from P. J. Roos, (Civil Servant of Orange Free State under Republican Government.

from J. B. Burnett, wagon painter, South African Railways.

brought up the report of the Committee of the whole House on the Estimates of Expenditure and Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the year ending March 31, 19122.

drew attention to an item on page 251, and moved a verbal amendment. He said that the item was “visual refractory telescope.” This was ridiculous, and should read “visual refractive telescope.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

The committee’s amendments were a greed to.

appointed the Minister of Finance and Mr. Van Heerden a committee to draft the Appropriation Bill, in accordance with the Estimates and Supplementary Estimates as adopted.

brought up the report of the committee as appointed, submitting a Bill.

who brought up the report of the Select Committee on the Pomeroy Commonage, moved that it be printed, and considered on Friday.

seconded.

Agreed to.

as Chairman, brought up the third report of the Select Committee on Waste Lands, recommending the grants, etc., of land as follows: Lease to R. G. Smith, of farm “Driefontein,” Cradock; grant to Rest Camp, Tsolo; grant of title to C. H. Reeves, at Qwaninga; reservation for Agricultural Institution, at Mqanduli; reservation of foreshore at “Yzerfontein,” Malmesbury; lease to H. C. Jenkins at Baleni’s Location, Bizana; grant of foreshore to Town Council, Sea Point; resale of erven, Port Nolloth; grant for cemetery, Gordon’s Bay; reservation for church and school purposes, Dube; grant for Church at Tamacha; lease to W. Rowland, at mouth of Ndumbi River; reservation at Langebaan Outspan, Saldanha Bay; reservation for commonage at Elliotdale; transfer of lease to H. Ellefsen, at Schier Eiland; transfer of lease to H. Ellefsen, at Plettenberg Bay; letting of Government lands and buildings under section six of Act No. 26 of 1891 (Cape); exchange of land at “Grootfontein,” Laingsburg; reservation at Herold’s Bay, George; amendment of conditions of title at Fingo locations, Albany; lease to P. Toplis of Beacon Islet, Plettenberg Bay; lease of whaling and fishing sites, Walfish Bay; sale of lands reserved for Buchuberg Irrigation Scheme; grants of garden lots, Butterworth, Nqamakwe and Tsome; grant for tennis courts at ‘Keimoes; amendment of title to “Empotulu,” Glen Grey; lease to Schreuder Brothers at “Yzerfontein,” Malmesbury; assignment of commonages at Embokotwa and Qubenxa; lease to Mossel Bay Whaling Co. at Mossel Bay; grant for school purposes on Upper Kabousie Commonage; grant for school purposes at Upington; and sale of old Residency buildings at Mossel Bay.

The committee further recommended that the attention of the Railway Department be directed, in the case of properties put up for lease, to the necessity for advertising and giving the fullest publicity in both the English and Dutch languages in local newspapers, as well as in newspapers circulating in such other parts of the Union as may be necessary; and that in regard to the leasing of land by the Railway Department the approval of Parliament be obtained at its first session after any such leases have been entered into.

Having considered the petition of A. Aadnesen, of Durban, the committee report that the prayer of the petition does not fall within the scope of the inquiry.

It was agreed that the report be considered in Committee of the whole House on Friday.

moved: That the schedule of officers and employees in the Railway Department who are on the Fixed Establishment, and whom it is proposed to retire in terms of section 35, Act 32 of 1895 (Cape), owing to the amalgamation of railways and consequent reorganisation of the staff, laid on the table on the 13th instant, be referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Revised Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Funds to be defrayed from 31st May, 1910, to 31st. March, 1912.

moved: That the order of the House, dated the 6th April, referring the Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Funds (first print) to the Committee of Supply, be discharged, and that those Estimates be withdrawn.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved: That the Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Funds (second print) just laid upon the table of the House, be referred to Committee of Supply, with an instruction that the committee consider them in lieu of the Estimates (first print) withdrawn.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved: That on the consideration of the Railways and Harbours Service Bill in Committee of the Whole House, Standing Order No. 403, having reference to the amendments made in private Bills by Select Committees, shall apply.

seconded.

Agreed to.

May I ask the Minister of Railways, or any member of the Government, whether he will make some statement with regard to the wreck of the steamer near Cape Point, as I understand there is a large number of passengers on board?

Yes; a steamer was wrecked beyond Cape Point. The latest information I have got I got about 12 o’clock, and I asked that any further information should be sent to the House, so that I can give it. A tug was sent out, and got into communication with the ship. Most of the passengers were taken off, but unfortunately one of the boats capsized, and one or two of the passengers were drowned, including, I believe, a woman and child.

I have just rung up the Port Captain, and I have been informed that H.M.S. Forte is coming to Cape Town with 400 passengers, that 200 have been landed at Simon’s Town, and that 40 have been landed by boats. All the passengers are safely off the ship with the exception, unfortunately, of the few that were drowned.

said that he had given notice to the Minister of Finance of his intention to move an amendment in the second schedule under the head of “ Lease or agreement of lease.” When the matter was discussed in committee, horn, members were informed that the stamps on leases were very much higher in England than those provided under this Bill. Well, that might be so for a period of 100 years or more, but here the stamps were fixed up to a period of twenty years. They were also told that it was very difficult to frame a scale to suit the requirements of revenue. He, however, had prepared a scale, and would move the following amendment: On page 32, in the second schedule, litem 15, to omit all the words from “if” in line 2, down to “thereof” in line 9, and to omit all the amounts of duty from “5s.” to “15s.” and to substitute the following: “For every £100 or portion thereof, 5 years and not exceeding 6 years, 5s. 6d.; 6 years and not exceeding 7 years, 6s.; 7 years and not exceeding 8 years, 6s. 6d.; 8 years and not exceeding 9 years, 7s.; 9 years and not exceeding 10 years, 7s. 6d.; 10 years and not exceeding 12 years, 8s.; 12 years and not exceeding 14 years, 8s. 6d.; 14 years and not exceeding 16 years, 9s.; 16 years and not exceeding 18 years, 9s. 6d.; 18 years and not exceeding 20 years, 10s.; 20 years and not exceeding 21 years, 11s.; 21 years and not exceeding 22 years, 12s.; 22 years and not exceeding 23 years, 13s.; 23 years and not exceeding 25 years, 14s.; 25 and over, 15s.” He thought that that scale would be much fairer to the public than the one provided in the schedule. He hoped the Minister would accept his amendment.

seconded the amendment.

The amendment was negatived, and the second schedule was adopted.

The Bill was set down for third reading to-morrow.

formally moved the second reading of the Bill.

Is not the Minister going to tell us something about it? (Laughter.)

You can discuss it in committee.

The motion was agreed to.

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

said that they were now dealing with social legislation of a most serious nature, and the matter, therefore, must be gone into with the utmost care. (Hear, hear.) He welcomed the measure because, on the whole, it was on right lines. No reply had been made to the well-reasoned criticism of the Bill made by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin); the Minister of the Interior had not deigned to give them any reply at all. The Minister had left the matter, so far as the House was concerned, for six weeks, and then—without consulting any of the persons interested—he suddenly launched in this Draconian Bill. Mr. Phillips asked what was the certificate the medical man was called upon to give under clause 2? In order to show the immense difficulty there was in connection with the issue of these certificates, he would quote from the report of the Departmental Committee on Compensation for Industrial Diseases, which was presented to the British Parliament in 1907. The committee, in its report, stated: “A large part of our inquiry has been directed to the investigation of the diseases variously known as ‘ miners’ phthisis,’ ‘stonemasons’ phthisis,’ ‘potters’ rot,’ ‘grinders’ rot,’ and the like. To the difficult problem presented by these diseases we have given close and anxious consideration. The pulmonary disease manifests itself in three kinds of forms—as ordinary tuberculous phthisis, acute or chronic; as ‘ fibroid phthisis,’ and as a mixed form when a tuberculous process is engrafted sooner or later upon the fibroid. Fibroid phthisis is always a slow disease.” The report, having described how dust set up inflammation, impaired the tissues, which, therefore, were likely to harbour poisonous bacilli, proceeded: “To consider first, fibroid phthisis: the features of the disease, as induced by the inhalation of dust, have been described by many medical authors, attested by the witnesses who have appeared before us, and verified by the medical members of the committee on our visits to ganister mines and grinding shops. The first symptom is a cough which insidiously, and for a while almost imperceptibly, becomes habitual. At first in the morning only, it gradually becomes more frequent during the day, and expectoration, nominal at the beginning, becomes more marked, though not profuse, until the latter stages of the disease. Leaving out of account the more rapid progress of the disease in tin and gold miners, these symptoms of a negative phase of purely local damage may last for years—ten or fifteen years, or even more—without advancing to such a degree as to throw the workman out of employment or even to cause him serious inconvenience. At some period, however, rarely less than ten years, and frequently more than twenty, of continuous employment, in a like imperceptible manner the breathing gets short, and the patient finds himself less and less capable of exertion. Yet, even when the cough and dyspnoea have reached a considerable degree, there are no signs of fever, as is the case with pulmonary tuberculosis; the flesh does not fall, and the muscles retain their strength and volume. Thus even at a period when the malady is fully established, the general health may be but little impaired, and the patient may not be compelled to cease work. Herein fibroid phthisis presents a well-marked difference from pulmonary tuberculosis; and even if, as we have said, the disease becomes complicated with tubercle, yet the rate of progress may be determined rather by the character of the primary than of the secondary disease, though usually the supervention of tubercle hastens the sufferer into a more rapid consumption.”

On a point of order, is there anything before this committee? (Cries of “Yes.”) It has not been moved to delete this clause.

This matter is of the utmost importance, and I propose to show the House that as this clause stands it is utterly impossible for medical men to give this certificate. I will not take up the time of the House more than I am compelled. Continuing, Mr. Phillips said the report of the Departmental Committee stated: “Diagnosis of the mixed cases, unless the infection by tuberole be very early and predominant, may present no little difficulty even to an expert, who has before him the history of the individual, for the long period of chronic change, even in comparatively advanced stages, still may present the signs and symptoms of slow obliteration rather than of ulceration of the lungs. A still greater difficulty of diagnosis, which in early stages may never get beyond surmise, is between fibroid phthisis of other origin and chronic bronchitis, with ‘ asthma ’ or, to use the technical term, emphysema. Fibrosis from other causes is, however, generally unilateral—one lung only being affected, whereas dust attacks both lungs impartially.” Having given an account of the symptoms, the report proceeded: “To this account of the symptoms we may add that if in an early stage of fibroid phthisis the workman leaves the dusty employment for work in agriculture, or in other occupation in air free from irritating particles, the disease may be practically arrested; that is, although the part affected may proceed to obliteration, the disease would not extend to other parts of the lung, and the portion destroyed would be negligible as a factor to health and capacity.” That, observed Mr. Phillips, showed that our natives who took a rest in between their periods of work, were not troubled in the same way as white people were. The report proceeded: “Ordinary tuberculous phthisie cannot, of course, be regarded as a disease specific to any employment. It is widely prevalent throughout the population. We consider, however, that fibroid phthisis, in its later stages, and when the history of the case is known, can be clinically distinguished from tuberculous phthisis.” The definition of certificate in the Bill says nothing as to stage of the disease.

The hon. member is now speaking on the principle of the Bill.

said the whole success of the Bill depended on the certificate. As a medical man he certainly saw very great difficulties in the way of a practical working of the Bill. First of all diagnosis in the early stages of miners’ phthisis was almost impracticable. What was to prevent miners coming from all parts of the world with the irritant already in their lungs, as the result of which miners’ phthisis might develop after a few years’ work on the Rand? It would be absolutely impossible for a doctor to say that the cause of the disease developed during the year or two, say, in which the man had been at work in the Rand mines. Dr. Hewat pointed out that the matter lent itself to abuse, and that people might claim compensation under this Bill who had not contracted the disease on the mines. Miners’ phthisis was often latent. It was looked upon by the medical profession as a curable disease. There was no doubt that a difficulty arose when they put the whole onus of proof on the medical profession. He felt that there should be some provision made further than the medical man’s certificate. He suggested the appointment of a Board to consider cases in which a certificate had been given by a medical man.

said he wondered what the hon. member would have said if there had been no certificate. Who was to give the certificate except the medical man? He (Mr. Merriman) should move an amendment later on to say that if anybody were aggrieved, either the workman or the employer, by the giving or withholding of a certificate, then the Minister should have the power of referring the matter to a medical referee, and the decision of the medical referee should be final.

said that one of the difficulties in regard to this Bill seemed to him to be this, that it professed to be a Bill to regulate the compensation to workers who contracted miners’ phthisis. When it proceeded to say what that compensation was, they found that there was no basis on which the compensation was to be assessed. If a man could get a certificate that he had miners’ phthisis, whether it had affected his earning capacity or mot, whether it was in its early stages or whether it was the last gasp, he got £400. It seemed to him that that was a wrong principle. If this were a Compensation Bill, it seemed to him that they ought to follow the ordinary principles in Workman’s Compensation Bills elsewhere, and base the compensation on the loss which the men suffered owing to the fact that he was unable to earn his living through the effects of the disease. He should, therefore, move after the word “phthisis” in line 10 to add the following words: “To an extent which (a) renders him incapable, whether temporarily or permanently, of earning full wages at the work on which he was employed, or (b) causes him to be prohibited from working underground under the provisions of section 15 of this Act.” When they came to the clause defining compensation he should move that the compensation, subject to a certain maximum, should be based upon the loss sustained by the man by his inability to earn his living.

said that the position of the hon. member for Yeoville was not clear to him. He had said that he thought the object of the Bill was laudable, and that something ought to be done with this grave state of affairs, and then proceeded to read a report, the effect of which was that it was really impossible to say what was miners’ phthisis. Even if he adopted the course which the hon. member suggested, viz., that there should be no legislation, and that they should have a fund administered by a Board, it would be necessary that that Board should proceed by medical certificates. The hon. member had read extracts from a report presented to the British Government some years ago, and tried to show that they were trying to solve what was insoluble. His hon. friend knew that these extracts were really not applicable to such cases on the Witwatersrand, where fibrosis was a perfectly well-known disease. He had listened to medical hon. members who came from the Rand, and what their opinion was. Dr. MacNeillie had said that it was a good Bill, and that he would vote for it; and Dr. MACAULAY, who had had many years of experience in dealing with miners’ phthisis, said that he did not like the latter part of the first Bill, but asked him to pass the first part. None of them had criticised the Bill on the ground that it was dealing with a disease which was not perfectly well known. Of course, he knew that it was a disease which presented many varieties, but Dr. Hewat would admit that he had not a very wide acquaintance with the subject matter of that Bill, although he had a wide acquaintance with other medical subjects. No reputable medical practitioner on the Rand would have any real difficulty in coming to a conclusion that a man was suffering from the disease. The first thing that had to be done was that a man who considered he was suffering from the disease must get a certificate from a reputable medical man, who would be on the list. That certificate was sent in to the Board, which would ask another medical practitioner to go into the case; and if these two agreed, the case was passed. If the two did not agree, the Bill provided for a medical referee, whose decision would be final. The case would then go to the Board, consisting of four men; and it was the intention also to have a medical man on the Board, so that there would have to be a diagnosis of four medical men before the case was finally passed as one of silicosis fibrosis. He did not think that the amendment of Mr. Duncan helped him much; he did not think the hon. member knew much about fibrosis.

Nothing at all.

