brought up the report of the Committee on the Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Funds for the period ending March 31, 1912, reporting the Estimates with an amendment.

The amendment on page 11 in Item No. 2, after “erection of” to omit “cattle,” was agreed to.

The Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Funds, as amended, was adopted.

appointed the Minister of Finance and Mr. Van Heerden a committee to draft a Bill in accordance therewith.

brought up the report of the Committee of the Whole House on the Second and Third Reports of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

moved that Resolution No. 13, relating to the petition of B. P. Wall, be referred back to the Select Committee for further consideration.

seconded.

Agreed to.

With that exception, the report was adopted.

said that this was merely a technical matter.

brought up the report of the Committee of the Whole House on the Third Report of the Select Committee on Waste Lands, reporting certain resolutions.

moved that the Resolutions Nos. 1 to 32 be adopted.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Supplementary Estimates, year ending March 31, 1912 (Cape).

reported that, on behalf of the House, he had accepted from Sir David Graaff (Minister of Posts and Telegraphs) the portrait of the late Hon. J. H. Hofmeyr, which had been on view in one of the writing-rooms for some time. He proposed that the portrait should be hung in one of the committee-rooms.

amid cheers, suggested that a selection should be made of the portraits hung in various committee-rooms, and that these should be placed on the walls of the banqueting hall, instead of being in committee-rooms, where nobody saw them.

The matter was left to the Committee on Internal Arrangements.

proposed that the second reading be taken that day, after the seventh Order had been disposed of.

It is very unusual.

Does anyone object?

Yes, sir, I object.

then moved that the second reading be taken on Monday.

seconded.

Agreed to.

referred to the question of the Auditor-General reporting to both Houses of Parliament. The Auditor-General in England was appointed solely by the House of Commons in order to see that the sums appropriated by the House of Commons had been so appropriated. They were now asked to assent to the principle that the Auditor should report to both Houses. He failed to see what good purpose would be obtained by that course. (Cheers.) On that ground he objected to the amendment, and moved that it be not accepted. (Cheers.)

said a very important constitutional principle was involved. It was against the practice of both the English and Canadian Parliaments.

Don’t let us get into a conflict until some more worthy opportunity occurs. I have been watching the debates elsewhere, and there seems to be a tendency there to trench on functions which don’t belong to them. I see it with la great deal of regret, and it would be most unfortunate, as we have tried a great experiment in our Constitution, and if that is wrecked by the attempt of one place to overlap the functions of another, and if we are obliged to tear up the roots that we planted in the Convention, it will be a supreme misfortune. (Hear, hear.) In this case I do not think there is any harm done; it is only about putting papers on the table, and so on. I would direct the attention of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (Mr. Orr) to clause 26, where he will see that all sums must be sanctioned by Parliament. If we found a constitutional struggle on this thing, we shall be tripped up by being told that in the Audit Act we did rather the same thing. It would be unwise to seize upon a straw with the object of having a row, which we all pray to goodness may never occur. I hope wisdom will guide the deliberations of both Houses of Parliament. (Hear, hear.)

The Senate’s amendment was carried.

The other amendments made by the Senate were agreed to.

said that in introducing the Bill the Minister said that he did so because Natal was the only Province in which a poll tax was paid. He (Mr. Botha.) thought the reference was to Europeans only, but he now found that it was the intention to repeal the payment of poll tax by coloured people also. In the Free State, natives also paid poll tax. He thought it would be manifestly unfair to relieve the natives of Natal and not the natives of the Free State, and he hoped the Minister would consent to an amendment which would include other Provinces, which suffered similar disabilities to Natal.

associated himself with what had been said by the last speaker.

moved an amendment in clause:1 to the effect that the tax be not collected until such date as Parliament by resolution determined.

said he hoped the Minister would not insist upon the word “resolution.” The amendment was contrary to the pro visions of the Act of Union, which said that the power was to be vested in Parliament, which consisted of the King, Senate, and House of Assembly. He moved that the word “resolution” in the amendment be deleted for the insertion of the word “legislation.”

said that he had first of all been given to understand that that measure only applied to Europeans, but he now understood that the poll tax would no longer have to be paid by coloured persons in Natal, and he would like to have some information from the Minister of Finance as to what was his intention.

pointed out that this Bill did not repeal the present Act; it merely postponed the date of payment of the tax.

asked if it was not the intention of the Minister not to collect the tax next year? The Prime Minister had promised to meet the Natal members by abolishing the Natal poll tax.

