taken to a quarantine station for such treatment as the Chief Quarantine Officer may consider necessary. The Government of Victoria, however, approved of the admission of the wool on condition that it was taken to the quarantine station, and not removed from there without written permit. A bond of £1,000 had to be entered into as guarantee of the importer’s compliance with the conditions. As, however, the consignee was unable to conform to these conditions, the wool was shipped to London. As the regulations do not differentiate against South Africa, and they were not com plied with by the importer, the case does not appear to be one in which this Government can take any further action.

asked the Prime Minister: (a) Which Bills in the English language had been signed by His Excellency; and (b) which in the Dutch?

said on the table the list, which was as follows: The English versions of the following Bills were signed by His Excellency the Governor-General: No. 1, 1910, Crown Liabilities Act; No. 4, 1910, Naturalisation of Aliens Act; No. 5, 1910. Interpretation Act; No. 6, 1910, Mining Taxation Act; No. 9, 1910, Rhodes’s Will (Groote Schuur Devolution) Act; No. 11, 1910, Cape Province Cattle Cleansing Act; No. 1, 1911, Appellate Division Further Jurisdiction Act; No. 2, 1911. Crown Land Disposal (Execution of Deeds! Act; No. 3, 1911, High Commissioner’s Act; No. 4, 1911, South African College Act; No. 8, 1911, Explosives Act; No. 10, 1911, Habitual Criminals Act; No. 10, 1911, Post Office Administration and Shipping Combinations Discouragement Act: No. 12, 1911, Mines and Works Act; No. 13. 1911, Prisons and Reformatories Act; and the Dutch versions of the following: No. 2, 1910, Census Act; No. 3, 1910, Public Holidays Act; No. 7, 1910, Appropriation (1910-1911) Act; No. 8, 1910, Railways and Harbours Appropriation Act; No. 10, 1910, Patents Amendment (Natal and Orange Free State) Act; No. 5, 1911, Additional Appropriation (1910) Act; No. 6, 1911, Appropriation (Part) Act; No. 7, 1911, Railways and Harbours Appropriation (Part) Act; No. 11, 1911, Agricultural Pests Act.

said he would like to know by whose authority Government notices of motion appeared first on the order paper?

referred the hon. member to rule 52.

moved: That the petitions from M. Pantezegrauw and 94 others, and from H. J. Dampier and 259 others, inhabitants of the district of Elliot, praying that the said district may be annexed to the Province of the Cape of Good Hope proper, presented to the House on the 8th and 27th March, 1911, respectively, be referred to the Government for consideration.

seconded.

pointed out that, after the war of 1878, the tract of land between the Drakensberg and the Ingeli had been cleared and surveyed. That operation led to the districts of Elliot and Maclear being formed. At first they were under Grown Colony Government; subsequently they came within the jurisdiction of the Transkeian Administration. In 1898 the Cape Parliament resolved to have the Cape Scab regulations carried out in the two districts mentioned, but that resolution remained a dead letter. In 1910, Elliot was joined to Cape Colony for election purposes. The inhabitants of the two districts were now asking for all laws and regulations of the Union to be applied to them, so as to relieve them from the regulations of the Native Territories. He trusted the Government would assist them:.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: That the petition from J. P. Coetzee and 142 others, praying for railway communication from Prieska to Kuruman and Vryburg, presented to the House on the 5th instant, be referred to the Government for consideration.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved: That the petition from G. G. C. Muhsfeldt, praying that his name may be placed on the Register of Dentists authorised to practise, presented to the House on the 5th instant, he referred to the Government for consideration.

seconded.

Agreed to,

moved: That the petition from H. J. le Riche, a former Assistant Inspector of Sheep, praying for reinstatement or other relief, presented to the House on the 3rd instant, and the petition from G. D. J. Scholtz and 69 others in support of the petition of the said H. J. le Riche, presented to the House on the 5th instant, he referred to the Government for consideration and report

seconded.

pointed out that Mr. Le Riche had been Assistant Chief Scab Inspector for sixteen years. Last year he was dismissed because incapacity was alleged against him. From the papers it appeared, however, that he was not responsible for the despatch of certain scabby sheep from Belmont to the Transvaal, but that a subordinate official was to blame. The Transvaal inspectors had strong microscopes, whereas the Cape officials, who had weaker instruments, were unable to detect the disease. Although he, the speaker, had done his ’best at the time, no inquiry was held. Yet even a criminal was not sent to gaol without due inquiry, and he ventured to say that there was something behind the matter. He could not state for a fact that the Chief Inspector had a grudge against Le Riche, but it was clear that the matter required looking into. If Le Riche’s innocence were established, some measure of compensation would be necessary. The man had given his best years to the service of his country, and he had relinquished his own occupation. After having grown old in harness, he had been left unprovided for That very day he, the speaker, had presented two petitions on the subject, and he had received a wire stating that his constituents were strongly in favour of Mr. Le Riche, who, he hoped, would be granted relief by the Government.

said he was not in favour of pensions, generally speaking, but there was something fishy about the case, and he trusted that an independent inquiry would be held with a view to reinstating Mr. Le Riche if possible.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: That the petition of E. K. Green, in his capacity as managing director of the company of E. K. Green and Co., Ltd., praying for a refund of the sum of £690 18s. alleged to have been overpaid to the Cape Government on account of income tax, or for other relief, presented to the House on the 2nd February, 1911, be referred to the Government for consideration.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved: That the petition from W. A. van der Plank and 130 others, residents of the district of Zululand, in the Province of Natal praying for railway construction from Ginginhlovu to Eshowe, presented to the House on the 4th instant, be referred to the Government for consideration.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved: That the petition from J. Parsons and 24 others, inhabitants of the district of Edenburg, praying for the introduction of new fencing legislation presented to the House on the 10th instant, be referred to the Government for consideration.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved: That the Government be requested to consider the advisability of taking steps at the earliest possible date to cause inquiry to be made into the alleged diversion of water out of the Breede River catchment area to the detriment of riparian interests (as stated on page 30, paragraph 53, of the Report of the Director of Irrigation for the year 1909), with a view to providing the necessary machinery for effective control in the matter.

seconded.

said he understood that some difficulty had arisen through many riparian owner’s along the stream not knowing their rights. The question had been under the consideration of the Government, and the relief sought for could be obtained under the Act of 1906. He had no objection to the motion being referred to Government, but the answer would be the same as before, namely, that the matter rested with the people themselves. They had only to set in motion the machinery provided under the Act of 1906.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: That the petition from J. Henning and 145 others, praying that a field-cornet may be appointed for the southern portion of Boshof, presented to the House on the 6th instant, be referred to the Government for consideration.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved: That the petitions from A. J, Zwanepoel and 33 others, J. H. M. Human and 90 others, D. Bosman and 27 others, praying that the regulations of the Agricultural Bank may be so amended that farmers may obtain advances wherewith to buy draught oxen or other relief, presented to the House on the 17th instant, be referred to the Government for consideration.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved: That the petition from B. B. Evans and 172 others, of Polela, Natal, praying for the construction of a railway from Donnybrook to Underberg, or for other relief, presented to the House on the 17th instant, be referred to the Government for consideration and report.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved: That the House go into committee to consider the following: That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House on the Miners’ Phthisis Compensation Bill to consider the proposed amendment to render it obligatory for miners to contribute towards the payment of compensation provided for in the Bill, and, if necessary, to amend the title of the Bill accordingly.

seconded.