That is what I admire so much about the hon. member—he states the truth. (Laughter.) My hon. friend does not know that the peculiarity of fibrosis is just this: that a man may be fatally diseased and his earning capacity is not impaired; he may go on for years, and then may suddenly “go off” in a week. I say this to show my hon. friend that his amendment does not meet the case at all. If a man has fibrosis to any extent, he must leave underground work. If you compensate him and turn him from his work, the man may recover and live a long life. That is where the native labourers score so heavily; they do not work continuously on the mines, but return to their kraals, so that, although they may suffer from tuberculosis, they don’t suffer very much from phthisis. If you have a scale, as I think my hon. friend intends, a man will not get compensation at the early stages, but will continue in harness in order to get a large amount of compensation until he is dead.

said that what their objection was, was that the measure was an ill-considered one; and they recognised that it was a very grave problem they had to deal with, and they had no desire to shirk it. General Smuts had said that fibrosis in England was unlike that on the Rand. That was not the case. It was more severe on the Rand, but the, disease and the course of the disease was precisely the same as in Cornwall, It was impossible to say when a man got fibrosis. He did not say the problem was insoluble, but he said that they had not taken any evidence on the subject yet on the Rand, and that the right thing was to have a Board, whose duty it would be to examine every man working underground on the Rand, and take the history of ah the cases which appeared before it. In the meantime, temporary assistance could be given to cases of miners’ phthisis. Of course, if the employers began to examine individual men, they would have trouble. Surely they could do in this country what had been done in Australia—or find out how many cases there were, and the history of the different cases?

said he was one of those who entirely sympathised with the Minister in his efforts to deal effectively with this subject of miners’ phthisis. When the Minister brought in his first Bill, hon. members on the Opposition side might have appeared to have hindered him, but the effect had been that the various suggestions they had made had been amply justified by the Bill that was brought before them now. In regard to clause 9, he would like to show the initial difficulty that would occur in considering this Bill. The first time he came to a suggested amendment he could not find that amendment. There was a difficulty in having to take in the committee stage of the Bill a second reading debate. It was much more difficult than dealing with a new Bill, because one had repeatedly to compare it with the old Bill. Now, he wished to refer to the matter of granting certificates. One found that a certificate was only to he issued by a class of medical men who had received a special diploma from the Minister in order to enable them to grant the certificate. Now, the Minister had charged some of them with not being as expert in regard to miners’ phthisis as the medical gentlemen on the Rand. He did not see that there was any ground under the Act for this initial proceeding, because if a certificate was given by any medical man who was on the register, as a preliminary measure, there were still experts to fall back upon who were provided for under the Act. Therefore, he did not see why in the initial stages a certificate should not be given by a medical man who was registered as such. He would be glad of an explanation on that point. Then, again, they were faced with the difficulty that the Minister had excluded those gentlemen who were experts by saying that no certificate should be granted by any mine doctors or doctors to insurance companies The men who naturally would have the greatest experience of this disease were the men who were debarred from giving that experience a chance. It seemed to him to be a most complicated state of affairs. It certainly seemed strange that a man who was used to dealing with any disease in this country should be excluded from giving a certificate dealing with that disease. By the clause he had referred to, the experts all seemed to be precluded from giving a certificate. It was quite an unknown thing in this country to select a list of men who shall have the right to speak with regard to a particular disease. That was one of the difficulties with which one would be faced all through in connection with this Bill. The practical way he saw of dealing with the Bill was for the Minister to accept the offer made for this session, that the Government find a certain amount of money, and the mines a certain amount, and deal with the immediate trouble, and have the whole matter thrashed out next session If there were one Bill more than another which should have been referred to a Select Committee, it was this Bill with all its technicalities. He appealed to the Minister to withdraw the Bill, and accept the offer made from that side of the House.

said he did not pose as an expert on this matter, but he had listened very carefully to the debate, and to what had been said in regard to workmen’s compensation. He thought it had to be admitted that the disease was a matter of degree, and a man might be slightly or seriously affected by it. He considered that the most logical thing to do was to have an inspection of all miners at once, and then give compensation to those affected. That was the only position they could take up if they were going to pursue the proper course. Now they were leaving it to the men to come forward themselves, and leaving it then to the doctor to say if a man was to have compensation or not. That would not work. To his mind, the time that a man should become entitled to compensation could be measured, and the time he had the disease could be measured, and a decision come to as to whether the disease meant partial or total disablement, and in his opinion the certificate should be based on that.

suggested that progress be reported in order that the Bill might be printed, with the amendments embodied in the text.

said the hon. member’s suggestion was not in accordance with the Standing Orders.

said that he based his amendment upon the principle that compensation should be paid according to the damage sustained. The Bill provided that a lump sum of £400 should be given to men, whether partially or totally incapacitated, and he said that compensation awarded on that principle was altogether wrong. It was an ordinary principle of Workmen’s Compensation Acts that compensation should be paid according to the damage sustained, and his amendment provided for compensation being paid when a man was incapable for either temporarily or permanently doing the work in which he was formerly engaged.

said that the question of damage was one for the Court. He would move later an amendment which would open up the whole question of partial or total disablement, and the compensation to be paid. In regard to the certificates, there did not seem to be very much wrong with them.

said that, having embarked upon this matter, it was necessary to pursue it, and to pass a measure which would protect the men from any such hardship as had been proposed in regard to a medical examination.

said he rather favoured the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg, who said chat the certificate should certify that a man was incapacitated from pursuing his normal work, and that on that basis compensation should be paid. But the Minister of Mines did not agree with that. He said it was not a question as to whether or not a man was incapacitated; he said that if a man had got silicosis he might one day get worse, and therefore he should get the full amount of compensation at once. The Minister was getting into a difficult position. Did he say that every man who had silicosis, whether slightly or severely, should be compensated at once, and should not go underground again? He put nothing in the Bill to prevent a man who had phthisis from going underground after he had been compensated. Now, he wanted to know from the Minister: Did he consider that it was the duty of the employer to refuse to allow that man to go underground or not?

said that with regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Barkly, he was not casting a slur upon the medical men. He thought that there should be a selected list of medical men. As for the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg, all he could say was that it was impracticable, and if it were accepted the great majority of really genuine cases of miners’ phthisis would not be awarded compensation, because a man was not incapacitated from doing underground work by miners’ phthisis. A man really became incapacitated when the ordinary tubercular disease supervened. Ordinary miners’ phthisis did not, as a rule, incapacitate a man, and therefore, if the amendment were accepted, they would place a Law upon the Statute-book which would be a dead letter. No doctor would be able to certify that a sufferer had miners’ phthisis to such an extent that he was incapacitated from doing underground work The point raised by the hon. member for Germiston was an important one, but he did not think the Legislature should bind the men finally. When a man became a danger to others, then the State should step in and make it a penal offence for him to work underground. Once they had a person suffering from consumption he became a danger, and for the preservation of life they ought not to have these people going below. In case of ordinary fibrosis he did not think they should go as far as that.

said he could not follow the Minister. If tuberculosis, which they all knew was a dangerous germ disease, was a dangerous thing underground—because men had miners’ phthisis, and miners’ phthisis could not be discovered in its early Stages—if tuberculosis was a disease that ought not to be allowed underground, then the men ought to be examined. By having these ambiguous clauses in the Bill, they were going to have trouble between employer and employee. They had got to examine the men. He thought the State ought to take the onus of that. They should have a medical examination by a Royal Commission got out here by the Government. Be wanted to know the problem that they had to deal with, and they did not know it to-day. The Royal Commission should examine every man underground. There were only 10,000. They would then know how much tuberculosis they had got, and how much fibrosis.

How many years will that take?

It can be done easily in a year. It can be done by a number of people. Mr. Phillips went on to urge that they should take the money they had on the Estimates, and relieve immediate distress through a competent Board, and deal with the whole problem in the only logical way by making a proper investigation. He believed they were blundering into legislation in this matter, the far-reaching effect of which none of them would discover until the mischief had been done. This Bill, as it stood, did not meet the object in view. His opinion was that, as they went on from clause to clause, they would find themselves in greater and greater difficulties. It was impossible to determine the disease in the early stages Were they going to encourage men to come to the Board for compensation to which they were not entitled?

said that all he sought to do in his amendment was to discriminate between a man who was laid off work temporarily because of the disease, and a man who was at such a stage that he ought not to go below again, in which case he should get compensation on the basis of not being able to work again.

said that the amendment which had been placed on the paper would enable the Native Affairs Department to deal with the case of a native labourer. This was a simpler procedure, and would not put the native in the hands of the lawyers.

said that there still remained the question of a certificate, because somebody would have to determine whether the native had the disease. He moved in line 8, after “miner” to insert “or native labourer.”

urged that the time had arrived when they ought to know from the Minister whether the term “miner” would include native labourers, as far as compensation was concerned.

said that the Minister was setting up different classes of medical men to give certificates. The protection of the State was that the man who gave the certificate was on the Register, and was allowed to practise in South Africa. Now, because a paltry amount of money, up to £400 or £500, which could not be compared in the scale of importance with human, life—(Mr. W. B. MADELEY (Springs): “Hear, hear)— was to be given, they were putting a certain number of men on that list, and the Minister must see that it was unfair to differentiate like that. Higher fees would be charged if these men were put on the list proposed by the Minister, because if a man had special qualifications he would charge higher fees. He moved, in line 7, after “by a” to insert “registered” and after “practitioner” to omit all the words down to “mine” in line 8.

hoped that the Minister would accept both amendments. ‘Personally, he could not see any reason for discriminating between different medical men. Supposing a man came to Cape Town and developed miners’ phthisis there. Who was to give the certificate— unless the Minister provided for such medical men in every town? The hon. member impressed on the danger of allowing the examination to wait until too late.

hoped that the Minister would not pooh-pooh the amendment of Mr. Schreiner,

said that he had no intention of making the term “miner” apply to a native labourer, but he simply wished to assist the Bill by putting in “native labourer.”

said that the difficulty was about procedure. Of course, there had to be a medical certificate also in the case of native labourers. The procedure in regard to natives was different. The European miner had to make his claim or application in writing, supported by a medical certificate; but he was afraid that if that had to be done in the case of natives, not a single native labourer would get compensation. He thought that it was a much better course to apply some simpler procedure in the case of native labourers, and to send them all to the Native Affairs Department, which would be given power to have a medical examination made. He wanted to keep the natives out of the hands of the lawyers; and the compensation being so small, he thought the simple procedure he proposed was best. He did not know that hon. members who belonged to the medical profession took these references to the profession as a slur, as Dr. Watkins and Dr. Hewat continued to taunt him with. This was a case where they had to protect the mining industry employers and the Government. This was not a case of an ordinary medical certificate given anyhow, but one on which the payment of a large sum of money depended, and his experience was that you did not want such payments to depend on the medical certificate of any medical practitioner. On the Rand, in the past, there had been certain doctors who issued certificates to Chinese, enabling them to obtain opium. These doctors might create a new practice by the issue of certificates stating that miners were suffering from silicosis. The amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) would narrow the scope of the Bill very largely.

did not think it right for the Minister to stigmatise a whole profession because of the actions of a few.

stated that certain doctors on the Rand had made a practice of selling opium certificates to the Chinese. Under this Bill, these doctors would have a new calling, and they would certify every case as one of miners’ phthisis. It would be a gross abuse of their duty if Parliament allowed such people to give certificates on which the mining industry and the taxpayers would have to pay out very large sums of money.

If doctors do wrong, they should be struck off the roll.

Suppose a man has silicosis, and he continues to work underground and he develops tuberculosis, can he get compensation a second time? He finishes when he gets his first compensation?

Yes.

suggested the insertion of “preliminary” before “certificate.” Any doctor should be allowed to give a preliminary certificate.

did not see how that would help. If insurance companies were to accept medical certificates from all and sundry, what would become of them?

did not think the certificate of any medical man ought to be regarded as absolute, but after obtaining it, the man should present himself to a Board of Examiners.

Why can’t we be satisfied with the clause as it stands? I entirely agree with the Minister, and know what the value of a certificate is.

The amendment of Dr. Watkins to insert “registered” was negatived, and Mr. Schreiner withdrew his amendment.

The omission of the word “nine” was agreed to, and “sixteen” inserted.

The amendment in line 8 by the Minister of Mines was agreed to.

wished the Minister to make it clear at what stage was the certificate to be granted to a man? The reason he asked was because, after a certificate was given and compensation paid, the man was not debarred from going on with his work. Having silicosis, he was predisposed to get tuberculosis, and the fact that there was no provision to stop him from going underground simply meant that they were piling up the chances for the spread of the dis ease. He took the view that they ought to have a much greater inquiry, and deal with the present deserving cases. The point of view of these suffering men had not been realised in this connection. What earthly chance was there for the men to get employment when they were throwing such a large proportion of compensation upon the employers? They would intinctively defend themselves, and it was inevitable that they would find these men, and try to keep them out, and they would lose their employment. He wanted to know what was the object, of the certificate; how was it going to work out; at what stage was it going to be given; and what was going to prevent the spread of the disease, and protect the unfortunate men who had got it? As things stood at present, they were only giving the men £400 to go and get a worse disease.

said he did not see the use of continuing discussion on the question of the certificate, because it did not touch the really vital issues of the Bill.

Mr. Duncan’s amendment was negatived.

moved to add at the end of the clause, “or any person registered as such, as the Minister may approve.” He spoke of the difficult position of men who were living out of the country, and who were entitled to claim compensation, and desired to enable them to be examined oversea,

said he could not accept the amendment.

said he thought these men ought to be saved the necessity of a voyage to this country. Such a voyage might be fatal to them.

said he did not think the hon. member understood the machinery of the Bill. The man who claimed compensation would, as far as he could see, have to be in the country. There were certain exceptions which might be raised to his claim.

took exception to a statement made by the Minister in regard to the knowledge of employers as to whether men who had been in their employ, and who had gone to England, were suffering from the disease.

said he was thinking of the case of a man who had gone back to Cornwall because of the state of his health.

said that the [employers did not know the condition of their white employees’ health. The latter had their own medical men.

pointed out that even if these men were fit to come out, their compensation would be reduced by the amount of their expenses. He hoped the Minister would meet cases of this kind, and allow a certificate to be given by a respectable medical practitioner oversea.

said that there were practical difficulties against claims being prosecuted by claimants from oversea. There might be hard cases, but, there was a danger of opening the door to a wrong procedure.

The amendment was negatived.

The amendments in lines 12 to 14, and the new definition “fund” were agreed to.

On the definition of “miners,”

moved the deletion of the words limiting the operations of the measure to men earning over £50 per month.

May I point out that this is in conflict with all other Acts, or the Workman’s Compensation Act? People for whom these things are provided in other countries are poor, indigent people, but here you put it up to £600 a year.

said that the men would be called upon to contribute, and surely it was right that they should get compensation. It was the natural outcome of a contributory scheme.

said that that definition controlled the rest of the Bill, and if a man above £600 were excluded, he could not be called upon to contribute.

said that you must draw the line somewhere. He did not see why they should set themselves against the stream of all other countries. The line was drawn ridiculously high.

said that the clause was certainly very wide without any limitation at all. He did think it to be absurd to include engineers, mine captains, and the like, but he thought it would be reasonable to extend the term of six months during which the wages were calculated. There were cases of those who drew high wages, and low wages at other times, or no wages at all.

said that he thought the Minister’s amendment should be carried, because it was a case of compensation; and in that case it did not matter what a man earned. Mining engineers were paid, he thought, for their qualifications, not for the risks they nan in connection with miners’ phthisis.

agreed with Mr. Chaplin that the definition was very wide, and included such men as pipe fitters and the like. The idea was to compensate men who developed phthisis in the course of their business. The whole matter required more consideration.

said that his hon. friend forgot that the Bill provided that a man must have worked underground for two years. What difference did it make whether a man was a rock driller or not, as long as he developed miners’ phthisis?

suggested insertion of the words “resident within the Union.”

said that was unnecessary. There was a lot to be said for the objection urged by Mr. Merriman, and therefore he would move that twelve months be substituted for six months.

suggested that the period should be two years.

The amendment was adopted.

The amendment in lines 20 to 23, proposed by the Minister of Mines, was negatived.

moved the omission of “fibrosis or,”

accepted this amendment, which was agreed to.

proposed, the following definition: “Dependants shall mean such members of the miner’s family as are wholly or in part dependent upon the miner at the time of the granting of the certificate of the disease or the death of the miner, as the case may be, on whose behalf any claim is made,”

The amendment was agreed to.