And by substituting another one.

For the Minister to pretend that it was not his intention to repeal the tax for both whites and natives in Natal is a mere evasion of the facts.

Mr. Alexander’s amendment was negatived.

The amendment moved by the Minister of Finance was agreed to.

The Bill was reported without further amendment.

appealed to the Minister to substitute “legislation” for “resolution.” The Bill as amended by the Minister was rendered unworkable. How could Parliament by “resolution” determine? The Bill did not say both Houses of Parliament, and “Parliament” as defined by the Act of Union consisted of the King, Senate, and House of Assembly.

Look at the Interpretation Act

But the Act of Union has not been repealed, and the word “resolution “does not appear in that Act. It is a most dangerous principle to give the House power by resolution to decide matters of taxation.

The Bill, as amended, was adopted.

moved that the third reading be at once taken.

objected.

moved that the third treading he set down for Monday.

seconded.

Agreed to.

brought up the report of the Select Committee on Native Affairs, and moved that it be printed.

Consideration?

Monday?

The evidence is rather bulky, and the printing may take some time. Does the Hon. Minister risk it?

Yes.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the order stand over until the Railway Construction Bill had been disposed of.

hoped that the order would be gone on with.

moved that the order stand over until Monday.

Does the hon. member object?

I object in the strongest possible terms to the Government going on with any measure

If the hon. member objects the order must be taken now.

The motion that the order stand over was negatived.

accordingly moved the second reading of the Bill, which was agreed to,

The Bill was read a second time.

Committee stage?

Now.

The clauses were severally considered, and agreed to, whereupon

reported that the committee had considered the Bill, and that he would report on Monday.

drew attention to the petition of the widow of Sir Henry Bale The late Sir Henry Bale, he said, was for ten years Chief Justice of Natal, which office he filled with dignity and distinction. He thought that, seeing that the committee had set a precedent in the case of Mrs. Joubert, widow of the late Parliamentary draughtsman of the Cape House, they might extend some consideration to the widow of Sir Henry Bale.

drew attention to the case of Dr. Mansvelt, and expressed regret that the committee had not seen their way to make a recommendation. He moved that the matter be referred back to the committee. He referred to the circumstances in which Dr. Mansvelt had transferred he services from the Cape Colony to the Transvaal Government, when he had 18 years’ service in the Cape.

also supported Dr. Mansvelt’s petition, because his moral claim was considerable, although, owing to special circumstances, he might not have a legal claim.

said that as a member of the Pensions Committee, he did not think it was any use referring this case back.

also spoke in support of Dr. Mansvelt’s case.

said that, unless fresh evidence were to be given, he thought ‘it was a waste of time referring this ease back. It was the case of one of the officials of the late South African Republic, and be must say that the whole of these cases were gone into most carefully by the Transvaal Government.

said that this was hardly a case for the Pensions Committee. He should be glad if the Government would give them some assurance that they would look into the case.

pointed out that the South African Republic law stipulated for ten years’ service, whereas Dr. Mansvelt had just under ten years, and his Cape service did not count in the South African Republic.

said he believed there was a feeling in the blouse that the case of the late Sir Henry Bale was a very exceptional one, and that they should consider the distinguished services which the late Chief Justice rendered to Natal by helping the widow, who, according to the petition, had been left in absolutely destitute circumstances. He thought there was far more reason to indicate the realisation of the distinguished services of Sir Henry Bale, even if they voted only £100. Was it in order that the petition be read at the present time?

No.

then moved that the petition be referred back to the committee.

said no more tragic cause came before the committee, and if a proposal were made to help Lady Bale privately, a great deal could be said in its favour. But unless the functions of the Pensions Committee were to be altered, and it was to be turned into a charitable association, it could do no more than it had done. He was against the motion being referred back.

said there were hundreds of cases similar to those of Sir Henry Bale, only the people concerned were poor, such as signalmen and magistrates’ clerks, and their cases did not attract public attention. There were circumstances attending Lady Bale’s case which made it peculiarly tragic, but if once they gave way because it was a sad ease, he did not know where they were going to stop, because there were thousands of sad cases in this country. If Sir Henry Bale’s services were judged to be of such a character and nature as to be deserving of special attention, the proper way to bring the matter before the House was by a special Act of Parliament. (Hear, hear.)

also agreed that these cases, which had once been considered by the committee, should not be referred back to it.

referred to the case of Mr. Hill, of the Worcester Public School, who resigned his position fully expecting to get a pension, but the Auditor-General found that its payment would be illegal.

said that if one case were referred back, there were hundreds of others which needed reconsideration.

spoke to the same effect. He opposed the amendment.