said he was sorry that the amendments which he put on the notice paper some days ago had caused rather a flutter, and in some quarters, he might say, dismay, but he might also say that the amendments were due to one, and one consideration only, and that was his extreme anxiety to see the Miners’ Phthisis Bill become law. Hon. members would remember from the discussion which took place on the second reading some weeks ago, and also the discussion which took place yesterday, that there was considerable opposition to the principles of the old Bill, and he did not blame hon. members. However anxious one might be, and he was sure all members of the House were anxious, to deal with what was a very grave state of affairs, yet the House had to consider and pass sound legislation, and therefore it was necessary that a matter of vast magnitude such as this was should be maturely considered, and that the principles adopted should be sound, and not open to criticism. He listened carefully to the debate on the second reading some weeks ago, and since then he had discussed the matter with many hon. members of this (his) side of the House, and he might say for the information of the hon. member for Jeppe that he did not discuss the question, with a single member on the other (Opposition) side of the House. He had discussed it with many hon. members on his side of the House, and he came to the conclusion that it was not possible to pass the Bill in its original form. It was a very difficult matter. Very few countries had ever at tempted to deal, by legislation, with this problem, and in the one country in which such an attempt was made, the legislation was repealed He mentioned that to show how difficult it was to frame a law which would work satisfactorily in actual practice. From the discussions both in the House and out of it, it was clear to him that if this Bill were to be passed, two principles had to be incorporated in it, and the first of these two principles was the constitution of a Board which would have to administer the fund, look after all the cases, and do its best for the sufferers in difficult circumstances. That was the first principle he had been urged to introduce, but that he would not deal with that day, because his motion was narrower than that, and was confined to the second principle, which was that any scheme that would prove acceptable to the House would have to be on the contributory basis. That was the matter with which they were concerned that day. He could quite understand hon. members saying that any scheme should be of a contributory character. As was argued yesterday very ably and feelingly by the right hon. gentleman the member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), if compensation were to be paid in this ease, let all those who were interested in the matter contribute, and that was the feeling which pervaded, he might say, nine-tenths of the House. He knew that the opposition to his amendments arose very largely from the principle which he now proposed—the new principle of contribution. He had seen a statement in the press that a serious state of affairs would arise because of this principle, but he had come to the conclusion that it was a sound principle, and when the country were asked to legislate in this matter, a principle like this should be incorporated in the legislation which they were passing. Now, let them see how far he proposed that this contribution should go. In the first place, the contribution would not have to be made by any of the present sufferers. Hon. members would see from the amendments on the notice papers that the contributions should start at a future date to be notified, and the idea was this: that to the permanent fund which was going to be constituted for the future contributions would be made both by the employer and by the worker. In the case of those who were suffering at present from this scourge, no contribution would be made, except by two parties—by the Government on the one hand and by the employer on the other. The Government would contribute half, and the employer would contribute the other half, but when they came to future cases, the question of contribution by the employees assumed a very different character, because, after all, the only object was not merely to give compensation to people, (but the great and most serious object was to stamn out miners’ phthisis. That was their object. They wanted to relieve present cases, and future cases also, but they did not want merely alleviative legislation of that kind. They wanted preventive legislation. They wanted provisions in the Bill the effect of which would be, in the long run, to stamp out miners’ phthisis. Now, these preventive measures would be of various kinds. A vast body of regulations would be laid on the table shortly, and would be put into force over the Witwatersrand, the object of which was to enforce much greater care in future in dealing with conditions, the physical and sanitary conditions, underground. These regulations would have to be observed by two parties by the mine owners on the one hand and by the workers on the other. Now, he thought the case was a very strong one for saying: Let there he inducements, let there be fair and adequate inducements on both of these parties to take these precautions, to carry out the regulations, and to see that the conditions underground were of such a character that in the future there would be a good chance of miners’ phthisis disappearing from the Rand. Now, they could only do that when the matter was brought home to both these parties. The original Bill simply treated the matter as workman’s compensation. Which was a sound principle, but the original Bill did not effect the object, which they should all have in mind, namely, of bringing home to the workman himself that there was a very great duty and responsibility upon him, and that he must contribute to the maintenance of proper sanitary conditions underground in order that this disease might be stamped out. The Mining Regulations Commission had reported that the miners themselves were not free from blame in the matter, and had expressed their opinion in all too strong terms; but the fact remained that, even if they were not guilty of criminal neglect, they were, in a large proportion of cases, negligent, and had to have an inducement to be careful. They wanted men to keep an eye on the others, and all to feel that if miners’ phthisis went down their contributions would also become less, and they would have a vital interest in a decrease of the disease. One could only have that by making them contribute, and having them contribute more if there were more disease—and that was the principle of the amendment now before them.

said that he had listened very attentively to the remarks made by the Minister of Mines in introducing that motion and he saw that he had Sheltered himself behind the argument of Mr. Merriman on Monday, that the workers on the Witwatersrand were the highest paid workmen in the world. He feared that the world was passing too fast for the right hon. gentleman, and be found that the right hon. gentleman, when he stopped his argument, stopped at twenty years ago; and that it was generally Dr. Haggar who brought it up to date; but the hon. member for Roodepoort was not there just now.

What a pity! (Laughter.)

went on to say that there were underground workmen on the mines who were only paid 1s. 10d. a day, who were to be taxed in like proportion; and the hon. member forgot that that was the very lowest wage in the world; and even the dockers in London received 6d. per hour for their labour.

expressed strong opposition to the provision that the State should contribute to the compensation. All these miners earned good wages, sufficient to enable them to contribute towards a pension fund of their own. They were, generally speaking, landless, and therefore did not pay a penny in taxation, and he failed to see why the Government should take the responsibility of providing for them. If they started this principle on the gold mines they would be obliged to extend it to all mines. What about the poor farmer who had to work in unhealthy areas?

said it seemed to him that the miners should contribute towards their own compensation. It seemed to him the Minister had consulted members opposite, who knew all about the matter. If miners objected to contributing a small amount, they should be left to stew in their own juice.

welcomed the amendments. The three parties concerned should all of them contribute—the mine owners first of all, because they pocketed the profits. Experience had taught him how reckless the minors wore. If they had to contribute they would be more careful; and if they refused to work under those conditions they need not come to South Africa at all. He trusted that the wailings of the members of the Labour party would cease for good and all. The State should pay its share, because the mines contributed largely to the revenue of the country, and because the State had been apathetic up to now. The great danger to the miner was tuberculosis, because a sufferer from miners’ phthisis was also a consumptive. They should keep tuberculosis away from the mines; and he was in favour of medical examination. Consumption was making fearful ravages in the country, and if they could bar its access to the mines they would be able to fight miners’ phthisis far more successfully. Every miner, whether white or coloured, should have a doctor’s certificate to the effect that he had a sound chest.

said he failed to see why the Labour members could not agree with the principle that the miners should contribute, because they were often extremely careless about their own health, and never troubled about the morrow. There was absolutely no parallel between this case and the case of farmers’ cattle being killed to stop the ravages of East Coast fever. He held that it was the duty of Parliament to throw part of the responsibility on the miners themselves, so as to induce them to take precautionary measures. He thought the Minister of Mines made a mistake when he brought in the Bill in the first place. The Government should have brought in a Bill requiring the Government to take all the responsibility of seeing that strict preventive measures were carried out in mines, and requiring the mine-owners and the mine-workers to observe all preventive methods. It was a sound principle laid down in this motion, that the mine-workers should contribute. He did not care for State contributions.