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

said he noticed there was a large saving on the maintenence of way and works, and there was some doubt as to whether the permanent way was being kept up to the full standard. The saving gave the impression that in the excitement to save money, the permanent way! would not be kept up to full standard.

complained of the state of the station-master’s dwelling-house and the waiting-rooms at a station in his constituency. He said the stationmaster’s dwelling was like a pill box, whilst the other buildings were very small. The station he referred to was right in the middle of the veld, and I increased waiting-room accommodation was necessary. He hoped the Minister of Railways would have inquiries made as to the need for more accommodation.

said he would like to draw she attention of the Minister to the state of things at the Railway Stores, in New-market-street, Cape Town. At present a great deal of dissatisfaction reigned, because for months past the clerks and office boys had had to work every other Sunday and every other Saturday night, and also late at night during the week, without receiving any remuneration for the overtime. The Government had informed them that they were not going to receive any extra pay. To put it mildly, these officials were being sweated. The men did not object to do overtime occasionally without extra pay, but when it became a regular thing they objected strenuously. They thought the matter should be in quired into by the Minister. Then another point to which he had to draw attention, was in connection with the state of things in the Stores’ printing office. Very good work was carried on there, work quite as good as that done by any other firm in town, and yet the pay the officials received was much less than that paid by private firms.

asked if the white men who had been working at 3s. 4d. per day had had their wages raised? He would also like to know if the attention of the Minister had been directed to the wages paid in Australia for the upkeep of the permanent way. In Queensland the men received 8s. per day, and yet the cost of the upkeep per mile was less than here.

said he hoped the Minister would satisfy himself that the sleepers which were now being put down on the main lines would be capable of standing the strain of the heavy traffic now passing over them.

said he would like the Minister to give the committee some indication of how he proposed to deal with the sum of £307,000 under item 19 depreciation of permanent way and works).

said that the Estimates were presented in rather an embarrassing manner. For instance, he found under head I, a lump sum covering the wages and salaries of the engineers and other professional staffs, and the details appeared on page 56. The result was that one could not deal with any particular individual. When the time came he would ask the Minister to explain how he arrived at the amount of £1,159,000, which he proposed to hand over to the Minister of Finance. Proceeding, the hon. member read extracts from letters which he had received. The first letter was in regard to the fixed establishment, and it came from Uitenhage. Under the old Cape system railway men, after serving ten years, were entitled to be put on the pension staff. Men who had not completed ten years’ service were not quite sure that they carried with them into Union that right or not. Supposing men had put in six years’ service under the Cape Government, would they be able to complete the other four years and earn the right to be placed on the fixed establishment? The second letter had reference to South African boys, who were apprenticed in the railways. According to the letter, after boys had served their apprenticeship they were not taken on the fixed establishment or taken into the Service. They were told they could not be taken into the Service unless they broke their service and re-entered. They had to leave the Service and re-enter it and in that case they were taken on at full pay. The third letter dealt with the case of a widow of a railway man. She was in charge of a small station and her remuneration was 3s. per day during week days and 1s. 6d. on Sundays. From that, however, the department deducted £1 5s. 8d. per month for rent and sanitary fees. Last month, after deducting rent and sanitary fees, she received £2 12s. 4d. He thought the Minister and the committee would agree that that was not adequate remuneration. His opinion was that the woman was not being treated as a human being.

asked the Minister to make a statement with regard to what he proposed to do with the men who suffered disabilities in consequence of having taken part in the strike in Natal some years ago. He would also like to know if the Minister had made inquiries with regard to the advisability of constructing a foot-bridge at South Coast Junction?

said that he wanted to make an appeal on behalf of the men in the railway service, who got the miserable pittance of 3s. a day. He knew half a dozen white men who were only receiving 3s. a day. He thought, when the railways were making the profits they were doing they should have a little more consideration for the men who helped to make those profits.

said that, in regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, ever since he (Mr. Sauer) had been connected with the railways in the Cape and the Union, whatever else they had starved, they said that they must not starve the permanent way. That must be kept in perfect order. The permanent way, he believed, was in very good order now. However, his attention having been drawn to it, he would make inquiries. In reference to what the hon. member for Tembuland had said in regard to stations, it was a curious thing that people were never happy until they got a railway, or thought they would not be, and then they complained more than ever before. He might tell his hon. friend that, until the unfortunate East Coast fever came into his constituency, although they built a railway there, and they were told that it would pay very well, they all got their goods up in the bullock-wagon, and would not use the railway. (Hear, hear, and A VOICE: “Shame.”) He promised to look into the matter mentioned by the hon. member. He would also inquire into the matter brought under his notice by the hon. member for the Castle Division. He added that he did not know a single service in the Union that was so popular as the railways. Everybody wanted to get into it, and yet sometimes, if they listened to the speeches, they might imagine that it was a dreadful service to be in. In regard to the question of the 3s. 4d., raised by the hon. member for Jeppe, it was a great mistake to suppose that the majority of white men, even other than those employed in the railway workshops, received 3s. 4d. A small number only got that pay at the present time. In the Transvaal—he supposed the hon. member was referring to the Transvaal—they only got that pay for a short period. (When a man was taken on he got 3s. 4d. If, after a month’s service, his work was satisfactory, he got an increase. A considerable increase had been made to the men who received less than 5s. As to the point raised by the hon. member for Boksburg, they generally preferred wooden sleepers on the railway, but a certain number of iron sleepers were ordered, and put into lines over which the traffic was not very great. It was thought by the engineers that, economically, it was wise to employ iron sleepers on those roads. The hon. member for Durban, Greyville, had asked him in regard to the sum of £307,000. That was a contribution towards the depreciation fund to replace rails and sleepers on the lines. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth had referred to a number of matters. He would go into these if the hon. member handed him the letter from which he quoted. There was one question, however, of importance to the railway men, to which he would refer. In the Cape Colony railway service a man who had been employed permanently for ten years, and had got a certificate of efficiency, was entitled to get on the fixed establishment. Well, that was still the law to-day, and under the Superannuation Bill before the House, the hon. member would see that he (Mr. Sauer) did not propose to take away the existing rights of any class of the community, and they would not be any worse off after the Bill became law than they were prior to Union in that respect. As to the matter of the interesting widow, he was not aware that they had a widow as stationmaster. He could not say whether her salary was sufficient or not, but he would give the case his special attention. (A laugh.) Another of the members for Durban (Mr. Robinson) had asked with regard to what was done with a number of men who went on strike in Natal, and were not reinstated. He had gone into the question, and he found that a large number of men who went on strike, the great majority, had been re-employed by the Natal Government. There were, speaking from memory, 37 to 39 who had not been re-employed.

said that his question related rather to the removal of disabilities, not taking back into employment. He had heard that a certain number of men who were hack had lest privileges.

said that he did not think that that question had been previously brought to his notice. He would make-inquiries, and give the hon. gentleman an answer in a day or two. As to the matter of the footbridge at Durban, he would look into that. The hon. member for Woodstock had referred to a certain number of white men, Who got 3s. a day. He knew that such was the case. He did not think there were many in that position. He would say that this question of wages was being looked to in connection with the regrading. Speaking generally, he wanted to run the railways as economically as possible. It was the only way in which they could make a success to-day. His object had been to increase the number of white men employed upon the railways, and it might be necessary to increase the rate, but he was prepared to do that.

drew the Minister’s attention to the iron sleepers on the line from Volkrust to Balfour, and asked why these had been removed? Again, he would like to refer the Minister to pages 13 and 17 of the Estimates, and explain why the amount of depreciation was short by £454,000? The point that he wished to arrive at was: had this depreciation been arrived at on a scientific basis, or simply by rule of thumb? H-e maintained that the depreciation amount should be worked out on a scientific basis, hut the betterment amount was a different thing altogether.

said he was informed that the iron sleepers were still there. They were designed by the Engineer-in-Chief.

They have been taken out.

They are still there, I am told. Continuing, the Minister said with regard to the question of depreciation, the hon. member asked why this deficiency in the depreciation account was shown—-well, it was simply shown because he wanted to be candid with the House. The hon. member asked if this depreciation was figured out upon a scientific basis. They knew the basis which the C.S.A.R. adopted. Buildings did not depreciate so quickly as rolling-stock, and they did not want the same percentage. This depreciation account depended to a large extent upon the revenue. If they had a large surplus, they spent more in depreciation, and to a large extent that policy obtained now. If it were not for other considerations, he would certainly have asked for more towards this vote. He hoped that ample provision would be made for all services that had to be provided for by the railway, because he knew how the railway suffered on this account. Certainly they ought to set aside an ample sum every year towards depreciation, and be hoped it would be the last time that they would have occasion to call attention to this very important matter.

suggested that in the Minister’s future statements more information should be forthcoming regarding how much had been written off buildings, rolling stock, workshops, etc., showing also each capital account upon which the percentages had been taken. The hon. member referred to the Mowbray crossing, where the traffic was as great as any he knew, and hoped the Minister would make some provision for a bridge.

hoped that the Minister would give a table each year showing the percentages for depreciation, because they ought to know what should be written off, so that they would know if the Railway Department were keeping these depreciation accounts up to the standard. It was perfectly useless to deal with these matters of depreciation if the department were to give way to the exigencies of the Treasury. Let them know what the depreciation ought to be, even although they could not pay it.

hoped the Minister would consider the question of making investigations with a view to ascertaining the dangerous spots on the railways, and of altering had curves and so on, in order to avert the possibility of accidents.

said that he quite agreed that there should be a scientific basis of calculation in regard to depreciation, but as to betterment, it was quite impossible to lay down any scientific value of betterment. Betterment was solely what could be afforded out of revenue towards capital expenditure.

said that betterment was on an entirely different footing to depreciation. Betterment was a question of how much they could afford) out of their pocket towards capital expenditure. Depreciation could be calculated on a fixed basis, and the amount of the contribution arrived at by such calculation should be kept up.

quite agreed with the last two speakers as to the distinction between betterment and depreciation. No definite rule as to depreciation had been adopted on the Union Railways yet. A certain principle had been laid down on the Central South African Railways, but that had not always been strictly adhered to. That principle was that in regard to permanent way material, telegraphs and telephones, bridges, signals and sundries, the depreciation was calculated at 3 per cent.; in respect of brick and stone buildings the allowance for depreciation was 1½ per cent.; for wood and iron buildings it was 5 per cent.; for sanitary plant, 15 per cent.; and for certain machinery, 10 per cent. He quite agreed with Sir George Farrar that it was very necessary to have the depreciation allowance fully kept up. With regard to the case of the widow mentioned by Sir E. Walton, he would give that matter his special attention, and would see that the lady was treated quite fairly. As to the position of the apprentices on the railway, he thought it was wise to encourage young fellows to enter the Service in this way They were not always re-employed, after their term of apprenticeship, because some of them went into other services, but in reference to such of these as were reemployed on the railway, naturally they would not at first draw the maximum wage. They would begin at the ordinary wage paid to the artisan when he first entered the Service, and would go up in the scale from that point. In reference to a question asked concerning the transport of live-stock, he might say that there had been a conference called by the South African Railways, at which the Agricultural Department and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals were represented, and they were satisfied with the arrangements made. Attention was being paid to dangerous curves.

said that with regard to what Mr. Sauer had said about half the freight being refunded in case of cattle being transported in times of drought, the people who sent their cattle were generally poor; and why could they not be charged the half-rate in the first instance, instead of being charged full rate, and then getting a refund of 50 per cent?

brought up the question of railway carriage on fish, the rates having been increased in some cases to the extent of 100 per cent. The fishing industry was as much a South African industry as agriculture was.

said that as there was no sinking fund, there should be some fixed principle regarding betterment.

No.

Whoever said ‘(No” doesn’t understand the question.

asked for lower rates in connection with cattle carried for slaughtering purposes,

said that one of the provisions of the Act of Union was that the interests of agriculture were to be fostered by means of the railway rates. The hon. member said that the charge for returned empties on the railway was so high that the small farmers could not make the profit that the large farmers could, because the former sent up their fruit in hoses, which had to be returned. In regard to vats, the rates on wood on the railway were such that it was cheaper to send barrels from Cape Town to Paarl than it was to send the wood. Tariffs of that nature led to oversea importation instead of promoting local industries as they should do. The hon. member also drew attention to the high railway rates on seed and manure. The fares in connection with the agricultural shows were, he understood, one and a quarter times single fare, and it was of the utmost importance, in order to foster agriculture, that these shows should be well attended, and therefore that the railway fares should be as low as possible.

replying to Mr. Runciman, said that the rates on fish carried short distances had been increased. For long distances, however, they had not been increased. He found that the increase in the rates for short distances was considerable, and he would bring the matter to the notice of the Board. The latter would no doubt do something towards encouraging this very desirable industry. As to the rates on live-stock, he had taken the trouble to look up the rates charged in other parts, and had found that the rates in this country were the lowest in the world. As to the question of rates on fruit, raised by the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. De Jager), he wished to say that although the rates had been increased, they were extraordinarily low. He promised to look into the matter of rates on vats.

The vote was agreed to.

said that there was a very large increase in the figures for the use of machinery and power, the amount being £42,115, as compared with £22,299 for the ten months ended March 31 last. He would like an explanation as to this enormous increase. Then he noticed, under the heading of “indirect expenses,” two items of superintendence and wages. The superintendence under this head seemed to bear an extraordinary over-relation to the item of wages. Was not, he asked, the superintendence excessive?

drew attention to a point raised by the Auditor-General in his report as to whether the rolling-stock had been kept up to the mark.

pointed out that there had been a considerable block in the goods traffic at the harbour at East London, and asked whether the situation had been dealt with?

mentioned the grass-burning in the Transvaal caused by locomotive sparks, and asked whether it was not possible to attach some device to the engines to prevent this da in ag e?

desired information regarding the present position of the engine-driver when the Gaika Loop accident occurred. He had been led to believe that this man would not suffer in any way, but his constituents had informed him that this was not the case.

drew attention to the “Mallet” engines. He desired to know if this type proved successful? It was found that certain gradients in Natal had suffered very considerably, and it was said that this was due to these heavy engines.

said he had also heard that this type of engine was not satisfactory.

said he had made inquiries some time ago, and the report he had received was that they were satisfactory. Up to the present he had received no complaints, but would make further inquiries. With regard to the query about the block of traffic at East London, he had received information about that, and had communicated with the General Manager, and the block had been removed satisfactorily. This block, he believed, arose entirely from the fact that there was a great pressure of work, and they had not sufficient rolling-stock to cope with it. He did not think, however, that they should keep sufficient rolling-stock for an emergency that only occurred two or three days in the year. That would not be good policy. It was quite possible, however, with the present expansion of traffic, that he might have to ask the House for more rolling-stock. With regard to the hon. member’s (Sir Bisset Berry’s) query, the engine-driver referred to would not be employed again on the railways as an engine-driver, but would be given other work to do.

said he understood that the Minister was going to apply a certain amount of money for the purchase of rolling-stock in connection with the loans for railways. He hoped that when the House met next session, proper accounts would be prepared, showing every truck and every engine in the service, so that they would have some opportunity of seeing whether the 13½ millions at which the rolling-stock appeared in the books were a fair valuation or not. He would also like to know whether the experiment of running motor vehicles had been successful.

said he quite agreed that there should be a valuation of the rolling-stock. That valuation was now being made, and would, he hoped, be completed a considerable time before the next session. With reference to motor-vehicles, there had been some difficulty owing to the right type of engine not having been used, but he hoped that would be satisfactorily overcome.