Mr. Grobler’s and Mr. Schreiner’s amendments were negatived.

The recommendations were agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN reported to the House, and it was agreed to bring up the report at the next sitting.

referred to the Railway Board, which he said was only in possession of the programme of proposed new railways on February 25. The Board presented its report on April 9, and consequently the Board had not had sufficient time in which to fully consider the matter of new railways. The intention of the South Africa Act—even if the letter was being followed—was not being carried out. It was of vital importance that the railways should be removed from the political arena. He hoped the Government would bring in a Bill next session to define the powers of the Railway Board, and, if necessary, to extend them, in order to achieve the object of the framers of the Constitution. If Government did not do so, he certainly would raise the matter next session, and would introduce a motion having for its object a change in the method in which the railways were administered. If nothing were done, they would drift back into the old conditions. They would have the railway system as a political weapon, and that would lead to consequences which none of them could look upon without grave apprehension.

said he wished again to protest against the utter absence of information in connection with branch lines. He regretted that another railway was to be built on the 2 feet gauge, because he thought that the time would come when they would have to alter all the 2 feet gauges to 5 feet 6 inch gauges. The 3 feet 6 inch gauge was really a narrow gauge, and he trusted that they would insist on having no more 2 feet gauges. The 3 feet 6 inch gauge lines could be constructed at almost the same cost as 2 feet gauge lines. The one thing they had to do was to construct their rolling stock to suit the railways, instead of building railways to suit the rolling stock which they might happen to have in hand.

asked the Minister to explain in detail what was the procedure followed in connection with the proposals for the construction of new lines. The Act of Union laid it down that such proposals should first be considered by the Railway Board. Well, they could get a report from the Board showing that the proposals had been considered, but be wanted to know if they were considered in the light of a report made by the engineers. He also wanted to know what process had been gone through before the Board made the recommendations.

complained that the Minister had given no information about the Bill. He thought the House was very hardly dealt with in having such important schemes of great magnitude brought forward in its last hours. He agreed with Mr. Fawcus that a break of gauge in this country was absolutely wrong. In the Transvaal, although some had (reported in favour of 2 feet gauge lines, it had been opposed, and it had been found better to build light lines, the rails weighing 45 lb. to the yard, on the veld; and run the trains at a low rate of speed. When the lines began to pay they could improve them. (Hear, hear.) One of the chief factors militating against these cheap standard gauge lines was the Traffic Department itself, which always wanted60 lb. rails used. If they had a break of gauge they could not use their old rolling stock for their development lines; and he hoped that they would have no more break of gauge in this country. (Hear, hear.)

said that he thought the hon. member was anxious to go on with the work, and why had he thrown down such an apple of discord as the question of break of gauge of railways? If a break of gauge had been adopted in India and Australia, why not here? They would find out that there was much to be said on behalf of these narrow gauge lines.

Hear, hear.

considered that further information was necessary in regard to these new lines. When they had established the Railway Board the idea they had in mind was what was done by companies, where the general manager did certain matters before the Board, which drew up an exhaustive report, which was then laid before the shareholders and explained by the chairman. Proceeding, he said that although since the date of Union the Cape had not exercised its unexercised borrowing powers, they had proceeded with works which involved a liability of £1,300,000, as far as he could follow, The Minister of Railways had said that the old authorised Cape lines fell into two classes; one class being those begun before Union, and the other class those which had not yet been begun, which would have to come under the consideration of the Board. He had looked through the list, and found that a number of railway lines fell into different classes. Now, in respect of the £280,000 which represented the funds of the Cape for these lines, a liability of £1,300,000 had been incurred. Where had the money come from? One could only assume that it was from the betterment and maintenance fund handed over by the other administrations: that was the only other money available. In going through that list, he had found that the Minister was not quite correct in his classification. Mr. Blaine and Sir Bisset Berry both raised the question about the Cathcart and Queenstown lines; if they looked through the schedule on page 22 of the Green-book, it would be found that against both these lines there were certain charges and expenditure incurred—the survey and part of the costs of raising the loan—which was correct. Now came that interesting point: if these particular lines were charged for raising the loan it made a better case for his hon. friend; it looked as if these railways had been earmarked. There was a further complication. He knew that two of these railways—Schoombie-Maraisburg and Hopefield-Hoetjes Bay—which were not submitted to the Board, but put in clause 2 as railways commenced before the date of Union—these two railways should have been started since the date of Union.