said that it was not unnatural to believe that those hon. members who usually voted with the Government would be inclined to support him, because the very highest authority against the contributory system in this country was the statement of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister during the elections. During that time it was common cause that this subject must be dealt with by this Parliament, and it was common cause that it was a matter where there was liability on the part of the mine-owners to compensate. The only difference was that he (Mr. Creswell) and his colleagues said that the whole liability should rest upon the mine-owners. The hon. member for Yeoville propounded a plan whereby the mine-owners, miners, and the State should each contribute a third of the contribution towards compensation, and the Right Hon. the Prime Minister expressed concurrence with that view. But now the Minister of Mines came before them that afternoon and said that his sole object in proposing these amendments was to facilitate the passage of the Bill. He had assured him (the speaker) that he had had no conversation with those on that (the Opposition) side of the House, and that made it more clear to him that there was a very natural sympathy between the two front benches of the House, and it was a very great pity that the Minister of Mines was so very selfish as to keep all the work to himself. It would be much better for him to hand over to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Phillips) the Mines Portfolio. Now, he thought that when responsible Ministers were pledged to a definite course, it was not a good thing—in fact, it was not right—to come to the House and say that they must alter their course entirely, because their party would not support it. They should stand or fall by it. He wanted to make clear that it was not a question of stinginess on the part of the miners. Their case was that on no ground of justice could this tax be imposed. He said it was nothing more than a tax to meet liability which should fall elsewhere. If a man was a machine-man he must pay 5s., and if a man was not a machine-man, he must pay 2s. 6d. On the ground of justice, such a tax could not be defended. On the ground of expediency also, he and his colleagues claimed that the arguments used were too flimsy, and had no force. Now, supposing all miners were equally liable to contract the disease, and all of them were equally careful in taking the precautions of which they had heard so much in the House, it would be absurd to say that they contributed by their actions in contracting the disease. If all the regulations were observed, then the cause of contraction was entirely beyond their control. He thought that hon. members would agree that, assuming the men took every possible precaution laid down, it was clearly absurd to ask them to contribute to their own compensation. The question of men earning a lot of money did not come in at all. This was not a question of insurance—it was a question of compensation. Surely hon. members of this House, who had a plentiful share of the world’s goods, would claim damages against the railway administration, if through negligence on the part of its employees, they were injured whilst journeying through the country. This was purely a question of compensation, and when all the regulations had been observed, it was absurd to expect the men to pay. Supposing that all were equally liable to contract the disease, but some were more careful in taking precautions than others, surely there was no man in the House who would suggest that those who had taken every precaution, and had not committed a breach of the regulations, should be, month by month, fined 5s. because some other men did not take care. The employers could exercise the necessary control, but you could not make the men watchdogs over each other; the conditions of work did not allow it. There were only two authorities—the mine discipline and the law. He asked the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. Myburgh) whether in his experience as a worker underground he would have found it easy to leave his work, and go to see whether every Tom, Dick, and Harry was doing what he ought to do; and, if not, that he should go and inform upon them? Mr. Chaplin had spoken of the recklessness of the miners, and a good deal had been made of it. Well, they all know that familiarity bred contempt, and it was very often the old, and not the new, hands who had accidents; but that was the tendency in regard to all classes of work. The law recognised that tendency, and made regulations, a breach of which was penal, and the law insisted upon these regulations being carried out by the mine manager. The Minister of Mines had made a regulation that a man who broke the regulations three times in six months would not get compensation. The hon. member who had last spoken said that there was no parallel between compensation for East Coast fever and compensation to miners for phthisis. Cattle were slaughtered because it was feared that East Coast fever would spread, but the Minister of Agriculture had not proposed that a tax should be levied on all the owners of stock so as to get a fund from which compensation could be paid. The State paid it all. It was wholly unsound to levy a tax on a man who did not come in immediate contact with men suffering from miners’ phthisis. Let them take the case of men who never incurred any risk at all, like skip-tenders, platelayers, fitters, and the like. Not one skip-tender in 50,000 was likely to incur the disease.

said something about railwayman paying 3 per cent.

Railwaymen! What have railwaymen to do with it? The hon. member proceeded to say that if the danger of contracting the disease and the knowledge that if precautions were not taken, he would be punished, did not make a man careful, the payment of 2s. 6d. a month would not either. The way to stop the careless man was to increase the inspection and apply the whole onus on the mine owner, who would see that the incidence of that compensation was diminished. He thought that the argument that they would get rid of miners’ phthisis by that contributory clause was the weakest which had been brought forward. What was wanted were measures for laying the dust and artificial ventilation.

said it seemed to him that what had been said that afternoon might have been said at a later stage, and that those who were anxious for some legislation on the lines proposed, or legislation to deal with this very important matter, were not setting about it in the best way to get some satisfaction. (Hear, hear.) He often wished that the Labour party were a little stronger. Hear, hear.) If they were, they would not always be so anxious to be in evidence.

Hear, hear.

said they wished on every occasion to make some sort of demonstration, not always, he thought, to the advantage of those they served or wished to serve. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member (Mr. Creswell) had criticised his colleague (General Smuts) for having departed from the Bill—in a considerable degree, he admitted—that he originally introduced. Now, it seemed to him that the great question was that something satisfactory should be done—(hear, hear)—and there was this further consideration. His hon. friend had said a good deal about crying “No Popery!” and then running away, and he talked as if it were almost an Imperial question, making a change in a Bill introduced—a Bill on a subject which was difficult to deal with, and in respect of which they had no precedent. After all, the object in view was to serve the interests of those unfortunate people, who died at an exorbitant rate in the mines, and their families recovered no compensation. Let him tell his hon. friend, the member for Jeppe, after he had been in Parliament longer, he would find that it did not pay to play the part of a celebrated Frenchman, who was a member of the Jacobin Club during the French rebellion, and who said: “Perish our colonies but let us maintain our principles.” It seemed to him that the hon. member was playing that role. If they could not attain the object they had in view by one road, by all means take another road, so long as they got what they wanted. When he went to the Transvaal and learnt what the real state of things was as regarded this disease, he was aghast at such terrible mortality, and he felt that no Government would be worthy of its position, unless it took some steps to redress that dreadful state of things. Do not let them quarrel with the form. Let them consider the best way of doing something practical in the matter. He admitted that the people who should be taxed ordinarily were those who were affected by the matter, and not the Government. It seemed to him that those who were immediately affected by it should find money for compensation. He thought that to ask for a contribution from the men was a perfectly sound principle. But the main responsibility rested with the mine owner. The only danger he saw in this Ball becoming law was because of the provision in the Bill which said that, with regard to the existing evil, the Government should make a slight contribution. In principle, he looked upon that as indefensible, but, if they took into consideration the fact that the Government of the Transvaal neglected to do their duty long ago to pass legislation in this matter, and taking into consideration the fact that the State derived large benefits from the industry, and that unless they did that they could not compensate the people who were suffering from phthisis at the present moment, then he thought a very fair case was made out for assistance from the State. Farmers sometimes, he would remind them, had had special benefits, and they should remember that it was always a wise policy to be magnanimous, and to deal with others as they themselves would wish to be dealt with. Now, one of the main reasons why he thought they should have legislation of this kind was because it would tend to prevent, to a very great extent, this very terrible disease. He thought it would be a scandal to the Legislature if they allowed the present state of things to continue. Did hon. members know that it was more dangerous for a man to work in the gold mines of Johannesburg than it was for a man in the British Army to enter a field of war? A far greater number of lives were lost. For Parliament to sit still would be criminal. For a country, one of whose great characteristics had been a leaning towards the side of magnaminity and justice, to sit still in this matter for the sake of mere lucre would be a shame. He was not one of those who thought the Government should not contribute, but rather than that the Bill should not pass at all, he would prefer to see it passed with that condition, leaving that to be dealt with in the future. He hoped that they would now let the matter go to the committee stage. Otherwise, with the close of the session at hand, he foresaw a danger that they would separate without having done anything to meet this terrible condition of things.

spoke of the ravages caused by miners’ phthisis, and supported the proposals of the Government, though he preferred the original Bill if it had been practicable. He thought it was only right that the State, which was a shareholder in these mines, should contribute towards this compensation. As representative of a mining community, he wished to thank the Government for what they were trying to achieve. Members of the Labour party were misinformed, and he had no trepidation about facing his constituents. It was wrong to saddle the mine owners with all the burdens.

put the motion, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

called for a division, but subsequently withdrew.

The House then went into committee.

moved: That the resolution be referred to the committee of the whole House.

seconded.