The vote was agreed to.

referred to the system on the C.S.A.R. of paying engine-drivers per trip. In the Cape and Natal, the drivers were paid for the time they were on the footplate, and there was, therefore, no inducement to them to make up time by travelling at dangerous speeds. On the C.S.A.R. the trains were scheduled for a certain trip, and the drivers were not paid for more than the time scheduled for such trip, excepting, perhaps, as a matter of grace. That was a direct inducement to make up time, and to take risks which might result in accidents. He hoped that the system would be done away with. He thought that the men ought to be paid for the number of hours they were on the foot-plate. There was another iniquitous system in regard to the payment of overtime which the Minister had condemned. An engine-driver in the Transvaal was paid 8s. a day, with 4s. a day as local allowance, but if he worked overtime he was paid only at the rate of 8s. a day. In the Cape, however, an engine-driver was paid time and a quarter for working overtime, so that even with the lower wages in the Cape the men here were better off than were those in the North. The latter system should not be allowed. Then the trip system was a direct incentive to men to drive at an excessive speed. It was really a sweating system, for under it it paid the administration to work the men excessive hours. The Government should set an example to private employers, who dare not carry: out such principles as Government did.

suggested a reduction of £5,374 in the vote of £595,374 for coal and wood. The hon. member referred to the contract with the Breyten Collieries, and said that information had not been given to the House with regard to that contract which it should have got. The Minister had given an evasive reply, and it seemed to him (the speaker) that there was more in the matter than met the eye.

complained of the absence of conductors on the arrival of trains at Smaldeel, so that passengers were not able to obtain proper seats. There were also complaints with regard to the booking or reservation of seats.

said he desired to associate himself with Sir George Farrar’s remarks. He asked that a stop, should be put to the trip system. The matter of piece-work also wanted to be looked into; it really amounted in some cases to a “try on.”

said he supported what had been said about the trip and piece-work systems. A great deal was to be said for a proper system of piecework, but it was a system which was capable of great abuse Theoretically, a great deal was also to he said in regard to the trip system. It seemed to him that the system required very careful consideration. In fact, it was a question whether it should not be abandoned. It was the cause of much discontent amongst the men, who were not ordinarily given to making complaints, and he had had cases where the system worked with extreme hardship. He supported what the hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Du Toit) had said. The question was one of some importance. What, he had previously complained about in regard to the question of coal rates was not that a particularly low rate was given to distant collieries in order to bring them to the markets, but that a special rate was given a special company under a special contract. Now he wanted to know whether it was a fact that the Minister got coal from this colliery at the rate of 3s. 8d. per ton in exchange for low railway rates, On a previous occasion he had asked the Minister to lay the contract on the table, and he had promised to consider the matter. Well, he had not laid the contract on the table, and he supposed he was still considering the question. (Laughter.) The Minister had said that he was threatened by a combine, and that he must protect himself against it by encouraging little independent collieries which were nobly trying to maintain an independent existence. But did he know that this colliery to which he gave a special rate was just as much in the hands of a combine as any other colliery? It was owned by a company which was known as the Victoria Falls Power Company, or at any rate by those interested in it. The principle he contended for was that a colliery should not be given a special rate by the Government in exchange for some special treatment from it. He wanted to know whether the Minister justified this thing, or whether he would promise to bring it to an end. Another thing he wanted to know was when the Administration was going to bring the coal rates in the Transvaal down to those prevailing in other parts of the Union? In Natal, for instance, coal was carried at a very considerably lower rate than in the Transvaal, and he wanted to know when there was going to be some attempt made at the equalisation of these rates,

spoke of the way in which passengers were treated on the mail trains, and the compulsory separation of male and female passengers, who were placed in separate coaches, although some were travelling together. He criticised the manner in which luggage was knocked about at Cape Town and Somerset Strand—he specially mentioned those places because he had recently seen how luggage was treated at those stations.

wished to have some information with regard to the report on Dordrecht coal.

also complained of the way in which luggage was knocked about. When one spoke to these porters, he said, about the matter, one generally received a cheeky reply. He trusted a stop would be put to that.

said that as to the matter of luggage the matter would be investigated. The report on the Dordrecht coal would soon be ready, and he hoped it would be a good one, and that the coal would prove to be of good quality. As to what Mr. Du Toit had said, he did not object to the contract being tabled. He hoped the hon. member would not be so suspicious about the Minister. It was said—he did not say it was true—that the man who had himself been behind the door was the one who was suspicious of others. (Laughter.)

Is that a Commission sitting on railway matters?

It is a Commission connected with railway matters; it is a departmental Commission. He went on to refer to the system in force in the Transvaal as to overtime, and said that the men there, if they worked overtime, were paid in proportion to their wages, not including the allowance. The whole question of overtime was, he remarked, a very difficult one, and they would have to have some sort of system, otherwise it would be impossible to move men from one part of the Union to the other. He did not want to go into the question of coal. He only wanted to say to the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) that he had no objection to laying the agreement on the table. If the hon. member wished to see the agreement he could do so. The position was this, that as Railway Minister it was his business to see that the railway got coal at a cheap rate. These negotiations had begun before he came into office, and he took them up. A similar system, he found, had existed previously. He quite agreed that it was the duty of the railways to see that coal was brought as cheaply as possible to the large centres. He was very sensible of the fact that they had differentiating rates in the Transvaal and Natal, and also in Cape Province, although the amount of coal there was not of much account at present, and he quite agreed that they should not have one railway rate in one part of the Union and another railway rate in another part.

withdrew his amendment.

The vote was agreed to.

asked the Minister whether claims for compensation had been received in connection with the Gaika Loop disaster? He understood that there were, and that the amount of £10,000 was likely to cover the amount.

desired information with regard to the grading of clerks and Stationmasters. He asked the Minister if he would omit grade No. 4, so that there would be but four grades altogether, then there would be a uniform increase of £60 from one grade to another. This grading, he hoped, would apply to the lower ranks as well as to the higher.

desired information regarding an item o) £60,840 (harbour tonnage allowance).

said this allowance was for services rendered in the matter of in voicing, etc. They had had this system at the Cape, and had adopted lit where necessary. The question of grading was now being considered by the Departmental Commission. With regard to the claims for compensation arising out of the Gaika Loop accident, he might say that claims for compensation had been sent in, but as to what the compensation was likely to be, that was a matter for the Law Courts. He had given instructions that people should not needlessly be put to the expense and inconvenience of contesting cases, and he hoped they would be able to settle the claims without going into the Courts. He did not want to be niggardly, but, of course, people must be reasonable.

The vote was agreed to.

said he gave the figures at the beginning of the session. He could now only give the particulars from memory. Two of the Commissioners (Sir Thomas Price and Mr. McEwen) were pensioners, receiving pensions of between £1,500 and £1,600. A salary was given, making the total received by each £3,000 a year. The other Commissioner received £2,000 a year, plus an allowance of £500.

asked for information as to railway rates for the carriage of cattle.

asked what provision it was proposed to make in regard to the railwaymen who were not at present under a superannuation fund?

hoped the Minister would take the rate for the carriage of live-stock into consideration. The recent increase pressed very heavily on farmers.

expressed the hope that the Minister would reconsider the matter of the charge for picnic trains for Sunday-school children. He moved a reduction of £3 in the salaries of the gentlemen who formed the Railway Board, for he felt they were responsible, and not the Minister. He admitted that the railways had to be run on business principles, but even in business life an allowance was made for children.

said that the raising of the rates on the carriage of sheep by rail must be very serious indeed, because even Mr. dagger had rushed to their assistance. He hoped that the Minister would meet them, and see that these rates were reduced.

said in the South-eastern districts of the Free State 60,000 sheep died as the result of a drought in the area of one stock inspector only. It was essential that the railway rates for the conveyance of livestock should be reduced. The time was very near when South Africa would be able to export live-stock, and the country must set its house in order to prepare for that. The rates to the coast should be reduced to a minimum.

who was received with Ministerial cheers, said that he also desired to say a few words on behalf of the poor school children referred to by Dr. Watkins. He hoped that the concessions would be restored to them.

asked for an explanation of the item “contributions and subscriptions, £39,000.”

referred to the Railway Board, and asked for a statement of policy in connection with it. The Act of Union laid it down that the railways should be run in a particular way, and that their control must be vested In a Board subject to the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council. It was quite clear to him that in making that provision, it was not intended that the Board should be a mere advisory body to the Minister. The Minister was advised in the ordinary course by his permanent officials. If it had not been intended to make a distinct departure in railway management, it would not have been considered necessary to constitute any special body of advisers other than the ordinary head officials. This Board would not have been considered necessary— those three gentlemen would not have been appointed at the salaries paid to them— simply to act as an Advisory Board to the Minister of Railways. The Board was appointed in order to take the management as far as possible out of political control. The same sort of thing had been tried elsewhere, but they had gone further than we did. They had removed the railways entirely from the control of Parliament. It was certainly a unique experiment here, and at might succeed, or it might not. In the present Minister’s hands would lie the decision of that question. He hoped the Minister would not come too soon to the conclusion that the system could not work. The Board was not being regarded by the Minister as the body of importance which he and some others considered it was. One of the principal functions of the Board was to report upon schemes of railway construction and in regard to the list of proposed lines; it Left them entirely in the dark as to the grounds for their approval or disapproval.

pointed out that Mr. Duncan would find a good deal of explanation in the report of the Commissioners, dated April 5, because there it absolutely set out the reason why their report was worthless. They suggested that in future proposals more time should be given for consideration of them. It was clear that the Government held back this report until the House had insistently asked for it. The hon. member referred to clause 126 of the Act of Union to show that the Minister was an integral part of the Board, and should act in concert with the Commissioners. The railways, he urged, should be taken out of the arena of politics. He would like to know from the Minister when he intended to carry out the regulations which required that the Board should make a report dealing with the last year’s operations and the requirements for the current year? Parliament, he contended, was entitled to have that report before it rose. With reference to the question of tenders, he thought successful tenders should be published, so that there could be no suspicion of favouritism, and so that the unsuccessful tenderers could see where they had failed. He also asked for the masons why deviations had been made in regard to certain new lines of railway. If the Board were run properly, such deviations would not be allowed, unless it was in the public interest, and not in the interest of individuals or companies.

said that as Dr. Watkins was not then in the House, the reply to his question could stand over. As to the question put by the hon, member for Woodstock, he (Mr. Sauer) hoped the Superannuation Bill would be passed, and that would deal with the point raised. He was glad to hear what Mr. dagger had said, for it was the first time since he (Mr. Sauer) had been in Parliament—

Oh, come now. (Laughter.)

The hon. member does not know what I am going to say yet. (Laughter.) I hope it will not be the last time that he will have a good word to say for the agricultural industry. I have a shrewd suspicion that he wants the consumer to get the benefit. But he is not adhering to his principles. Proceeding, Mr. Sauer said that if they carried live-stock at the old rate throughout the Union, they would lose £20,000 a year. That was his answer to the hon. member for Cape Town. Let him say with regard to the live-stock rates that he wished it had not been found necessary to raise them, because foodstuffs, be thought, should be carried as cheaply as possible. He would like to point out to the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) and those immediately interested, that whilst the rates down to Cape Town had been raised, the rates to the best market the sheep farmer had—Johannesburg— had been lowered. Down towards Cape Town they had not been lowered, and he was sorry they had not been lowered. The hon. member (Mr. Struben) had referred to some deviation of a line, not without the insinuation that there was something unsavoury about it. Of course, the hon. member was rather given to that. He did not know of any deviation, and if it were brought to his notice he would inquire into the matter. He did not believe that there was any truth in the insinuation. He had known of deviations in the past having been made in the public interests, and if there had been a deviation as Stated by the hon. member, no doubt it was done for the same reason. As to the hon. member for Fordsburg, he wished he had not begun so late in the evening. They might have discussed the matter raised by him at a time when they were all more fresh than they were now. It was a very big question, and he was sure be was as anxious as anybody that the railways should be free from political control. He had been a Railway Minister for some years, and nobody could have suffered more than he because of the influence that Parliament had brought into the management of the railways. It was very curious that the gentlemen who spoke of keeping the railways out of Parliament had been the whole evening discussing the question of rates and so on.

Yes, quite right.

That is so; in fact, Parliament—this committee—has torn the Act of Union up. (A VOICE: “No.”) If this does not mean political interference, how can you have political interference except by the action of Parliament? We have been discussing this question exactly the same as if there were no Board at all. Proceeding, Mr. Sauer said he was just as anxious to carry out the provisions of the South Africa Act where it applied to the constitution of the Board, and in other respects to the administration of railways, as anyone. He was not averse to a Board. He had yet to learn that all the members of the Board would always agree. They might differ as to the interpretation of the Act, but, of course, the position was very difficult indeed. They had constituted a Board in a manner that he could not find constituted anywhere else. If the Convention had said that the railways should be managed and controlled by a Board, and had stopped there, it would have been perfectly clear, but it said that they should be subject to the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council. That imposed a responsibility upon the Minister, in the first instance, and upon the Cabinet, which was very serious, and it meant that the Government would be looked upon as the people responsible if anything went amiss. He thought it would be impossible for the Government to dispute or deny that the ultimately final decision was thrown upon them. He was very anxious that the railways should, as far as possible, be conducted on “business lines.” He was endeavouring to do so, and at the same time to carry out the provisions of the Act in regard to the duties of the Railway Board. He was sorry that the hon. member had complained of the nature of the report submitted by the Board, because he thought the Board discharged their duties, as they understood them, where required. The Board were fully informed of the local circumstances in each case, and gave their opinion. He agreed with the hon. member as to the interpretation of the South Africa Act in regard to the intention, for which the Board was made, and he was simply carrying lit out according to his light.

considered that if anybody had made out a strong case for placing the minutes on the table, it was the Minister himself.

said the Board had given their approval. Why they used the word “scrutinised” he could not say.

thought that it was the duty of the Minister, in his own interests even, to place the report on the table of the House, so that Parliament and the country would be able to judge upon the question, because he would imagine that there had been cases where his hon. friend’s proposals did not meet with the approval of the Board. What they maintained was that Parliament was supreme in directing the policy of the railways, and that, Parliament having laid down the policy, it was for the Railway Board, and not the Minister, to carry out that policy. Even the Minister might tinge that policy with a certain amount of political consideration. The point was that one did not know whether the things that were done represented the policy of the Minister or of the Board. There was, for instance, the transportation system. Had that system been determined on by the Board after full consideration and discussion?

said that, with regard to free passes to the members of the Executive, those had been given by the decision of the Board. In reference to the transportation system, when the Union Government was formed, at least three of the members of the Board considered and discussed this question fully, and decided to adopt the system. It was now, therefore, to be given a fair trial. Not sufficient time had elapsed to pronounce judgment on the system.

said there was not the slightest doubt that the Railway Board was a new departure in South Africa. The Government had a free hand in electing the members of the Board, and in that respect they must take the full responsibility. But Parliament had no idea whatever of what were the views of the Board. He understood the Minister to say a few days ago that the Railway Estimates were prepared in consultation with the Board.

said he did not mean to say that the Board was merely a consultative body.

Do I understand that if the Minister makes a statement here he makes it on behalf of the Board, and that the Board is in agreement with him? If we knew more of what the Board is doing and had more assurances that he was acting in complete unison with the Board, then there would be greater confidence in the country with regard to the Board. It appeared to him, proceeded Sir George, that the Board had not had a fair chance, because the Minister hardly ever mentioned anything about it. The result of Australia’s experience was that Parliament put the railways into the hands of the Commissioners. The Minister maintained that he was responsible to Parliament, but he (the Minister) put a different interpretation upon the Act of Union to what he (Sir George) and his colleagues did. He was of the opinion that if they were going to drift backwards and allow the railways to be managed by a Minister, then the railways would drift back into their old political ruts, and would be managed by political pressure from every direction. He thought the thanks of the House were due to the hon. member for Fordsburg for bringing forward this question.

said that he was prepared to give the Minister his authority for his statements, and he was net going to be deterred by the gibes of the Minister.

The vote was agreed to.

complained that they were asked to go on after midnight after they had been at work since 10.30 in the morning.

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

from inhabitants of Kroonstad, praying the House to have Kopjes declared as a separate fiscal division.

similar petition.

I wish to call the attention of the House to the Railways and Harbours Service Bill, as amended by the Select Committee. The charge upon the public proposed by the Bill as read a second time and referred to the committee will be increased if certain of the amendments made by the Select Committee are adopted. It was therefore out of order for the committee to make these amendments without an instruction from this House upon the recommendation from the Governor-General to consider the proposed increased charges. In view, however, of the fact that the Bill is to a considerable extent of a technical character, and in view of the lateness of the session, I would recommend the House to condone the action of the Select Committee in making these amendments, provided that the defect is cured by the announcement in the House of the Governor-General’s recommendation to the proposed amendments referred to before they are considered in committee of the whole House on the Bill.

Ordered accordingly.

Director of Irrigation, 1910 (from date of previous reports in Cape and Transvaal Provinces to the date of Union, and from the commencement of Union to the 31st December, 1910).

Petition from inhabitants of Kenhardt, in opposition to the proposed lease or sale of the farm Leeuwkop; report on Rooiberg Dam, in compliance with report of the Select Committee on the Rooiberg Dam.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. In the Select Committee on Public Education I voted for certain amendments of the draft report. These having been rejected by a majority, I voted for the draft report, rather than foe a party to rendering the proceedings of the committee fruitless, at the same time signifying, not for the first time, my intention of submitting a minority report, in order to make clear the points upon which and the extent to which I dissent from the majority. A minority report was presented by my honourable and gallant friend the member for Pretoria South (General Beyers) and myself jointly. When I was about to sign it, I received verbal intimation that I was debarred from doing so by having voted for the majority report, and I was actually prevented! from doing so. I beg to call your attention, sir, to the fact that in the Public Accounts Committee this year it was unanimously resolved that the chairman report the Exchequer and Audit Bill, with amendments. Notwithstanding this, Messrs. Merriman, Orr, Currey, Jagger, and Robinson were permitted to sign a minority report, which begins as follows: “We are unable to concur in the proposed amendments In the Exchequer and Audit Bill, which relate to the provisions for audit of railway and harbour accounts.” This appears to be a parallel case, and I therefore hope that the rule suggested in my case will not be insisted on. I wish also to point out the grave consequences which may result from this rule. It would mean that if a member differs from the majority and desires to bring the point of difference before the House in the form of a minority report, he is compelled to vote in favour of wrecking the whole agreement arrived at, even though, while desiring to see the majority report improved, he may prefer to see the adoption of it unimproved rather than nothing. The rule might further result in the defeat of a settlement on an important question by a majority composed of members, none of whom desire its defeat, but all of whom differ from it on one or other point, and are compelled by the supposed rule to vote against it if they desire to make an effective protest on the points where they differ from their colleagues. The rule would thus tend to eliminate moderation. Under these circumstances, I desire, sir, to ask you for your definite ruling on the question whether a member of a Select Committee can be debarred from signing a minority report, if he desires to do so, and to intimate my wish that, if possible, my name should now be appended to the minority report on Public Education.

On Monday, shortly before the House met, my attention was drawn by the Clerk of the House to the fact that a minority report in connection with the inquiry by the Select Committee on Public Education had been sent down from the committee-room for signature by the honourable member for Pretoria District, South (General Beyers), and the honourable member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle), but that, after consulting Monday’s minutes of proceedings of the Select Committee, it had appeared that the honourable member for Uitenhage had voted for the majority report, although the honourable member subsequently intimated his intention to submit a minority report. As the minority report is directly in conflict with some of the principal recommendations of the majority report, I verbally informed the honourable member for Uitenhage that it would not be proper for him to sign the minority report, and instructed the Clerk to submit it to the honourable member for Pretoria District, South, only for signature. In my opinion, it would be quite improper for an honourable member, when he votes for a majority report, to submit a minority report, the terms of which are directly in conflict with the recommendations of the majority report. If this were allowed, there would be nothing to prevent all the members of the committee who voted for the majority report also signing the minority report, and it would be impossible for the House to say what the decision of the committee was. I should like to mention that on Tuesday morning, after the majority report had already been set up in proof, the honourable member for Uitenhage, contrary to the direction which I gave the day before, appended his signature to the original minority report, and I have caused the same to be expunged. It only remains to be remarked that the honourable member no doubt quite unwittingly put his name to the report on Tuesday, as otherwise such a proceeding would constitute a serious breach of the rules. The point mentioned in regard to the proceedings of the Select Committee on Public Accounts on the Exchequer and Audit Bill has no bearing on the question at issue.

said he thought it was due to the House that the Prime Minister should inform them, what legislation it was proposed to take this session. It was impossible for the House, for any considerable time longer, to legislate as they had been doing during the last couple of weeks. It was not fair to the House, to the Speaker, to the officers, or to the unfortunate gentlemen in the Press Gallery to go on as they had been doing. If it were intended to sit for any considerable time, they ought to revert to the three-nights-a-week sittings; otherwise, justice could not be done to the business of the country.

said that the Leader of the Opposition had evidently managed to remain hale and hearty—witness his vigorous speechifying—in spite of the harmful effect of evening sittings, of which the hon. gentleman had complained. The Government would make a communication with reference to the Bills they desired to finish on the following day. As to the prorogation, however, that was a matter which rested entirely with the House itself. The Government wished nothing better than to close the session as soon as possible; hence the daily evening sittings and the encroachment on Saturday leisure. The Government, at one time, were in hopes of being able to finish the work on Saturday next, but that had proved impossible because the Estimates and other financial measures had yet to go through the Senate. He could not but address an appeal to hon. members to curtail the debates in order to render an early prorogation possible. He only wished to add that the House would silt again on Saturday, as it had done last week.

asked if it was intended to sit on Saturday?

replied in the affirmative.

moved the second reading of the Bill.

asked what the proposals of the Government were with regard to the disposal of the brandy now in hand, which could not be sold until a certain decision of the Cape House had been rescinded. He thought the Government should take measures to bring the matter to a conclusion.

replied that the Public Accounts Commission were dealing with the matter, and as soon as the recommendations were made they would be laid before the House. He was anxious that the brandy question should be dealt with this session—(hear, hear)—but it would be useless to have two discussions.

The motion was agreed to.

called attention to the vote for Provincial Administrations, and pointed out that in one column they had the total £5,309,418, while in the next column the subsidies to the several Provinces were shown. He said it seemed to him that the effect of clause 3 was that any saving made by a Province in respect of one vote could not be used for any excess in respect to a sub-head of the same vote.

said that the hon. member had not read far enough. He should also read section 2, and he would find that the Estimates and Suplementary Estimates of Expenditure as approved by Parliament were appropriated in this Bill, and if he looked at the Estimates he would see that these amounts in the Cape Province were voted under four sub-heads. If there was a saving on one it may be applied to another.

said that the effect of the Act was that any saving made by one Province could not be taken by the Treasurer and applied to another Province.

It is not clear to me that it will be possible to use the saving on one subject for the excess ’on another.

said that this did not refer to the allocation of the money. It simply meant, in terms of clause 3, that they could not take money, say, from the Cape and give it to Natal. It must go to the Cape.

The schedule was agreed to.

The Bill was reported without amendment.

moved in line 8 of the clause, after “presence of” to omit “the” and to substitute “any”; after “law agent” in line 9 to insert “lawfully entitled to practise as such,” and in the same line to omit “by whom the instrument was drawn or prepared.” He said the object of the amendment was to bring this clause into conformity with clause 25.

said he was sorry he could not accept the amendment, and he hoped that it would not be pressed. Under section 25 (sub-section 3) wide powers were conferred upon attorneys, notaries, conveyancers, etc., to cancel stamps. That provision he inserted at the request of his hon. friend, but he was not sure that he was wise in accepting it, and in fact he should be glad to see it expunged from the Bill. The effect of clause 25 would be that a document was prepared and executed. Under section 21 (sub-section 1) such a document may be stamped, and the stamp defaced at the time of execution or seven days thereafter, by any of the parties there to, or by the attorney or notary who prepared it. Now his hon. friend wanted the stamps defaced by any attorney, notary, or conveyancer, and if his amendment were accepted the effect would be this, that he (Mr. Hull) might as well take out of this Act all the penalties for not stamping a document within seven days. He thought he went too far the other day in giving this great power under clause 25.

I only wish to say that this is a money Bill, and cannot be amended in another place.

No.

The amendment was negatived.

The Bill was read a third time.

asked Mr. Speaker’s ruling whether, in view of the fact that the Estimates of Expenditure of the South African Railways and Harbours were now in Committee of Supply, these estimates Should not first be disposed of before the House resumes in Committee of Supply on the Loan Estimates of Expenditure,

The course adopted in dealing with the ordinary Estimates of Expenditure and the Railway Estimates, respectively, for the period ending the 31st March, 1912, is identical with that which was followed before the recess, when the House dealt with these estimates for the period ending the 31st March, 1911. Under the practice of the old Cape House the annual Budget dealt both with ordinary and Railway Estimates, but since Union a different course has been adopted, two separate Budgets being delivered for the two sets of Estimates and both on the motion to go into Committee of Supply on such Estimates, so that as a matter of fact two Committees of Supply have been set up, but the matter was left to the House to formulate its own procedure to meet the new conditions. At the same time I would suggest for the consideration of the House whether it would not be more convenient in future to have the two Budgets delivered on the same occasion so as to have one debate traversing both sets of Estimates, as otherwise an overlapping is practically unavoidable. Or if this course is deemed undesirable, then I would suggest that Committee of Supply, on the ordinary Estimates should first be set up, and that what was tantamount to a second reading debate should take place on the Railway Estimates on a motion to refer such estimates to Committee of Supply. The sessional order giving precedence to estimates during the evening sittings affects both the ordinary Estimates and the Railway Estimates, it being provided, however, that the Railway Estimates were to have precedence during evening sittings only after the conclusion of the ordinary Estimates, unless the Railway Estimates are under consideration on a particular day at five minutes to six. The Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Funds were referred to Committee of Supply on the ordinary Estimates on the 6th instant, and these would in the ordinary course under the sessional order in ordinary circumstances ‘ take precedence of the Railway Estimates during evening sittings. With reference to the order paper it is entirely in the hands of Government to arrange the same on Government days, but now that the committee has entered upon the Railway Estimates it would no doubt meet the convenience of members if they could continue the discussion of these Estimates until they are finished, before proceeding with the Loan Estimates. I would therefore suggest that this course be adopted. If the suggestion is approved the Minister could move that Orders No. 5 to 11 stand over until Order No. 12 has been disposed of.

said that he was quite willing to fall in with the Speaker’s suggestion and moved that Orders Nos. 5 to 11 stand over until Order No. 12 had been disposed of.

seconded.

This was agreed to.

asked whether the Minister would give some information now las to the capital?

The reply by the Minister of Railways and Harbours could not be caught in the Press Gallery.

The item was agreed to.

On head 9, miscellaneous expenditure,.

asked what amount that £7,500 was?

said something, but was inaudible in the Press Gallery.

Does my hon. friend really want this amount for miscellaneous expenditure?

was understood to say that it had quite escaped his memory what that particular amount was for. (Laughter.)

said the amount set aside for this purpose last year was £165,000. Why had it been reduced?

The reply by the MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS was inaudible in the Press Gallery, with the exception of the hope that it would be a very long time before there would be any necessity to call on the fund.

said some time ago it was decided that East London and Durban should get the same rates to Modderpoort, O.F.S., although that place was 68 miles nearer Durban than East London. Fair play should be carried cut as far as possible in this matter. Then there was the question of the division of the Transvaal traffic between Delagoa Bay and Cape and Natal ports. That agreement was very much abused by Natal people, as being based on wrong principles. Two years had elapsed since the agreement was made, and only once had Natal had more than the 30 per cent. of the traffic, its average being below 30 per cent. Delagoa Bay had more than its fair share of the traffic, while the Cape had less than its proper dues. It was all a matter of adjustment of rates, and if Government did its duty, the matter could be rectified. The Union ports, which wore not paying, should be given their proper share, and the matter should be dealt with on business principles.

said that if business principles were applied, the Transvaal trade would go through its old legitimate channel, which was the Cape ports, and he did not think Durban would see very much of it. If the geographical position argument were applied Delagoa Bay would get the biggest share of the traffic. There were two sides to the question, and the Cape ports had a very strong side, although being modest men, the Cape people did not say very much about it. All the attempts to put the division of the Transvaal traffic on an equal basis had, so far, been rather a lamentable failure. In view of the fact that the Commissioner was going to make the Union ports pay their way, which was an absolutely sound principle, he ought to use an extra effort to see that these ports had their fair share of the trade. (Hear, hear.)

said he would give the question of rates to Modderpoort his attention. He was very glad that Sir Edgar Walton was not going to raise discussion on the relative rights of the different ports, for he (Mr. Sauer) was afraid that that would lead to a very long debate. There was an agreement, and that agreement should be carried out. Shortly after he became Minister of Railways he endeavoured to get a meeting of representatives of the Portuguese Government and other parties to the agreement, but circumstances occurred in Portugual which delayed the meeting, Subsequently they met and came to an agreement, which took effect on January 1 last. The latest return showed that the ports within the Union had increased their share of the traffic. Sufficient time, however, had not elapsed to enable people to change the place of destination of their imports, and he hoped that within a few months the Union ports would obtain that share of the traffic to which they were entitled. If the Union ports did not at an early date get their fair share of the traffic he would call another meeting.

pointed out that the bulk of goods under the intermediate class at present came through the Union ports, but coffee came through Delagoa Bay. Instead of making a reduction on the whole of that class they should raise coffee, and deal with it alone.

pointed out that according to the March returns, the percentages of traffic were: Cape ports, 12.49, instead of 22; Natal ports, 22.66, instead of 30; and Delagoa Bay, 64.85, instead of 55. These figures, he thought, showed that very little improvement was going on even since the last alteration of rates, and therefore, there should be a further adjustment.

asked whether there was a profit or a loss on the Parliamentary restaurant, and if there were a loss, whether it would be met out of the railway revenue or the general revenue?

said he could not give the exact figures, but he might say it was run at a loss, and he did not think it should be met out of the railway revenue. It should come out of general revenue.

said he was in favour of refreshment departments paying interest, depreciation, and a little more.

They do, but not a little more.

went on to refer to the profit made out of the refreshment rooms on the C.S.A.R. According to the Transvaal Auditor’s report, for the year 1909-1910, up to the time of Union, there was a profit of £15,000 on sales amounting to £138,000. He agreed that these catering departments should pay their way, but he was strongly opposed to them being the means of collecting undue profits out of the pockets of the travelling public.

said he quite agreed with the hon. member that the catering departments should not be run at a loss, and that they should not make large profits.

complained of the inconvenience caused to passengers on the Harrismith-Ladysmith line, owing to the dining car being disconnected at Van Reenen.

asked if the Minister would promise to run a dining-car down to Port Elizabeth and round the Eastern Province? He also mentioned the fact that on one occasion he and his hon. friend (Sir Edgar Walton) asked for Colonial biscuits on the train, but could not obtain them. He thought that such a state of affairs should not exist on the South African Railways.

I shall take an early opportunity of bringing that matter before the Board. (Laughter.)

advocated a dining-car on the Rosmead Junction-Stormberg Junction line.

suggested that the railway refreshment rooms should be used for advertising Colonial products. These rooms should be in a position to sell Colonial products, such as butter and cheese.

asked for information as to how many Colonial wine buffets had been opened at the railway stations, and whether those which had been opened had been constructed in the same expensive style as the one at Cape Town?

said that none had been opened since Union. There was a buffet at Cape Town and another at Pont Elizabeth, and he contemplated opening one at East London.

thought a few more buffets for the sale of Colonial wines should be opened.

The item was agreed to.

asked why, when the Government took over the bookstalls, the contract for the supply of oversea periodicals had been given to the Central News Agency without tenders being called for? He was of opinion that the Government should take over this, which was the most profitable part of the business.

said that the contract was only for six months. With reference to a statement made the other day that the prices had been raised at the railway bookstalls, it was true that they had been raised, but it was only for a day, after which the old prices were reverted to. The price of some magazines had been reduced by 25 per cent.

thought the position of the men who had kept the bookstalls previously should be taken into consideration.

said he had given instructions that, as far as possible, the men previously employed at the bookstalls should be reemployed.

asked if the Minister made the other departments of the Government pay for the advertisements they put up on the railways?

remarked that he found) it extremely difficult to get any money out of the other departments. (Laughter.)

suggested that simple signs should be put up at the stations in the Dutch language, instructing people where they could get tickets, refreshments, and so on. The Dutch signs now put up were very often unintelligible to back-country people.

said he did not write the Dutch notices for the railways.

The item was agreed to.