Agreed to.

said that when the debate was adjourned the other day he was in the course of making a few remarks to show that there was nothing unreasonable in the suggestion that the Government should contribute to the expenditure, which would be necessitated by the adoption of a Bill of the nature of that which was now before the House. He thought it was possible to show good reasons why this expenditure on the part of the Government would be justified. First of all, there was no doubt that if the mining companies had been blamed in that they had not improved the conditions before, the Government must clearly share that blame, because the reports to which he had alluded! clearly showed that the companies had, from time to time, done practically everything the Commission recommended, and if they had not done more it was, to a very large extent, because neither the Government nor the Commission concerned had been able to point out what exactly they should do. Secondly, there was no doubt that under this Bill a very great and unexpected liability was proposed to be thrown upon the mining companies. He alluded not so much to future compensation as to the compensation which it was proposed to give to those people who were at present unfortunately suffering from phthisis and tuberculosis. He hoped to show that the magnitude of that liability must be very considerable; indeed, it was likely to exceed any estimate which had been formed of it so far, and he certainly thought it would not be fair to put the whole of that liability upon the companies, and make them pay compensation. As the Minister of Railways had said, the Government had a very considerable interest in the mines. It derived a very large part of its revenue, both directly and indirectly, from the mines, and as they were, to that extent, part proprietors, there was nothing unreasonable in the contention that the Government should contribute to this liability. It was to the interest of the Government that what were called human derelicts should not be found in this country, and he thought it would be impossible to expect the mining companies to provide the whole of the compensation for what had taken place in the past. It was clear that if anything were to be done to relieve the unfortunate people, assistance must be sought from the Government. The argument had been raised on the other side that as a general rule the Government should not participate in this matter. Well, he said: Why not? Hon. members opposite said that if the Government contributed in this case it would be asked to contribute in other cases. Again he said: Why not? What some of the hon. members on his side had advocated was that there should be a general scheme of invalidity insurance, not limited to those suffering from miners’ phthisis, or people on the mines, but applicable to all workers. He saw no reason why such a scheme should not work in South Africa. It worked perfectly well in Germany, and it was interesting to read that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bringing forward a Bill in the House of Commons having the same object in view. Continuing, the hon. member said that the liabilities of the employers were pooled, which led to some curious results. It might happen that a man worked four or five years, and for two years worked on a mine which was no longer in existence, and contracted phthisis. The other mines were clear and under no circumstances responsible for the man having phthisis; yet they could be called upon to contribute towards compensation. The mines were equally liable, whether they had good or had ventilation; whether they had observed the regulations or not, or whether they had or had not made payments to the families of men who had died of the disease. All these things were not taken into consideration, and that showed that the machinery of the Bill was somewhat defective, and that the amount of liability was absolutely undetermined. Of 1,377 men employed on machines in the Transvaal during the war 225 had died by 1902, or about 16 per cent. In 1903, the Transvaal Government had appointed a Commission, and 1,210 men had been examined, 91.9 per cent, of whom were rock-drillers, 15.4 per cent, of whom had phthisis, and 8 per cent, were suspected of phthisis, so that 20 per cent, might be said to have had phthisis upon them. In West Australia a Commission had been appointed in 1910, and 1,805 men had been examined, 33 per cent, of whom had miners’ phthisis, and an appreciable percentage of other men engaged in underground work also had it. The inference was that the disease went on growing. There were 2,232 machine-men on the Witwatersrand last year, and he thought it was 2,500 to-day, if not more. No one could say how many ex-machinemen there were on the Rand; no one could say what the liability would be which was thrown on the Government and the employers through the retrospective clauses. Phthisis was an occupational disease, and tuberculosis was a non-occupational disease, and no doubt if a man had fibrosis he was disposed to tuberculosis. No one knew how many men who might be subject to compensation had got phthisis alone, and how many had got phthisis plus tuberculosis—or how many would be able to claim up to £250, and how many up to £500. In the Transvaal in 1903, when the Commission sat, there was a comparatively small number of men who had both. In Cornwall there were a few cases who had both, but the number of cases of tuberculosis was steadily increasing. In Bendigo, the official report showed that all cases of phthisis were found in conjunction with tuberculosis. The inference from these figures was that as the goldfields increased in age, if nothing was done to stop the spread of tuberculosis it continued to grow, and the number of cases of miners’ phthisis, in conjunction with tuberculosis, also tended to grow. Continuing to deal with section 12, the hon. member said that a man might wait for two years, and then he got an extra £200.

They will have £500.

Yes; but a man and his family cannot live indefinitely on £500. Proceeding, he said that the Minister had stated that he did not know how many cases there were, but he thought possibly there might be something like 900 cases. Let them take round figures—1,000. Taking the number who had the disease at the passing of the Bill at 1,000. if half of them had tuberculosis as well as phthisis, if the Board awarded them the full amount—no one knew what the Board would award them—then out of those 1,000 cases, there would be 500 entitled to receive £500 each, that was, £250,000, and 500 entitled to receive £250 each, that was £125,000, so that there would be a total liability of £375,000 to divide between the mining companies and the Government. That was a very considerable liability. Would anyone say that it would be fair, considering the whole history of the case, that the whole of that liability should be upon the mines? He thought not. But no one could say whether that amount was the total liability. He thought there should have been more inquiry and more investigation before this proposal was brought before them in its present form. Coming to the next clause, the men who did not come under the retrospective clauses—what he supposed would be the normal condition of affairs after the passing of the Bill—he remarked that the proposal was that, in respect of machine-men, the companies were to contribute £1 per head, and in respect of non-machine-men 10s. per head per month, recovering in each case one quarter of the amount from the men concerned. In June, 1910, there were 2,232 machine-men, and they might take present number at 2,500. That represented £30,000 per annum, on the scale of 15s. contributed by the companies and 5s. by the men. He supposed there were something like 8,500 ether men who came under the definition of “miner,” a definition which, he observed, was very vague. At 10s. a month, there would be a liability in respect of these men of £51,000 a year, making a total of £81,000. It was very difficult to say whether that would meet the case or not. Mr. Chaplin took the case of a mine which would have to contribute £700 a year in respect of machine-men, and £1,000 a year in respect of non-machine-men—£1,700 a year, of which amount the men would contribute one-quarter—£400. That showed that, roughly speaking, there was enough money in that particular mine fund to compensate four men at £400 each—four only—and if those proportions were approximately the same through the other mines, it seemed to him extremely doubtful if this fund would produce sufficient money to pay such compensation as would be required. Then would come the question of whether the Board would make a fresh levy in the same proportions, and what would be the extent of that levy? He did not object to the system of the levy. The Board was undoubtedly an improvement on the previous proposal. But he did repeat again that it was most uncertain what the liability would be in this case upon the companies and the men.

Because they go away.

They stay on the mines a short time and then go away, and they do not contract the disease. They go to their kraals, and if they have not contracted tuberculosis there is little or no harm done. Proceeding, Mr. Chaplin said he had it on the authority of one of the leading Rand doctors that post-mortem examinations were made in the case of every native who died in the compounds, and very rarely was phthisis noticed, but tuberculosis was very prevalent. The mortality on the Rand compared very favourably with the mortality in some of the towns in the Cape Province. On the Rand the mortality from tuberculosis was four per 1,000 among boys from non-tropical districts and seven per 1,000 among those from tropical districts, whereas the death rate from tuberculosis in Cape Town was 6.3 per 1,000. It was very difficult to say how many of the natives who died from tuberculosis on the Rand had phthisis. Here, again, they had another example of the uncertainty which attended all the clauses of the Bill. Then there was the composition of the Compensation Board. He did not object to the Board, but he suggested that it would be exceedingly difficult to get the Board constituted in the manner proposed by the Minister. How were the ten or eleven thousand men affected to select a representative?

moved: To insert immediately above the definition of “certificate,” the following: “‘Board’ shall mean the Miners’ Phthisis Compensation Board established under this Act.” In line 8, to omit “nine” and to substitute “sixteen” and in the same line to omit “that” and to substitute “whether or not”; in line 12 to omit “who” and to substitute “on whose mine ”; in line 13. to omit “has employed that miner” and to substitute “the miner has been employed ”; in line 14, to omit “the legal representative or any successor or assign of an employer” and to substitute “the immediate holder or lessee of a mine or part thereof or a person working a mine or any part thereof on tribute.” Immediately above the definition of “medical practitioner” to insert the following: “‘ fund ’ shall mean the Miners’ Phthisis Compensation Fund established under this Act.” In line 20 to omit all the words from and including “but the term” up to and including “this Act” in line 23. After the definition of “miners’ phthisis” to insert the following: ‘ Minister ’ shall mean the Minister of Mines or any other Minister to whom the Governor-General may from time to time assign the administration of this Act.” In line 28, to omit “one” and to substitute “two.”