On sub-head No. 5, Sleeper factories, £30,001,

referred to the possibility of increasing the vote under this head, and providing more employment for the unfortunate woodcutters.

said that some attention had been given to the matter.

called attention to certain grievances of the engineers employed on the tug at East London harbour.

asked whether sufficient provision had been made in regard to the money to be spent under these votes for proper engineering supervision? He also asked for information in reference to a recent appointment in connection with the harbours.

referred to grievances of the men on the harbour tugs at Algoa Bay.

urged the need of doing something for the development of Port, St. John, especially in view of the difficulties caused by East Coast fever.

asked whether it was true that uncertificated masters were taking out small steamers for short trips?

asked for information in regard to the work of the Harbour Commission recently appointed. He also asked for particulars in reference to the appointment of an officer in connection with the harbours of the Union. Mr. dagger further inquired whether it was the intention or the Government to appoint an engineer-in-chief who would be concerned with all the harbours of the Union, instead of having an engineer in charge of each harbour?

drew attention to the state of the pier at Knysna harbour, and inquired if a report had been made in regard to the development of Port St. John?

asked whether the Minister had considered putting a tug and a few lighters at Port St. John, which would easen the position there?

advocated harbours for the promotion of the fishing industry, and referred particularly to Hermanus. In 1904 a representative committee of the Cape Parliament had, he said, inquired into the question of harbour facilities at Hermanus, and found that several improvements were necessary so that the harbour could meet the requirements of the fishing industry. The local people had spent money to improve the landing facilities, but although an amount had been voted by the then Government, the money had not been spent, and it was felt that something further had to be done. Dr. Gilchrist’s opinion was that the Agulhas Bank, which was near to Hermanus, was one of the best and richest fishing grounds in the world, but the harbour facilities were so had that the industry was very greatly hampered. Government aid was needed. The roads, too, were very bad, and he would not cease to stand up for the encouragement of this industry.

said that he was somewhat encouraged to see that there were hon. members in the House who, besides himself, took an interest in the fishing industry; and he was encouraged by what the last speaker had said. There were other places, however, which had equal claims, like Kalk Bay, and they must look to the question of harbours for the fishing industry in a manner different from that of the past. It was desirable that bigger boats should be used, and these necessitated adequate fishing harbours. He hoped that the Minister would pay some attention to the matter of the Kalk Bay harbour during the recess; for owing to the building of the railway embankment the harbour had been interfered with, and the fishermen did not have those facilities which they had in the past.

said that if hon. members wanted to speak about the fishing industry they must go to the Provincial Council, because that was the proper place to advocate it.

Harbours?

said that when they had a railway to Hermanus, as he hoped they would have in future, the matter of the harbour would receive attention. The question of the jetty at Knysna would also receive consideration. As to what Mr. Tagger had said, the different harbours of the Union had different methods; and he was surprised at the great differences there were; it being very unsatisfactory from an administrative point of view. They would try to bring about uniformity as far as possible; but competition was so very keen that they had to be very careful, so as not to disturb the relations which at present existed. The Board had given a good deal of attention to the matter, and most of the members of the Board had visited all the harbours of the Union; and one of the chief things would be to make the different harbours self-supporting. As to the appointment of a Harbour Engineer-in-Chief, Government, was very fortunate in having Mr. Tippet as Engineer-in-Chief on the railways, and he doubted whether they could do better than they were doing now to avail themselves of Mr. Tippet’s services. He (Mr. Sauer) endeavoured to get the best possible advice before any fresh schemes were embarked upon. As to the East London men, he hoped to be able to get them on to the fixed establishment. (Hear, hear.)

said that at Port St. John there was a magnificent piece of land suitable for closer settlement, as it was unequalled for fruit growing. It was necessary that means should be provided to establish communication with passing steamers.

said a dredger was sent to Port St. John, but it was found to be unsuitable. He did not think the fact that there was splendid ground available at Port St. John was sufficient justification for an immediate large expenditure. He would not promise that tugs would be sent to Port St. John, because at any moment the bar might be silted up and the tugs be detained in the river.

said if the harbours were made to pay their way, the Government should pay dock dues on the goods landed for it.

presumed that the smaller harbours would not be expected to pay their way, as they should be in the same position as the branch railways were.

supported the development of the fishing industry, and thought a judicious start should be made in this direction by the Government.

hoped that if the harbour dues were made equal it should be borne in mind that the merchants paid the wharfage dues. It was really a waste of time thinking of developing Port St. John until they were prepared to spend a vast amount of money.

On item, cartage services, £55,027,

asked for information in connection with the breeding of horses for the Harbour cartage.

said if there were a loss on the service, the Railway and Harbour Department would bear the loss—not the Treasury. His personal opinion was that the department should not go in for horse-breeding.

On item 14, traffic working, £208,852,

referred to the serious position at East London owing to the block in the traffic.

promised to inquire into the matter.

On item 18, interest on loans and on interest-bearing capital, £357,929,

said that what they paid from general revenue into railways and harbours should be charged against these works, and they should recover interest upon them. He raised the question because he wanted to see that they got their fair dues in this matter.

referred to the wreck of the Lusitania off Cape Point. He said that, knowing the locality, it seemed to him simply a miracle that a ship should strike that rock, and that a single soul should have been saved. He remembered a wreck which occurred at the same place twenty years ago, on which occasion the vessel went to pieces within a quarter of an hour of striking the rock. He had repeatedly urged the necessity of having better safeguards on that part of the coast, and he now repeated the appeal, in the interests of humanity. The question of the Cape Point lighthouse had been reported on by different Commissions, which had found that owing to the great height of the light, it was obscured by fog for a great part of the year. That he (Mr. Runciman) knew to be the case, from personal experience. These Commissions had recommended that the light should be removed from its present position and put lower down. If that had been done at the times these Commissions recommended it, there was no doubt that many lives and much property would have been saved. The whole question of the better lighting of the coast between Cape Town and Cape Point demanded immediate attention. In recent times, hardly a year had passed without one or two wrecks happening on that stretch of coast. The hon. member referred to the wreck of the Maori, and to the finding of the Naval Assessor who sat on the Board of Inquiry, that a light on Slangkop might have averted the disaster. He pointed out that now, under Union, it would not cost the country a, single penny in the way of interest and maintenance to make the provision he asked for, inasmuch as the Natal light dues amounted to £18,000, while the cost of maintaining the whole of our lighthouses was only £15,000, a surplus thus being left of £3,000. He referred to the great body of expert opinion in favour of the better equipment with safeguards of this part of the coast, and urged the Government again, in the interests of humanity, to take immediate action in the matter. It might be said that many of these disasters were due to carelessness. Well, no doubt some of them had been, but on the other hand, many of them were due to accidents which, in the present state of things, could not have been averted. He believed that if the Government undertook the erection of a light at Slangkop and the lowering of the Cape Point light, they could then consider this part of the coast as being fairly lighted. He hoped the urgent need for action would no longer be ignored. (Hear, hear.)

said that, as a member of the Lighthouse Commission of 1906, he would like to support his hon. friend. There was one thing that came out in that Commission, and that was the amount of mist or fog which existed round the coasts of South Africa. There was a good deal of fog about, and he did not think it was right on the part of his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) to mention carelessness of this nature.

Why?

Because there is carelessness in everything. If you follow out that theory we should have no lighthouses at all, and I am sure my right hon. friend is not prepared to go so far as that. It is the duty of every civilised country to provide lights to protect its coasts, notwithstanding the fact that there may be carelessness. One of the recommendations of the Commission (he went on to say) had been supplied in the form of a lighthouse at Agulhas. The Commission also made a very strong recommendation in regard to the Cape Point lighthouse, and that was that the light should be lowered; but that: a light should be placed at Slangkop at the same time. It was the custom now, all the world over, to put lighthouses on the beach, lower down than used to be the case. For many weeks of the year they could not see the light at Cape Point on account of the mists wrapping round the higher parts of the coast. The result of lowering the light would be to restrict the arc of the light, and, therefore, they said that a change of that kind should be accompanied by a new lighthouse at Slangkop. He knew that the Minister had adverse reports as regarded the Slangkop light: but he might mention that the captains of the mail steamers and of the big pessenger steamers were strongly in favour of it, and so also was the present Admiral. If this ship had gone down, and carried with it those 700 souls, they would not have had to wait long for this improvement.

As it happens, the light was perfectly visible.

I saw that statement, but my hon. friend behind (Mr. Runciman) contradicts it.

said he must point out to his hon. friend, with regard to these lighthouses and wrecks, that whenever there was a wreck there was a cry for a fresh lighthouse. They had a ship wrecked within 200 or 300 yards of a lighthouse, on a perfectly clear night on the shore here in Cape Town. Was that carelessness? They had the wreck of the Umhlali. Was that through want of a lighthouse? Then there was the Maori wreck. No; there was carelessness in all those cases. In regard to the present case the light was perfectly visible. They had, two or three testimonies given in the paper of ordinary impartial people, who said they could see the light during the time they were stuck on the rock, and then they came with a cry for a fresh lighthouse As he had said over and over again, the Cape coast was very well lighted, and these lighthouses were now so close together that there was a positive danger sometimes of mistaking one light, for another. The Bellows Rock, on which this steamer was wrecked, was as well known as any danger in the sea. In regard to lowering the light at Cape Point, there would be hundreds of days when it would be obscured by the fog on the sea coast. That was the case over and over again. He had noticed this while living in the Gardens. He had seen a low fog over the sea wall while the hills had been quite clear. If they had a lighthouse above, and one below, he could understand it— one for high fog and one for low fog. There were clever men in the world before his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger).

said his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) was always peculiar when he discussed the question of the lighting of the coast. Proceeding, he alluded to the findings of the Lighthouse Commission and the wreck of the Maori, quoting the view of the Naval Assessor who sat on the Board of Inquiry, that the want of a light at Slangkop was responsible for the Maori going ashore. They found a very strong consensus of opinion in favour of lowering the light at Cape Point, erecting a lighthouse, at Agulhas, and placing a light at Slangkop. The lighthouse at Agulhas had been erected, and he thought, the other reforms should be carried out, so, as to lessen the dangers to which those who travelled by sea were exposed by the inefficient lighting of our coast. Sir Thomas recalled the wreck of a Castle liner, which led to the light being placed on Robben Island.

said he did not think they could have better testimony in connection with this question of lighthouses than the people who had got to navigate ships. His hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) had mentioned that the captains of the mail steamers, the Admiral, and others, who were experts in the matter, held this opinion, and he (Sir Percy) thought they ought to take it very seriously. He pointed out that, as regarded the wreck of the Lusitania, they had the evidence of the Magistrate and others that they could not see the light. He did not know what testimony there was on the other side to the effect that the light was visible. But he thought that a member of that House ran a very considerable risk of damaging the reputation of officers in saying that the light was visible. Then the right hon. gentleman had said that the fog would get right down to the sea level, and therefore it was no safer to put the lighthouse on the level than on the top. If the fog was at sea level, so the ship would be, and so they would not be able to see the lighthouse at the top. But if the fog was high they certainly could see the light if it were lower down. So that they would lose nothing by lowering the lighthouse. It was simply absurd, as Mr. Merriman said, to say that it was the same thing whether the light was high up or low down. They had the testimony of experts, which all pointed one way, and showed how unsuitable the present light was. Even they who lived up country were perfectly familiar with the complaints which had been made. He thought they might take the Union point of view, and urged upon the Government to consult and act upon the best and most expert advice.

read an extract from a report of 1890 which advocated the lighthouse on Cape Point being lowered. They did not, he said, want a lighthouse nearly on the sea level, but about 150 to 200 feet up. The present lighthouse was on a pinnacle 800 feet above the sea, and on a concave cliff which caused the fog to collect much thicker than one would expect. In fact, the fog there was usually worse than, elsewhere, and the light had been obscured last year for 103 days. He knew the locality well, and had seen how easily the light became obscured by fog. Slangkop lighthouse should be built as a preliminary to the light at Cape Point being flowered. The hon. member went on to deal with the dangers of the coast, and said that as to Mr. Merriman’s statement that if lighthouses were built certain captains would only come in and seek for them—well, if that were carried to its logical conclusion, no lighthouses at all should be built. He asked whether the Lighthouse Commission’s recommendation with regard to the light at. Port Nolloth would be attended to, seeing that a wreck had recently taken place in that vicinity?

bore out what Mr. Runciman had said as to the lighthouse at Cape Point being often obscured. On one occasion, he said, when he was on a ship off Cape Point, although the night was clear and the ship was only five miles off the light, it could not be seen. There was a bank of fog just off the light. A ship coming from England, unless she picked up Paternoster, had no sight of land, and a mailboat generally had to make for Table Bay in the night. If she could not pick up Paternoster, her position was a very dangerous one; and in case of fog, if she had to drift, she might easily get ashore, owing to the treacherous currents which prevailed. It was the duty of the Government to put Table Bay in a safe condition for steamers entering and leaving. Any other port in the world would be better equipped in the way of guiding lights or signals for every dangerous point. Unless something were done there would be a big wreck, with a heavy loss of life.

said he entirely agreed with previous speakers Lighthouse keepers, he proceeded, should be trained to use the Morse system of signals. The late Postmaster-General was very willing to send an official to train the lighthouse men in this matter. Had that been done, the Lusitania might have been able to obtain assistance more quickly, though he gave the Simon’s Town people all credit for the ready succour they gave. (Cheers). Fogs, continued the hon. member, were very deceptive. He agreed that it was necessary to have lights at Cape Point and Slangkop. It was not because one man made an error of judgment that they should condemn lighthouses. (Cheers.) It was all very well for members sitting comfortably in Parliament to say lighthouses were not of much use, but they should consider the sailors, who were very glad to see those lights. (Cheers.) At the same time, he wished to say that the lights on the Cape coast had been considerably improved. The Lighthouse Superintendent was a most capable officer and deserved a higher salary than £380.

said Mr. Struben had appealed to their human sympathy. That was quite unnecessary, for he was sure everyone was anxious to do everything to prevent the unhappy disasters we had from time to time. (Hear, hear). The whole question was whether it was necessary to build more lighthouses, and, if so, where? He agreed with Mr. Jagger that it was the duty of the community to give sufficient lights along the coast to protect ships, and it was also to our interest to do so. The question was whether it was necessary to do anything more at or near the place where the recent disaster took place. During the past few years he had heard a great deal of discussion on this matter, and several Commissions had been appointed, and the members of the last Commission had pressed very strongly that the recommendations made by them should be carried out. But there was a great diversity of opinion whether it would be advisable to build another lighthouse at Slangkop. With all due deference to hon. members who had spoken that afternoon, he had had the opinions of gentlemen who in that respect were far more qualified than hon. members were. He had had the opinion of a very distinguished British Admiral, who was now occupying a very high position, and he had also had the opinion of the captain of the survey ship, whose business it was to see and to know where lighthouses should be erected. The opinions of these gentlemen were entirely different from those of the laymen who sat opposite. On a question of that kind he much preferred to take the opinion of the distinguished Admiral and the captain of the survey ship.

Do they recommend any other place?

I am telling you the opinions I have had. I have only mentioned that to show the difficulties of the position. If we do anything, for goodness’ sake, don’t let us build an unnecessary lighthouse, and, above all, not at a place which would rather occasion than prevent wrecks. What I shall do is this. We are very anxious that the lighting should be as satisfactory as possible. I shall proceed—not by way of a Commission—to get sufficient competent opinion and then, next session, I will indicate to the House, and ask it for the necessary authority to build. (Hear, hear).

asked whether the Government had taken any official notice of the prompt and courageous conduct of the officers and men of His Majesty’s Navy, and also of the Resident Magistrate of Simon’s Town and others, who went to the rescue of the passengers and crew of the Lusitania?

said that after it came to his notice that these services had been rendered so efficiently and courageously, he took the opportunity of directing that a letter should be written expressing the Government’s high appreciation.

The Railway Estimates were reported without amendment. The Chairman will bring up a report to-morrow.

brought up the report of the Select Committee on Co-operative Wineries.