The definition of “Board” was agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave allowed to sit again to-morrow.

asked when it was proposed to define what matters of agriculture should be dealt with by the Provincial Councils, as laid down in the Act of Union?

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said he wished to raise the Question of the appointment of the Clerk of the Cape Provincial Council at a salary of £500. It might be said that the appointment was made by the Administrator, and confirmed by the Provincial Council, but he could not think for one moment that this nomination by the Administrator was not submitted to the Union Government. The appointment was grossly unjust. (A VOICE: Why?) Because the man was taken from outside the Service. Two requisites were laid down as being necessary, namely, a knowledge of the English and Dutch languages and a knowledge of law. Well, to his knowledge, men could have been had in the Service of the Cape to fill both these requisites well. The appointment was a grave injustice to the members of the Service; it was nothing else but a political job. (Ministerial laughter and cries of “No.”) The gentleman who was appointed was a supporter of the present Government. He stood for Parliament, did not get in, and a billet had to be found for him. It had been admitted by Ministers that in the higher ranks of the Service there were redundant officials, but notwithstanding that, posts like that of the Clerkship of the Provincial Council were filled from outside. All this sort of business was neither in the interests of the country nor in the interests of good government. There was tremendous dissatisfaction over his appointment, which, be wished to say again, was a grave injustice.

complained about the appointment of the Secretary of the Education Department in the Orange Free State. The history of the appointment was as follows: During the time Mr. Gunn was Director of Education, it became necessary to appoint a secretary. The Government appointed a secretary from outside the Service, upon the ground that there should be someone who was efficient in the Dutch language, as the Director himself was not so efficient. Well, that reason was unanswerable, and he did not think anybody would object to that appointment. Last year, however, a new Director of Education, who was fully efficient in the Dutch language, was appointed, and three months ago the secretary of the department resigned, owing to the fact, so the story went, that he could not get on with the Director of Education. The Director strongly recommended Mr. Grant, of the department, who had previously occupied a similar post under Crown Colony Government, but who had been de-graded because he was not efficient in the Dutch language. He had since become efficient, and notwithstanding the Director’s recommendation, the Administrator declined to appoint him. As a matter of fact, he knew that the Administrator went behind the Director, and persuaded Mr. Conradie to reconsider his decision. Whether he persuaded him to do so upon the promise of a very much increased pay he did not know for certain, At any rate, the conduct of the Administrator was one he thought the committee would not approve of. The hon. member also complained about the appointment of the Provincial Clerk at a salary of £665. That gentleman was at one time a Magistrate in Natal, and as far as he knew, he had no experience of Parliamentary Work. Now, he knew of two men in the Free State Service who could have filled the post.

said that although he would not say that until any definite assignments of Civil Servants in the different Provinces had been made, the discussion which had now arrisen on these appointments was out of order in that House, and the discussion would do no good whatever. If the House were going to meddle with the Provincial administration at every turn, one could not blame the Provincial Council if they retaliated. It was not treating the Administrator, the Provincial administration, or the Provincial Council with that respect to which they were entitled by that Parliament. The appointment of Mr. Pohl had been questioned in the Provincial Council, the Administrator gave a reply and an explanation, with which the Provincial Council were unanimously satisfied. Was it right for Mr. dagger to get up now in the House and try to impeach the action, not of the Administrator, but of the Provincial Council, because his action had been unanimously endorsed by that Council? As regards the position at Bloemfontein, and the appointment of Mr. Conradie, there, again, it so happened that a little while ago a question had been put to him about it, and be had had to make a certain inquiry, but if it had not been that that question had been put, it would have been outside the province of the Government to know anything about an appointment of that kind, Mr. Conradie had tendered his resignation for various reasons.

Would you mind naming them.?

If the papers are asked for in the Orange Free State Provincial Council it will be for the Administrator to give an explanation. (Hear, hear.) This I do know: that Mr. Conradie withdrew his resignation, and holds the same position as he did before Union. (Hear, hear.) As regards the Provincial Clerk, I am sorry to say I am not aware of the facts, but the Minister of the Interior may know more about it.

The answer of my hon. friend is about as amazing as any old Parliamentarian like him can give. I do not profess to be an old Parliamentarian, but I understand that when this House is asked to vote any salary to an individual, it is empowered to ask for and discuss all the details.

We are voting a globular amount.

Is my hon. friend so innocent as to think that this is going to catch anybody in or out of the committee? If we are not to discuss these salaries it is for the Chairman or the Speaker to say so. It seems to me that my hon. friend has got himself driven into a corner. He does not know how to meet these charges, and I suggest to him that he honestly feels that these charges are well founded; and, like a good lawyer that he is, when he is in a corner he tries to drag a red herring across the floor of this House. Mr. Botha went on to refer the Minister to section 140 of the Act of Union. The answer of the Minister, he said, was satisfactory so far as he had admitted the charge he (Mr. Botha) had made. He was not afraid of meeting the people of the Orange Free State; and he thought they had every right to criticise the conduct of the Administrator, who was responsible to that Parliament. He thought that if the Administrator for was given an opportunity of giving the defence, he would have made a better defence than the Minister. (Laughter.)

said that his hon. friend (Mr. Malan) had made rather an unfit statement as to the powers of the Provincial Councils. Was he to understand that Mr. Malan had spoken on his own behalf, or on behalf of the Government, because he did not think that was the view of General Smuts? Could these sums be administered in any way the Provincial administration liked? His hon. friend had raised a very nice constitutional point. The course intended by the Convention was that a certain amount of money should be voted to that body, and that its representatives, with their local knowledge, should have the power to spend that money in the best interests of those concerned. Proceeding to deal with the appointment of Mr. Pohl, Sir Thomas Smartt said that when it had first been rumoured in Cape Town he had spoken to a large number of people about it, and said that it was a mistake and that there could be no justification for it. They had had retrenchment in the Cape Colony, and there were a large number of Civil Servants who were well qualified to fill that post. He said that it was the duty of hon. members to draw attention to matters of that sort. He thought that they ought to have a statement in their possession of all persons drawing over £200 a year who had been taken on since Union who had not been in the Civil Service of the four colonies before Union. There were supporters of the Government who held views as strong upon that matter of the appointment as he did. His hon. friend knew as well as he did that the Government had appointed the Administrator, and he was not going to attack the Administrator, who was not there to defend himself. It was the Government who should be held responsible. He could tell his hon. friend that if this sort of thing went on there would be grave discontent in the Service. So far as the members of the Provincial Council were concerned, he could tell his hon. friend that if they had had a free choice such an appointment would not have been made. There was no justification for a position of that sort. He protested against men from outside the Service being given these appointments.

said he was sure that his hon. friend was as anxious as any member of that House to see the Act of Union work smoothly, and that he was just as anxious to set an example to that House in the treatment of the Provincial Councils. Everybody agreed that this Provincial Council experiment would have to be very carefully watched, and that they should see that the experiment was not a failure. He did not contend for one moment that a member of that House had not the right to criticise any appointment that was made, but they should remember the Act of Union. Had the Provincial Council the right to make an appointment? The leader of the Opposition said “No.” But he would refer hon. members to section 83 of the Act of Union, and the power of the Executive Committee to make appointments. It was clear under that section that the Council had the right to make its own appointments, and he submitted that the appointment was within the four corners of the section. Another important matter was the point as to the way in which the estimates were voted. The Public Accounts Committee had discussed the question, and he understood the opinion of the committee was that the subsidies should be arranged under four heads, and that it would be competent for the Councils to arrange the amounts as they saw fit. Unless something of the sort was done the Councils would be powerless. Sections 89 and 118 bore on the point, and were perfectly clear. The Executive Committee made up their estimates under four heads, and the details were supplied to the Government. The details were then scrutinised by the Governor-General-in-Council, and then submitted to that House. He did say the House had the right to criticise; but if it was going to alter and reduce, then they might as well abolish the Provincial Councils. He did not say an argument could not be based on the remarks of the hon. member for Bloemfontein, but his (Mr. Hull’s) point was that a certain amount of discretion must be left to the Provincial Councils. But what he wished to point out was that the Councils had the power to appoint their own officers, and that their subsidies should be voted them under these four heads, leaving to them the power to rearrange.

complained that the Minister of Finance had not answered his question. He quite agreed that the Provincial Councils should have more powers than they at present possessed. He had always held also that the Provincial Councils should appoint its own officers, but the case was this, that the Government appointed an Administrator, and the Administrator appointed a gentleman who signed himself as Clerk to the Provincial Council, and who was not in the Civil Service. The facts were, that the Administrator went outside the Service to choose a clerk who was not in the Civil Service. He did not at all question the abilities of the gentleman appointed to perform his duties, but there were others of equal ability in the Service who could have performed them equally as well.

said he just wished’ to point out that, prior to the appointment of Provincial Executives, the Administrators had full power to act. (Cheers.) Instead of wasting time on the question of appointment of officials he preferred to draw attention to the pitiable state of education in the Free State. Out of 32,000 children no more than 18,000 went to school. The remainder were to be found chiefly in the country districts, which were being neglected. Although the towns enjoyed substantial educational facilities, it was proposed to spend additional thousands of pounds on urban school buildings. Parliament was responsible for the neglect of the country districts. One alarming feature of the situation was that coloured children, as a rule, lived in the towns, and were being educated, whilst white children grew up illiterate. He was sorry to see that, included in the money which was to be spent in the Free State, £50,000 was a re-vote. Why had it not been spent during the past financial year? The necessity was urgent enough. Roads were in an execrable condition. The country needed railways, and they could do with the money voted generally.

considered that it was quite proper for the House to raise the question of these appointments. The Minister of Finance referred to section 118 of the Act of Union. This stated that, until the Commission of Inquiry had completed its work, the Executive Committee of the Provincial Council would only submit Estimates for the approval of the Governor-General-in-Council. The Government were responsible for these Estimates before any expenditure could take place. He quite agreed that it was not proper for the House to inquire into every appointment that the Provincial Council made, but if an appointment was made that excited universal public criticism, it gave them an opportunity to call the Government to account.

Call the Governor-General-in-Counci1 to account?

The Government are responsible to this House, and the House had a right to call them to account. Continuing, the hon. member said this appointment had excited criticism not only in the Cape Province, but throughout the Union. He could not think that any unbiassed critic would say that they ought to repress criticism. If an appointment were made by the Provincial Council that called for criticism, they were within their constitutional rights in exercising their right to criticism. Another point was made when the Minister said that the Administrator had a perfect right to make this appointment before the Executive Committee was appointed. He had such a right. They were not complaining of the Administrator exercising such a right in regard to the appointment of officials necessary to carry on official business, but they contended that in this particular instance the official who was appointed ought not to have been appointed until the Council to which he was appointed to act as Clerk had been brought together. That official was an official of the Council, just as the Clerk of that House was an official of that House.

An acting appointment was made.

Yes; that is the old way of doing it. We have seen much of that. But we all know it would take a very strong case to make an Executive Committee disown an acting appointment. Therefore, I say that the Administrator, though acting within the scope of his authority in making this appointment, was going out of his way to exercise those rights, and going out of his way in a manner which was unnecessary.

said that there had been no criticism by the Provincial Council itself. The Council had been perfectly satisfied with the Administrator’s explanation. A provisional appointment was absolutely necessary. The Administrator had to appoint officers to make the arrangements for the Council to meet. It was exactly the same as in the case of the Union Parliament. The gentleman who accepted the office was not the first to whom the offer was made.

Mention to whom it was offered.

Well, it is a little awkward to mention names; but I will mention one. (Ministerial cries of “No; don’t mention names.”) Well, the position was offered to, at any rate, one officer of Parliament, and by him refused. Continuing, Mr. Fremantle said that the House had no reason at all to offer any criticism of the appointment. It seemed that some of the opposition to this appointment was due to a knowledge of Dutch being required as one of the qualifications of the Clerk.

said that the reason for their criticism of this appointment was that they were bringing someone from outside the Service into appointments in the Service when they could find men inside the Service who could fill these posts. It was an undesirable proceeding, and one against which they would steadfastly protest. Now, he desired to bring to the notice of the House a matter which was much larger and which had caused the retirement from the Public Service of a man who had been a great number of years in the Service. That gentleman had retired because of a statement made in the Provincial Council by the Administrator. Referring to the circumstances of the case, Colonel Crewe said the gentleman in question was a school inspector, and a question had arisen whether he could examine children in the Dutch language. No, he (Colonel Crewe) did not raise this question because he wished to object to inspectors being required to be qualified to examine children in Dutch, but he raised it because he desired to stop what, would inevitably happen if the suggestion of the Administrator were carried out—a suggestion which must be taken to mean that no matter how a certain section of people tried to acquire a knowledge of the Dutch language, it would be useless. Now, he (Colonel Crewe) knew this gentleman, and he knew the gentleman had endeavoured with steadfast industry to acquire a knowledge of Dutch, and had, in fact, qualified in Dutch. Now, the Administrator, in the Provincial Council, said it was proposed to ask this inspector for his own statement as to his command of the language and his success in inspecting in Dutch, and, if he deemed it desirable the assistance of a relieving inspector would be available. But, the Administrator went on to say, should he consider that he was competent it might be necessary to ask him to satisfy the department on the matter by submitting to an examination. No self-Respecting Inspector, proceeded Colonel Crewe, would be likely to submit to that, (Hear, hear.) If that sort of thing were to be carried on in the Education Department, his hon. friend (Mr. Malan)—who was absolutely fair-minded—would find, when he came to take over that department, that the country had lost a number of excellent and valuable servants. The Inspector had done his utmost to learn Dutch thoroughly, and now he was told that he would have to pass an examination in it.

said the case of Mr. Satchel was practically sub-judice. The facts as stated by the hon. member were correct, Mr. Satchel had resigned.

How is it sub-judice then?

The resignation has not yet been accepted. The Provincial Council is sitting at the present moment, and they are the authority in these matters. The Executive Committee is dealing with the matter. Why should we interfere?

They are withholding his salary.

said he would ask Colonel Crewe to remember that when the Act of Union was accepted great changes as regarded the status of the two languages were introduced, and although Act laid it down that all existing officials were protected, the demand now put on the inspectors as to their knowledge of both official languages was much greater than it was before. Remembering that, they should not be too exacting in their criticisms. There had to be a great deal of give and take. The Administrator assured him that his remarks were badly reported. In the Provincial Council the replies to questions were printed in the minutes. He (Mr. Malan) had seen the reply as contained therein, and he must say that there was nothing exceptional in it. He had also seen the letter written to Mr. Satchel by the Administrator, with the concurrence of the Executive Committee, and he (Mr. Malan) had no criticism to make. Why introduce this matter into that House?

said he agreed that they would make a failure of Union if they interfered with the Provincial Councils, and exercised all the rights that belonged to Parliament. Proceeding, Sir Percy said: I do not agree with some of the things that have been said. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) gave some explanations, and the reasons which actuated the Administrator. But we know nothing about these things.