Consideration of the report was set down for Monday.

asked whether it was the intention of the Government to complete the Law Courts at Bloemfontein? With the expenditure of very little money, they could be made more in harmony with the outside,

said that some time since when he addressed the House in reference to the Loan. Bill, he then urged that a couple of hundred thousand pounds should be put down on this vote to make provision for new school buildings. His hon. friend then accused him of being extravagant. He thought that no more ridiculous charge could have been brought forward. Because they urged that some provision should be made for schools which were in some cases in this Province wood and iron buildings— and in other cases School Boards could not enforce compulsory attendance because of the lack of accommodation—he thought his hon. friend would admit there was no justification for the charge. He thought his hon. friend had sanctioned a piece of extravagance which appeared on this paper, the like of which had not been seen before in this country, and that was the Union buildings. (Cries of “Oh!”) Hon. members said “Oh.” This was the first time this matter had been formally brought before the House. This Parliament had been in session for five months now, and now, when hon. members were all waiting to get away to their homes, this matter was brought before them. Any information given to the House, and any discussion which had arisen, had had to be dragged out of the Government by the Opposition. They were now asked to sanction this expenditure of £1,030,000 for the erection of the Union buildings. £210,000 had already been spent on this building up to March 31, 1911. They were asked now to sanction the sum of £535,000, which had to be charged this year, and to be provided for in this loan. Then there was a further sum of £551,000, which would come on later. In addition to this, there was the sum of £43,000, which was spent by the Transvaal Government prior to Union, making a total of £1,130,000 He had already dealt with the sum that had been spent without the authority of Parliament. What he was dealing with now was the building itself. From the information they could get, and it was very much to be regretted that the Government did not give them the Select Committee which he had asked for the other day, hut from what he could gather, the £1,000,000 was not going to cover the cost. There would be contingencies, excavations, and other items, which would bring up the total to a million and a half. However, he preferred to take the figures as they were stated. First, he would like to call attention to the fact that though there was going to be an expenditure of a million of money, the Government did not think of taking the trouble to call for competitive designs. He had never heard of such a thing before. When the London County Council were going to erect their big building, they called for competitive designs, and got the best designs to be obtained in the United Kingdom and Europe. Here the Union Government put it all into the hands of one man. That was not the proper way of spending the people’s money. And he thought he could say they had not got the best value for that money, or the best designs. He had made a rough guess that this building would hold 1,000 clerks, and his hon. friend said it would hold 1,500 clerks. Since then he had had the advantage of seeing the report from an architect in the Transvaal, and he had had the figures checked by an architect in this city, and his (Mr. Jagger’s) contention was that these buildings would only hold 796 clerks. There was no room for more than that number. Taking an ordinary computation, it would only hold 796. He wanted to point out, further, that the corridor space in this building was 70 per cent, more than it should be in a building of this character, and, consequently, the cost per clerk was going to be—on the basis of 796—not £1,000, but £1,420 per clerk. He wanted to point out in reference to this matter that they might have had a building to hold 1,000 clerks, to cost not £1,130,000, but for something like £350,000. He would repeat it, and would show them how he arrived at the figures. That would have put up a building from good architectural designs to hold 1,000 clerks, and there by they would have saved £780,000.

said that this was the fifth time the hon. member had raised this question, and he had brought forward little that was new. The hon. member started by saying he (Mr. Hull) had accused him and others of extravagance for demanding more money for school buildings. Well, he wanted to repudiate that, and to say that he had never said he wanted to starve school buildings. On the contrary, he thought the policy of the Government had shown clearly that, so far from stinting money for school buildings, they had been most generous. Now the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) had said also that an architect in the Transvaal had been in communication with him, and had placed certain statements before him, which he regarded as facts. The first criticism he had made of the late Transvaal Government was that they had not invited competitive designs for the buildings. Well, surely it had occurred to the hon. member that, in undertaking a job of this kind, it was impossible, from the very nature of the case, to invite competitive designs? Surely the hon. member knew, from his experience, that all over the world Governments and public authorities had gone to architects of repute and standing—men whom they knew to he specially qualified in the particular class of work—‘and had asked them to draw up designs? That was what was done in this case. It was well known that when Mr. Baker, an architect of prominence, was selected by the Government, a number of the other architects felt very sore about it, and criticised the action of the Government very strongly. Well, this particular architect to whom his hon. friend had referred had told his hon. friend that the buildings, instead of costing £1,130,000, would cost nearly a million and a half, the extra sum being for excavations, furniture, and so on. Now, he (Mr. Hull) wanted to assure the hon. member that this sum of £1,130,000 included every possible kind of expense. The tender for the Western and Eastern block was £622,500, and for the central building — the amphitheatre — it was £256,000. These figures included an allowance of £34,000 for excavations, as well as £50,000 for furniture, and ample allowances for heating apparatus, lifts, fire alarms, electric bells, architects’ fees, a road, tram lines up to the buildings, tree-planting, and every conceivable kind of expense which could be foreseen. The hon. member’s information was, therefore, quite incorrect. Well, that showed the committee how extravagant the hon. member’s informant was in regard to his figures. Then the hon. member said that the same correspondent told him that the buildings ought not to have cost more than £350,000. He (Mr. Hull) wondered if this was the architect who said that the building, when completed, would slip down because of the geological formation? (Laughter.)

said that the point was not whether the building could have been put up for £350,000, but whether this country could afford such an extravagant building as this at Pretoria? There were several places which needed railways, and he thought these railways should have been built, instead of putting the money into such a building at Pretoria.

said he felt that he would not be doing his duty as a representative of the people if he did not rise and say that he entirely agreed with what the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) had said. He was surprised at the Treasurer-General seeming to treat this matter with a light-heartedness which, when they were asked to vote more than a million of money, was net seemly. He could not understand his hon. friend treating this as a joke, and trying to cry down anybody who wished to have the matter investigated. All the information they had now got consisted in the few statements made by the Treasurer-General to-day, which they had had no opportunity whatever of checking or looking into. When the matter was before them the other day, he said it was too much money to spend on housing a thousand clerks. The Minister of the Interior then said that it was nearer 1,500. Anybody who went and looked at the plans, and inquired into the floor space, could see that the number of clerks was between 700 and 800, or very little more than half what the Minister, who had encouraged them to spend this money, said could be accommodated. They had not got any definito information as to the requirements which they were to fulfill. They were told that it was to be-a monument.

What I say is, that this Government must be careful that it is not a monument of extravagance and folly. (Hear, hear.) Is it realised by hon. members upon these benches, who are sitting here in a light after-dinner mood, voting away a million of the taxpayers’ money, that it is one of the largest buildings in the whole world that we have planned out—planned out for a little handful of people, with all our frightful responsibilities upon us, and in a country with its enormous land to be developed —and that we are going to set up to house a few Civil Servants one of the largest buildings in the world—(hear, hear)—in a most unsuitable place, out of the business part of the capital? First thoughts were best. What evil Genlus it was that led them to change when £350,000 would have put up a magnificent building, which would have been suitable for the purpose and effectual, what evil Genlus prompted them, I know not. It was not the Genlus of economy. It was the Genlus of megalomania and display. Proceeding, he said that we could not, in a poor country like this, afford luxuries of that kind. This expenditure was likely to be a million and a half before they had finished. They had one of the largest buildings in the world, which, instead of accommodating 1,500 clerks, would accommodate some 800, with its corridors, garages, dining-rooms, libraries—a magnificent display, fit, indeed, for a building which was the second largest building in the world, which was now, absit omen, in ruins—the palace of Diocletian, at Spalato. We were perfecting a bureaucracy in this country. He hoped that we some day, or those who came after us, would not go about the ruins of this building and wonder at the supreme folly of those who voted money for a purpose of this kind. He protested against this expenditure, and would continue to protest against this expenditure as long as he sat in that House.

said he would like to ask the right hon. gentleman what be proposed? The Government did not come to that House as ask the House to approve of a step they had taken. They were here in the position of the Union Parliament. The Union Parliament had to face the contract that was handed over to the Union Government. What were they to do? (A VOICE: “Break it.”) It was no use them making fiery statements. Personally, he agreed with the right hon. gentleman that the provision was extravagant. What was the use of thrashing a dead horse when they knew that they had got to carry out the contract that had been handed over to the Union? It was handed over to the Union, and the Union had to take over the responsibility and had got to meet it. Supposing the House refused to vote this sum, what would happen? Could not the contractors bring an action against the Government, and compel them to carry out their contract? (Ministerial cheers.) As the thing stood, they had got to take it, and he could not see the object of continuing the discussion. (Ministerial cheers.)

said that if they asked him what he would do, he would tell them. The contracts provided for a cessation of the contract. Of course, the work that was done would have to be measured and paid for, and no doubt, if they did not decide to go on with it, they would have had to pay a penalty. They could then erect a building and save hundreds of thousands of pounds. He considered it a piece of folly to go on with this building. Apart from that, allow him to tell the hon. gentleman (Sir E. Walton) that now, when for the first time they were asked to vote money for the buildings, was the time to protest against it, and to say that they were not accomplices in this thing, and that they had no part or lot in it. They took the earliest possible opportunity they had, and asked the Government to have an inquiry into this matter. No man would have acted in his own private affairs as the Government had acted in the matter.

said that he hoped that that would be the last time that matter would be before them; but he would not be doing his duty to his constituents if he did not protest, against that extravagant expenditure. He did not ascribe any ulterior motives to those who had initiated it. He thought that they had done so in good faith; hut from his point of view they had committed a mistake. If that money had been spent in the Cape Province he would have protested even more—it was an absolute and unwarranted waste of public money, when the country was crying out for development of all kinds, for which they did not have the money. (Opposition cheers.)

said it was a very curious thing that his hon. friend (Mr. Hull) had not replied to any point he had made, except to say that that was the fourth time that matter had been raised. They could not let that matter pass without protest, and it was only their duty to protest; he was only sorry he could not put a stop to it and reduce it. (Ministerial dissent.) It was the duty of any Government or any body administering public funds, to get the best possible value out of that public money; and how could they get the best possible value unless they called for designs? To say that it was not possible to call for designs was absurd. They had the place laid out, and it was known that the buildings were to be constructed, and no doubt scores of architects were ready to submit designs. His hon. friend had not answered at all as to the question of cheaper designs, so that he stood condemned out of his own mouth.

said that he regretted the tone of that discussion. It seemed that they could not talk about Pretoria without getting warm. He wanted to remain calm, and did not want to lose his head. (Laughter) Mr. Jagger talked about the waste of public money in that regard; and he must disagree with him. The money had been spent in the interests of the whole of the Union; and if £4,000,000 had been spent at Cape Town, the hon. member would not have raised all that pother about the matter. As to the designs of those buildings, the technical advisers had had the matter in hand, and it was under the supervision of the Public Works Department of the Transvaal. What he objected to was that his hon. friend had raised that question on so many occasions in such a heated manner. Even admitting for the moment that the Government had been wrong at the outset; still the fact remained that these administrative buildings would have had to be constructed in Pretoria. If a Select Committee had, as had been proposed on a previous occasion, been appointed to go into the whole matter, would it have made the position any better? Would it not have broken down instead of building up? Mr. Merriman had let the oat out of the bag when he said that the contracts should be annulled and another contract for a less amount should be entered into. What would have happened in South Africa if such a thing had been done? It was unfair to move for a Select Committee on the pretext that a mere inquiry was wanted, whereas the real object was to upset existing arrangements. If the Cape taxpayer had had to bear additional burdens as a result of the construction of these buildings, there would have been something in what Mr. Jagger had said, but what were the facts? There was no longer an income tax in the Cape, but if they had not had Union and Mr. Merriman had still been at the head of affairs there, £500,000 would have been levied. A sum of £100,000 had been returned to the officials, and the remission of the income tax meant £500,000, while the reduction of railway rates in the Cape was responsible for another £400,000. Could they say that with a total relief of £800,000 per annum they were not better off under Union? Were they not pleased that there was less taxation? No one had raised any objection to that, and as far as he was concerned, he had been glad to be able to assist the Cape. In conclusion, he said that the Union buildings were there, and they could not pull them down. He regretted that Mr. Merriman and Mr. Jagger had not accepted matters in the proper spirit. The figures quoted were unreliable, and it was a mistake to work against the general good feeling by pitting the Northern parts of the Union against the South.

said that he was sorry that that discussion had assumed such a character, but it was impossible to sit in the House and hear such an extraordinary speech as that of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, and not reply. On a previous occasion he had given them another reason why they should not discuss that question—that anybody who did so tried to break down the honourable understanding which had been arrived at that there should be an administrative and a legislative capital. But now his right hon. friend gave other reasons, and said that the taxpayers of the Cape were never so well off as under Union He could tell his right hon. friend that there would have been as much objection to spending two millions in the Gape. When the Cape Government had started with the erection of a very large public building in the Province—the Law Courts—the whole amount Parliament was asked for was only £187,000. The House had been five months in session before a measure was put before them, in the proper and constitutional manner, to vote money and carry out this contract, which had been entered into by the Government in an improper and unconstitutional manner. That was the gravamen of the charge. There was no desire to prevent the Government erecting at Pretoria buildings of a suitable character in which to house the Civil Servants, but it was because they objected to the unconstitutional action of the Government that they protested as they did. He believed that a large number of people who sat behind the Prime Minister, and, indeed, all the people who had the best interests of the Transvaal and of Pretoria at heart, would recognise that they could have spent this money at Pretoria in a better way if they had spent less on the Union buildings, and had used the balance for other public buiudings, which would be useful and, perhaps, reproductive. He wanted at once to remove the impression that there had been criticism on that side of the House in connection with this extravagance because the money was being spent at Pretoria. They had no sort of objection to equipping Pretoria with the buildings necessary for the administrative capital. Their criticism was that the action of the Government was unconstitutional, and that it was not in the best interests of the Union that so much money should have been spent—not in the Transvaal or Pretoria—but on this particular work, which they considered to be of an extravagant character, having regard to the smallness of the population and the large amount of development the Union was crying out for. (Opposition cheers.)

said that the spirit of the debate could not but be harmful—(cheers)—and it was only fair that those whose interest in the matter was a more indirect one than that of Transvaal Ministers should draw attention to that fact. The previous speaker had once more referred to the inception of the scheme, but he wished to remind the House that on several occasions protests, both violent and unfair, had been entered against that inception. By protesting too much, hon. members were only exposing the weakness of their case. It was not so much a question of protesting merely, however— what hon. members really wanted was to cancel the contract, stop building and repudiate their liabilities. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had been exceedingly unjust to the Transvaal Ministers and the Transvaal as a country. The scheme was inaugurated with the knowledge of the Transvaal Opposition, many members of which were present in the House. They did not protest at the time, and he appealed to the hon. member for Pretoria East to state whether the Transvaal Parliament would not have sanctioned the construction of the buildings, independent of party. The Union should now take up the position that, the Transvaal having desired to erect the buildings, the scheme should be sanctioned by South Africa as a whole. The Prime Minister had not made any unjust accusations. The right hon. gentleman was quite correct. The Transvaal was a young, wealthy, progressive country. What might have been a criminal procedure on the part of Cape Colony was not necessarily criminal in another colony with money at its disposal, but without works of art in which it could take a legitimate pride. The Transvaal refused to be behindhand, and wished to be in a position of being able to bear comparison with other parts of the Union. A building of some sort was required, and the Transvaal decided it would erect a monumental edifice. Even if two millions had been earmarked for this object, hon. members would hardly have been entitled to cavil at the expenditure. Criticism would lead to serious results, because the people of the Transvaal would begin to think that jealousy was the motive. The Cape had no right to level reproaches at the Transvaal. It could not maintain that the buildings had to come out of Cape funds. Of course, the Union had a perfect right to decide about going on with the works in one way or another, but in view of the fact that the Transvaal could easily have completed the buildings from its own resources, it would look extremely had if Parliament now proved obstreperous. If he (the speaker) had had to vote on the matter as it originally stood in his capacity as a Minister of the Union, he would not have voted for the scheme; he supposed the Prime Minister would not have done so either, but it would not do to offend a Province which, for the present, had provided the Union with ample funds. It was now only a question of carrying on a scheme according to the wishes of those who initiated it, and that being so, they should not raise a finger against the buildings. If they voted against the continuance of the work, they might pride themselves on having been economical, but they would never he able to boast of having done a good day’s work in the interests of South Africa as a whole. (Hear, hear.)

said he was bound to say something on this matter, because on the last occasion when the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) moved for a Select Committee, he (the speaker) had the assurance that it was not intended; to stop the buildings. To-night the idea was to out down the buildings, and he was sorry that that statement had, been made in the heat of the debate, because he wished to make it perfectly clear that he should not have voted for the Select Committee if that had been hinted at. Now he believed that a Select Committee should have been appointed. It would have set at rest all this talk, and it was his firm conviction it would have been for the credit of the Transvaal to have cleared up all this talk and mystery. He would like to have the privilege of saying a word or two in self-defence. He could not accept the responsibility put upon bim by the Minister of Justice. He did not think the Minister (General Hertzog) had realised what was said by his hon. friend the member for Georgetown (Sir George Farrar) on behalf of the Opposition in the Transvaal. It had already been explained, but he wished to say that they did not know the full extent. When the Union was discussed, if there was one place where Union seemed to be hopeless, it was the Transvaal. There was the great difficulty of the settlement of the capital, but they agreed to it, although he did not know whether they were wise in agreeing to it. He had always hoped to get away from provincial difficulties. He could assure hon. members who represented the Cape Province that the first thing told to them (the Transvaalers) was that the Cape was bankrupt. Now nothing would have been a more popular than that if they had given way to that sentiment, but they did not do that. It was perfectly well known that at the first meeting in Pretoria he (Sir Percy) said that the Cape was not bankrupt; that it had splendid prospects; and every day one saw these prospects being realised. Now, they had to realise the atmosphere in which this thing was done. All they (the Transvaalers) had got was the half capital; but they had no buildings, and they had no security. In Cape Town, however, they had all the Parliament buildings, and they (the Transvaalers) wanted—he was not now talking about the spending of money—a decisive guarantee of the settlement of Union. This was done, and it did settle the doubts about the capital to a large extent. They had to remember that the people said at that time it was a very little thing talking only about money —it was a very little thing and as they saw, the funds that were handed over by the Transvaal were very considerable for all the criticism that had been made. One item was the profits tax, which amounted to a million sterling, and they said: “Try and keep it for the Transvaal; keep it for provincial expenditure.” But they put it all into the pool, land they had got it today. Now, he did not say that all these things justified any unconstitutional act, but he would ask lion, members to have done with it now, because how could they break the contract, and also good faith? He had supported his hon. friend (Mr. dagger) in his stand for constitutional government, and he hoped he would always support him on these lines, but let them have done with it now, because it would be badly misunderstood in other parts. It would look like a provincial attack, an attack upon the settlement effected by Union. He would like to see this matter settled once and for all for the peace of South Africa, and for the purpose of getting away from the provincial divisions which were arising.

said that one of the points raised during the debate had reference to how many clerks would be accommodated in the Union buildings. It had been asserted by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) that the buildings would not accommodate more than 700 or 800 clerks. As the result of inquiry, he had been informed that if they took 100 pubic feet for each clerk, instead of the usual. 90 cubic feet, the buildings would accommodate more than 1,500 clerks, or double the number mentioned that night. As to the question of cost, he was satisfied, from inquiries made, that a very liberal allowance had been made for all conceivable extras, and he had the assurance of his department and responsible people that the amount put down—£1,130,000—would not be exceeded. It had been said that the buildings would cost £1,500,000, but that figure was altogether wrong. He agreed with the last speaker that they should not stop the work. They had spent over £200,000; they had entered into a contract for over a million, and to suggest stopping the work now was one of the greatest absurdities he had ever heard. He hoped Parliament would not be so foolish or injudicious as to adopt the suggestion.

said he would like to point out that the Minister was giving the clerks very short measure—100 cubic feet each.

Yards. (Laughter.)

asked the Minister a question about the progress of the Law Courts in Cape Town.

replied that good progress was being made, and that, according to contract, the buildings would be completed in November, 1913. He did not think it would take any longer, and possibly it would be furnished before that time. The library at Pretoria had been started, he thought. Replying to an interjection by Sir E. H. Walton (Port Elizabeth, Central), the Minister of Public Works said that the amount of £84,900 had been paid out for the House of Parliament, There was about £1,000 asked for the alterations to be made during the recess.

Vote B was agreed to.

asked if the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs intended making any telephone connection with Moorreesburg? He was told that there was connection with Malmesbury, but it did not seem to be very satisfactory. If had to go through Bellville, and the line was very often blocked.

asked if the Minister was going to bring down the price of telephone connections? The price charged in Natal and the Transvaal was very much cheaper. Many people in the Cape would not be connected on account of the price.

asked whether two telephone connections in the Western Free State, for which the people had long been clamouring, would be made?

said nothing had been placed on the Estimates for these lines.

asked whether the question had been as much as inquired into? Koffyfontein should be connected with Kimberley via Jacobsdal.

said that there were telegraph lines in the Western districts of the Free State, but that, before any further town connections were made, the country districts should be assisted.

said the hon. member was selfish. (Laughter.) What he (the speaker) was asking for did not exclude anyone else from the benefits of telephonic communication. He had himself urged the claims of country connections.

said the hon. member had misunderstood him. Living as he did in a town, he (Mr. Cronje) could telegraph to his heart’s content, though there was no direct telephone connection between Winburg and Bloemfontein. At the same time, he was not asking for that connection, because he realised that the country districts should: be assisted first of all.

advocated a telephone connection for Hubertina. (Cheers and laughter.)

said that telephone changes in the Cape had been considerably reduced. The tariff would be made uniform throughout the Union. The department would make inquiries in connection with the lines advocated in the Western Free State.

asked whether Hubertina would be connected? (Loud laughter.)

said that he was not aware there was such a place—(laughter)—but that he had made a note of the request.

asked for a reply to the question he asked the other night.

said, in answer to Mr. Jagger, that no special provision had been made for telephone communication with Moorreesburg. The matter dealt with by Mr. Clayton was being inquired into. With regard to the telephone charges, the intention was to make them uniform throughout the Union as soon as possible. The question of telephone extensions would be considered by the authorities.

The vote was agreed to.

said he had understood when the Prime Minister introduced his Dipping Tanks Bill that he contemplated the erection of a considerable number of tanks. Well, he thought the provision here of £45,000 was very small.

said that under other Acts in the old colonies other sums amounting to £17,000 were provided, which would be available for the advances for dipping tanks.

asked if the Prime Minister would now give the House an indication of the policy of the Government in connection with East Coast fever? Now that the Diseases of Stock Bill had been passed giving the Government certain powers in regard to compulsory dipping, what was proposed to be done with reference to those Border districts which had petitioned, through the Divisional Councils, for compulsory dipping to be brought into operation? Those districts were anxious that his right hon. friend should make some public statement as to what was the policy, now that he had got his Stock Diseases Act, that he proposed to adopt.

said the difficulty hither to had been that the different colonies had had different systems of combating the disease. It was only in the Transvaal that they had been successful. At present the Transvaal method was being introduced in practically the whole of the Union, and in Natal things had improved very much. The Government were intent on preserving the cattle wherever possible. They only destroyed animals where there was no other way open to them. If hon. members were labouring under any other impression, he could assure them that they were wrong. In the Transvaal the natives had co-operated, and in consequence it had been found possible to push back the disease a considerable distance without any cattle being destroyed, except in isolated places. The Government were in favour of dipping in order to arrest the progress of the disease. Wherever it showed, itself a fence was constructed, and a 15 months’ quarantine was introduced. It had been proved beyond cavil that that system answered very well. Dipping was excellent, though in the Transvaal they had fought their battles without it. If they dipped once every five days it would be efficacious, but dipping every ten days was quite useless. The policy of dipping was to be commended, because it was directed not merely against East Coast fever but against ticks generally, and ticks were the farmer’s most deadly enemies. Even though £1,000,000 were spent he agreed with the hon. member for Pretoria East that the money would not be wasted. The Government having done its share, the only thing required now was the hearty co-operation of every cattle farmer. He would have preferred visiting the Kei River to leaving for England at this juncture. If the Divisional Councils there asked for compulsory dipping to be introduced, he was prepared to proclaim it. People along the Border should not delay another moment in constructing dips, lest tick fever invaded the Cape Province proper from the Transkei. Meanwhile all whites should assist the Government by impressing upon the natives the fact that wherever cattle were killed that course was absolutely necessary, because if it were not, Government would not resort to it. If that policy had been adopted at once, the Transkei natives would not have lost 15,000 head of cattle. At present the disease was here, there, and everywhere, and it was almost useless shooting cattle, because East Coast fever would infect all the cattle in the country unless they built dips at once. In winter, fortunately, the ticks were not particularly active, and if they started the construction of dipping tanks at once, they would find, when spring came, that the expense incurred would be made good in many ways. Sprays were inferior to dipping tanks, because they were subject to wear and tear, and would have to be replaced after a time, whereas tanks were a permanent improvement on a farm. Even if Government were to find that its policy had led to misunderstandings in the Transkei and had to be relinquished there, it would be continued, in other parts of South Africa. Concerning Mr. Boshof’s cattle in the district of Waterberg, he would point out that in the Transvaal £5 or more might have to be paid for every animal killed, according to valuation. Government had decided to pay no more than £4 a head, but Mr. Bosboff’s cattle had been valued at£10 each The owner refused to accept Hess, and he (the speaker) had consequently caused the farm to be quarantined. The case of Struben had been mentioned, but Mr. Struben had unlawfully shifted cattle across the Border after he himself had been agitating against practices of that kind. At the time, he (General Botha) was at Kokstad, and he did not know who Mr. Struben was, but when the news came to him he ordered the cattle to be killed immediately, as always happened in the Transvaal when people trekked about with cattle without a permit. Three months afterwards, when it was too late for the shooting to be of any practical use, he found that his order had not been obeyed and that the cattle were still alive. The Court then correctly decided that the Government were not entitled to shoot the cattle, though recognising that the original order given by him had been a just one, and should have been carried out without delay. He would be glad to show the hon. member for Pretoria East all documents bearing on the matter. Government quite realised that it was helpless without the public’s assistance, and they should take timely measures to fight the disease.

said they supported entirely the policy laid down by the Prime Minister, who had stated that the public must really do something for themselves and must not wait for the district in which they lived to foe infected before they moved and then call out to Government for assistance. They entirely agreed with the Prime Minister (proceeded Colonel Crewe), but their trouble was that in those districts where the people said they were prepared to help themselves, the greatest difficulty was experienced in getting the Government to move. Would Government put compulsory dipping into operation in the Komgha district, where the people were anxious for that step to foe taken?

Yes, straight away.

said ‘that in the Transkei the Prime Minister would have the absolute support of the European population, and it was pleasant to see that the natives were supporting the Government. (Hear, hear.) The Government had now given the assurance that wherever it could, it would put the compulsory dipping of cattle into force in non-infected districts in the neighbourhood of the Transkei, and that was all they asked.

asked whether the Prime Minister was prepared to call on the stock inspectors of Natal for a report as to the possibility of eradicating the tick in Natal by compulsory dipping.? Unless the tick could be eradicated he was afraid that Natal farmers would not be able to make a success of stock-farming.

said he had been glad to hear the speech of the Prime Minister and to know that the Government had come to the conclusion that something more was necessary than even what was done in the Transvaal. He did not mean to say that the people of the Transkei or himself wanted shooting to be done away with absolutely, but he was rather surprised to hear the Prime Minister say he was not going to shoot at all in the Transkei, because he thought it was a good remedy in certain cases. He hoped he would not carry that out absolutely. With regard to the dipping, he rejoiced that a Bill was being passed to provide dipping tanks. He would like to draw attention to the fact that the Native Council had carried a resolution to ask for a loan from the Government, and he hoped it would be granted them. He had it that they were going to ask for £40,000. They were determined to put up sufficient tanks to dip all the cattle in the Transkei. He was not so pessimistic as the Hon. the Prime Minister about stopping the disease in the Transkei, and he believed that by carrying out dipping they would stop it. He wanted to draw attention to the necessity for having dipping supervisors. They could not expect the natives to attend to the dips, and therefore they should have men to see that it was carried out in a proper manner.

asked what the item £20,000 for land settlement in the Cape of Good Hope was going to be spent on.

hoped that assistance would be given to persons in towns and villages who desired to do so, to return to the land.

endorsed what the hon. member had said. He advocated irrigation, and reminded the Minister of his calculation to the effect that the Transvaal was having £52,000 less spent on it than was intended on 31st May, 1010.

said that he had hoped to ask for a larger amount for that deserving purpose, but it was the intention of the Government to have investigations made first, so that they could lay definite proposals before the House next year. In regard to the item of £20,000 for land settlement in the Cape, this was the Government’s contribution towards the labour colonies, under Act 10 of1909. The £52,000 would be spent in the Transvaal in the long run: but after due inquiry. The money would be spent under different (headings, and there was nothing wrong.

asked if the Government had had any applications in the Cape in regard to the £20,000?

said that they had had no actual applications, but information had been asked for in two cases.

The vote was verbally amended, and agreed to.

wanted to know why the Government had stopped work at the Buchuberg Irrigation Scheme, on which over £7,000 had been spent, and whether work would be restarted? The people of the neighbourhood had looked forward eagerly to the completion of that work.

said that he would take into consideration whether the work could be proceeded with later. It would not pay to finish it on the basis originally adopted.

asked the Minister if he intended to spend the amount of £120,000 on the purchase of land for new irrigation works?

in reply to Mr. Steytler, said that with regard to the Odendaal scheme, if ever the Government had been liberal, it had in regard to that scheme: but whether he had to deal with a church or not, he must go on business principles. He would not only stick to his contract, but act sympathetically. In regard to the £120,000. this was the amount to be included in the loan, but there was no idea of spending it without Parliamentary sanction. There were several schemes not yet mature enough to be laid before Parliament. They however, wanted to be ready when they came for Parliamentary sanction.

In reply to General L. A. S. LEMMER (Marico).

said that investigations were being made in regard to irrigation schemes in the Marico district.

said that he never saw engineers making investigations with regard to irrigation schemes in the North-eastern portions of the Cape Province.

said that there were many engineers, and a large staff at work in the Eastern Province. He wondered that the hon. member did not know of it.

replied that there were many desirable places where no investigations had been made in the North-east, though engineers had been in the South-eastern districts.

said he understood Mir. Fischer to say that none of this sum of £120,000 for the purchase of land could be spent until Parliamentary sanction had been received.

replied that larger amounts would have to come before Parliament. There were certain schemes in the Transvaal, for which Parliamentary sanction would not be required, but the larger amounts would need Parliamentary sanction.

did not think that was satisfactory. The House should know what land was purchased.

said there were certain lands for the purchase of which options had been obtained, but the purchases would not be complete without. Parliamentary sanction. The main portion of the thing would have to came before Parliament.

said it was really a very unsatisfactory position, as the House did not know where it was. The Minister said he might, or he might not have to come to the House for its sanction.

said he could not tell the House what was going to be spent until Government had decided upon the schemes before it. Meanwhile, provision would have to be made in order to get options over certain land, although it might not be necessary to complete the purchases. The money would not be spent without the authority of Parliament.

thought more should be done in the way of bringing water into the Orange Free State.

said he was informed that the work could be done much more cheaply by private people than by Government.

said that he missed entirely all provision for the Agricultural College at Pretoria, and he wished to know where they were going to get the money from. He believed that the sum of £100,000 was voted by the Transvaal Parliament. His friends in Pretoria, in fact, the whole community, wanted to know when the College was to be commenced. Of course, he knew that they had not got the money, and he wanted to know if any portion of it was dependent upon the repayment of repatriation debts?

replied that it would not be possible to get hold of the £100,000 until the repatriation payments to that amount had been collected. He added that it would require considerably more than £100,000 to complete the building.

asked, in reference to the additional loan to the South African College for new buildings for anatomy, whether the Government intended to go on with the Anatomy Rill?

replied in the affirmative.

in reply to Mr. Heatlie, said that but for the pressure of business, the Government would have introduced a Bill to bring about uniformity in regard to land banks in the Union.

said that much money seemed to be lent to farmers, but it was difficult to discover who got the money, as far is the free State was concerned. Many people whom the knew were unsuccessful in their applications, and had given up hope.

said that from the date of Union up to the 14th March £425,000 had been advanced. Surely, that was not a trifle?

The vote was agreed to.

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

moved the second reading of the Anatomy Bill.

The motion was agreed to.

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