It is all public. (Cries of “No.”)

The wonder is that the hon. member has the audacity to say a thing like that. That may do very well where it cannot be checked, but it is an insult to offer it here.

Not at all—exactly the opposite.

The inference was absolutely clear— that it was racial. I consider it a most pernicious thing that it is not possible to make a fair criticism without resorting to racial suggestions. It is most deluding that this suggestion always comes from somebody who is a convert—a transfer— (laughter)—who wishes to show his zeal at the expense of everything. There is another word which I should like to use for convert, but it is unparliamentary. We get sick of these converts—absolutely sick of them.

said that as far as he knew the facts of the case were as follows: A petition was sent to the Education Department complaining that Mr. Satchel—who was a most able and zealous officer—was not competent to examine in Dutch. The department very stupidly referred the petition to the Town School Board, and asked them to inform the department whether Mr. Satchel was competent. The Dutch members of the Board said: “No, you, as a department must know whether your officers are competent or not.” Of course, the English members of the Board immediately passed a resolution saying that Mr. Satchel was competent. A question was afterwards asked in the Provincial Council, and he saw the reply of the Administrator. He did not want to criticise the reply. It seemed to him a matter for regret that a question of this kind, which came within the scope of the Provincial Council, should be dragged across the floor of that House. The hon. member for East London, he was glad to say, made a frank acknowledgment that an inspector who went into a Dutch-speaking district to examine should be conversant with both languages. He could not say whether Mr. Satchel was competent to examine boys in Dutch or not, but he knew it would be difficult to find a more conscientious or thorough officer in his work, and he was still in hopes that if it were found that he was not competent to examine in Dutch, some other sphere would be found for him, because he was far too valuable an officer to lose his services. He hoped the Minister would give this matter his serious consideration.

said that the Minister had said: “Why bring this matter up here?” The hon. member for Bechuanaland had practically said the same thing. He had said that the officer was a very zealous inspector, if he had wished be could have said a good deal more, because he knew that Mr. Satchel could examine in Dutch. It was because one recognised the position of both languages under the Act of Union that one mentioned this case. One of the clauses in that Act laid down that public servants who were public servants before the Union should not be dismissed for lack of knowledge of either language, or “that they should be compelled to resign,” he thought, might have been added, because he thought it was necessary to see that the spirit as well as the letter of the law was carried out. He was sure that the actions of the Administrators would be discussed in the House if they did foolish things. What he hoped to see, as a result of bringing up this case, was that no further criticism would be necessary, that more care would be taken in dealing with those officials whom they were bound to protect, and that they were treated as they should be treated when they had been taken over by the Provincial Council.

draw attention to the disparities in the salaries of the Provincial Auditors, and pointed out that in one case one of these officials received a salary of £750, while the Provincial Auditor in the largest Province of the Union received only £525. These officers were not Civil Servants, and there was no need to wait for the report of the Public Service Commission before dealing with their salaries. They held statutory appointments under clause 92 of the Act of Union, and there seemed to be no reason why their salaries should not be settled once for all by the Ministry.

said that the hon. member for Pretoria East had made two absolutely false charges against him. He had attributed to him a statement which was exactly opposite to what he (Mr. Fremantle) made. As regarded what he had said that evening, that was false, absolutely false. (Cries of “Order.”) He said that he (Mr. Fremantle) was wrong in stating that the names of the men to whom this position had been offered had been published. Did he say that or not?

I did not say that.

He did say that.

asked whether it was Parliamentary to say that a statement made by another hon. member was “false”?

said that the hon. member for Uitenhage should withdraw the expression.

I withdraw the word “false.” I will leave it to the committee to characterise the statement of the hon. member when I have found out the facts. He said I was wrong in saying that the names of the men to whom this position had been offered had been published. Mr. Fremantle proceeded to quote from a statement made by the Administrator as to the persons to whom he had offered the position, mentioning Mr. Visser for the office of Clerk, and Mr. Kilpin as Assistant. Mr. Fremantle added that he was, therefore, perfectly correct in saying that the names had been published. He left the committee to judge of the statement made by the hon. member for Pretoria East. (Cries of “Hear, hear.”)

What is there to “Hear, hear,” about? I asked the hon. member whether he made that statement and he could not answer me.

What statement?

That the names had been published by the Administrator—the names of men to whom he had offered the position that is now filled by Mr. Pohl, and who had refused it. I asked him before I made any statement. But all this fluster is to take one off the real issue. He has charged me with making false statements. Yes, I do not appeal for your protection, because I do not need it. (Cries of “Order.”) I am not saying anything disrespectful of the Chairman. I do not want your protection against the hon. member. I do not mind that. He said last night deliberately that the criticism was made against the examiners, curiously enough, because for the first time there was a son of the soil.

You are quite mistaken—perfectly incorrect.

To-night he made the same insinuation again. That is the curious thing— that it always coincides with somebody who knows both languages. It is a poisonous, deliberate insinuation of racialism.

said that as regarded the Provincial Auditors, he made the appointments on the recommendation of the Controller and Auditor General. The appointments had been made temporarily. In each of the Provinces the salaries varied very considerably. The appointments were made in each case at the same rate as these officers were drawing. These officers were doing exactly the same kind of work as they did before. There were certainly anomalies in the matter of the salaries paid to the Auditors in the different Provinces. In the Cape, the salary was £525; in the Transvaal £750; in Natal, £600; and in the Free State, £450. Well, he felt it would not be right to increase them all up to the Transvaal amount. Rather they should try to bring It down. The position was that the Transvaal officer was bound to receive this salary while he held the post, but he hoped they would be able to absorb some of these officers in other departments, and then to make the salaries of the auditors uniform.

hoped the Government would take steps to preserve the game in the old game reserves in the Cape Province, which were now being prospected for water, with a view to settlements being established. A great deal of poaching was going on, and it was necessary to do something to preserve their Royal game. He also desired information as to the post of translator in the Attorney-General’s office. The hon. member went on to refer to the appointment of the Clerk to the Provincial Council, saying it had created great suspicion, and had caused much dissatisfaction on the part of Civil Servants who had claims to be considered in the appointment.

said that he regretted that these matters had arisen that evening. He quite expected when the Provincial Councils were established that the next thing would be that there would be the sort of thing that had happened that evening—that some hon. members would try to meddle with the functions of the Provincial Councils. The Cape Provincial Council was quite satisfied with the official in question, and members of that body recognised that its Clerk was an able and a capable officer, yet the question of the appointment had to be dragged up in that House. The discussion had been unworthy of that House. Even Divisional Councils could act independently, and a Provincial Council surely had at least as much authority. If they wanted to make a success of the Provincial Councils they must stop that sort of thing. It had become clear to him—and he had gone into the whole matter very carefully— that the whole agitation against the appointment of that officer was of a political nature. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had kicked about him very much like a vicious colt. (Laughter.)

said that he hoped that nothing would be done to accentuate the soreness which was being felt by Provincial Councils owing to the limitation of their powers. He would like to know whether anything was proposed to be done under sub-section 4 of clause 85, which gave the Provincial Councils certain powers with regard to agriculture. As far as he knew, nothing had been done to define their powers; and in the Natal Provincial Council a resolution had been passed asking for these powers to be defined.

said that he was obliged to his hon. friend for raising the last point; a similar question had been addressed to him by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, when he (Mr. Hull) had not been in his place, and, as the committee knew, Parliament had not expressed any opinion with regard to that question. It was not proposed to make any change now, and agriculture would, for the present, be administered on behalf of the Union Government.

asked (it was understood) when they might expect the Financial Relations Committee to give them their report?

I understand the committee is hard at work. He would also like to say that the question asked by one of the hon. members for Natal would also be dealt with by the Commission.

said that the Question of game preserves would have to be taken into consideration.

moved to reduce the amount for compensation of stock slaughtered by £5,000.

asked for an explanation.

said that the £5,000 saved had been devoted to the eradication of jointed cactus.

warned his hon. friend against wholesale shooting. The tendency in consequence was to move the stock so soon as the disease came near, and thereby send the disease about the country. He went on to say that after all dipping was the only preventive, and should be put in (force even in those districts which the disease had not reached.

said there were reports that the shooting had been attended by cruelty, and he went on to deal with the non-burial of animals that were shot. The people thought that there was no reason why the animals should not be skinned and the hides disinfected and sold. He hoped the Minister would look into this.

said the policy of the Government was dipping and shooting, but the latter was done only in exceptional cases where it was considered, instead of permitting the disease to linger, it was better to bring the cattle together and shoot them. Dipping was a very good preventive, but where they had a lot of cattle together the disease might be spread. Now that the money had been provided, they would be better able to go in for a vigorous policy. It was a constant practice of the Government to dispose of the carcases as quickly as possible by burning. With regard to the hides, these would have to be disinfected under strict supervision, and if they could be removed through areas where there was no possibility of infection, they might be disposed of; but he must warn the hon. member that it would be a serious matter to risk the spread of the disease for the sake of saving a few shillings. (Hear, hear.)

desired a reply to his query, whether the Government were prepared; to put in force dipping in those districts he had mentioned?

said the Government had not the power.

You have the power when this Act goes through.

said he could not reply to the hon. member’s query in the absence of the Prime Minister. If the hon. member put his question on the paper it would be answered.

said he was sorry that the Right Hon. the Prime Minister was not in his place. If he put his question on the paper he would get a reply, but that would simply close the matter.

My hon. friend will have another opportunity when the Loan Estimates are on.

said that at the request of the Prime Minister he assisted in passing the vote. He consented, but said that several members on his side of the House wanted to discuss the policy of the Government fully. He stopped hon. members speaking then on the assurance of the Prime Minister that an opportunity would be afforded. Now, the hon. member (for East London asked if the Government would introduce compulsory dipping in the Transkei, and surely that was a reasonable request to make to the Minister in charge of the agricultural vote.

said he did not object to the question, which he considered a fair one, but as the Prime Minister could not be present that night, he did not like to decide the policy of the Government without his knowing about it. He hoped hon. members would allow the matter to stand over until they came to the vote on East Coast fever,

The reduction of £5,000 was agreed to.

asked if the £50,000 for the Orange Free State for roads and local works was an addition to the £181,000 under the main heading? He wanted to know how the £50,000 was to be spent?

said he was not ungrateful to the Minister for putting down £200,000 for school buildings in the Cape Province, but he would like to know if the Minister could give some expression of future policy, which would be a guide to school authorities in the future, because double £200,000 was wanted to meet the urgent needs for buildings in to Cape. It has been the custom in the Cape for the past 40 years to borrow for school buildings, but the Minister of Finance had been more accustomed to the Transvaal lines, and was still following them.

replied that up to the present he had not been able to ascertain from the Provincial Administrations how the money was to he spent. The demands from the Provincial Administrations amounted to £1,682,000, and he was compelled to reduce them, but the Provincial Administrations admitted that the whole of this sum was not immediately necessary. The sum now to be divided was £570,000. Natal would be given rather over 40 per cent, of the sum it asked for, the Free State nearly 50 per cent., the Cape 40 per cent., and the Transvaal 25 per cent. As to the point raised by Dr. Watkins, the Union had done far more in providing funds for the purpose of erecting school buildings in the Cape Province than had ever been done before, so far as the old Cape Colony Government was concerned. (Cries of “No.”) The issues for school loans in the Cape amounted in 1908-9 to £68,000, and in 1909-10 to £40,000. For the ten months, 1910-11, the vote was £31,000, and for the period now before them he proposed to place £200,000.

You are taking the worst years of the depression.

For a period of five years you only raised £250,000. Proceeding, Mr. Hull said, let them look at the amount voted for educational purposes, apart from higher education. The money provided for 1911-12 for education in the Cape amounted to £633,000. In the twelve months before Union, the Cape found £420,000, while now the Union was providing £633,000. He hoped the hon. member for Barkly would recognise that the Union had done a great deal for education In the Cape Province.

said that the point raised by him the other day was that the Minister had done far more for the Transvaal than he had done for the Cape Province. What he took exception to was the statement that he (Mr. Hull) had dealt far more liberally with the Cape Province than with the Transvaal in this matter. What were the facts? Since Union the total grant to the Transvaal for elementary and secondary education was £340,000, while in the Cape Province it was £231,000. They had at the present, time in the Cape applications for £284,000 for school buildings. The plans were ready for these buildings. The Minister ought to have given them a fair start at the present moment.

said that in 1904 the Cape found £100,000, in 1905, £150,000, and in 1906 they found the exact amount that the hon. gentleman had now got down himself.

You never raised a loan.

You have not spent this either. He went on to urge that they should not look upon this as a matter of one colony versus another.

said that they wanted to continue the old Cape system of lending money on the 40 years’ principle. The School Boards had beer, told for years to wait until things were better, when money could be borrowed. Then came Union, and they were told they could only put up school buildings out of surpluses, and could not borrow money for the purpose. They only asked for a loan on which ample security was given in the shape of a well-educated people, which would be a great asset. They did not ask the Government to give them the money, but only to lend it to pay off the arrears which had been piled up.

said the matter ought not to be considered from a party standpoint. He thought that in the last few years the Cape had not got the school buildings which it should have had. Education would suffer greatly if adequate school buildings were not provided.

An amendment to the footnote of the vote was agreed to.

asked for some information about the tobacco sheds, Rustenburg.

replied that it was a revote of a sum which had been voted by the Transvaal Government prior to Union.

asked when the wireless telegraph station at Slangkop would be ready? Was the site the best that could be chosen, because it seemed somewhat open and defenceless?

said that an expert who had come out from England had selected Slangkop as the best station. The work, he considered, would be ready within a fortnight, and it was estimated that under favourable conditions they would be able to communicate with a ship 1,600 miles off at night, and 400 miles, or a little more during the day. By means of communicating with other vessels fitted with wireless telegraphy it was expected that they would be able to communicate right up to Southampton. (Hear, hear.)

moved the second reading of the Bill.

Agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and set down for committee stage to-morrow.

said before the Speaker left the chair, he would like to ask the Minister regarding the appointment of a Commission on railwaymen’s grievances. The question had been raised three months ago, but nothing seemed to have been done. Then, again, he would like some statement regarding the Benoni-Welgedacht railway. This railway had been hung up, and he would ask what the Minister intended doing?

also referred to the Commission on railwaymen’s grievances. The general impression was that absolutely nothing had been done to carry out the resolution of Parliament, and this feeling had caused considerable dissatisfaction among railwaymen.

said he was waiting for a promised contribution with regard to the railway mentioned by Mr. Madeley, and when this was met. There would be no undue delay in going on with the work With regard to Mr. Alexander’s question, he said that there were reasons why the appointment of the Commission had been delayed, but he hoped it would be constituted almost immediately.

The motion to go into committee was agreed to.

asked the Minister to explain what was meant by the footnote, “the amount which should be provided at full annual rates at £726,709”?

asked that better arrangements be made for the cheap conveyance of sheep to the winter veld. The rates at present were too high. He complained about cruelty to cattle on the railways owing to the lack of feeding and watering facilities.

suggested that they should report progress.

in answer to the hon. member for Georgetown, made a brief statement about depreciation, which was inaudible in the gallery. He said he hoped to supplement the information later on. He promised to give the hon. member for Standerton (Mr. Alberts) a full reply later. He moved to report progress.

The motion was agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again to-morrow.