interjected a remark, which led

to say chat he was groping his way for information. They were in a difficult position as private individuals. The tenders for the construction of those lines were called for after the date of Union. No work was done on the Schoombie-Maraisburg line before Union. The Hopefield-Hoetjes Bay contract was, he believed, signed on June 27. a month after the date of Union. He put to hon. members the extremely difficult position that one was in. All this information ought to be before them in writing from the Board. They ought to have the honest, candid, impartial opinion of the Board laid before the Houses. There was not even a map of Africa to show them where the lines went. He must take another risk in this matter. As far as he could make out from many inquiries and much search, the sole amount authorised by the Railway Board in connection with all this enormous expenditure and liability was a matter of a £10,000 contract upon one line. Not a penny of expenditure other than that had been authorised by the Railway Board. He did not know where the gap was. It was perfectly certain that this machinery, which ought to run from Parliament right down through the whole system, had not been connected up. There was a break in the machinery. For the good of the country and of the individual, it was better to be governed on the principle of rights, and not favours.

said that he had already spoken, hut perhaps by the indulgence of the House he might be allowed to make a remark on the most uncalled-for and pompous attack made upon him by the hon. member for Pretoria East—an insinuation that in his capacity as Minister of the Cape Colony—

Is there any objection to the right hon. gentleman speaking further?

No.

Permit me to any that I never intended, and never made, an attack on the right hon. gentleman. I never suggested such a thing. The right hon. gentleman has entirely misunderstood me. I gave him credit for inspiring this, and for perfect good faith all the way through. There was never an uncalled-for reflection in my mind.

The hon. member is rather hard to understand. He speaks with such a wealth of imagination that—

Is this in order, Mr. Speaker? The right hon. gentleman has already spoken, and can he be allowed to go on in this fashion?

He has been granted the indulgence of the House.

The hon. member (Sir Thomas Smartt) may be very anxious to have attacks made and not be answered.

I think the right hon. gentleman has already spoken.

It is very hard to have all sorts of attacks flung at one, and not have an opportunity of replying, when it is said that there has been an engagement made at the Convention, and that that engagement was broken by the Cape Colony.

I never said anything of the sort. The right hon. gentleman was talking to the Minister of Railways, while I was addressing the House. (Hear, hear.)

referred to the necessity of building bridges over rivers, and suggested that it should be made possible for ordinary traffic to use railway bridges over rivers where no road bridge existed. This would particularly be useful during those seasons of the year when the rivers were in flood. He thought too much attention was devoted to railways, and not enough to roads. When new railway bridges were constructed over rivers they should be made so that they could be used for road traffic as well, at a slight extra cost.

said the more one looked at this matter, the more confused it became. There was a difference in the figures which had been presented to the House. As an instance he mentioned the Graaff-Water-Van Rhynsdorp line. In one report the mileage was given as 57 and the probable cost £161,000, and in another document the mileage was stated as 50 and the estimated cost £118,000. In four instances the report of the Railway Board gave the cost of construction at a very much smaller figure than that mentioned in the Bill. It was a disgraceful condition of affairs that in a short period of six weeks only two out of the three Railway Commissioners should go round the country, and recommend an expenditure of over two millions. The report of the Commissioners was not the final stage of the matter—that House was the final stage. It was monstrous to ask the House to consider the construction of lines involving an outlay of over two millions on the strength of the information contained in the few sheets of paper before hon. members. That was unfair to the House and to the country, and he desired to lodge his strongest protest against the vote being proceeded with.

supported the Bill, because it provided for the most necessary lines. It was impossible to have all the lines which were needed constructed at once. He deprecated the dog-in-the-manger policy adopted by some hon. members, and welcomed) the extension of the line through the Marico district.

contended that sufficient information had not been placed before the House. He wanted to know whether the lines which were authorised by the Cape Parliament in 1906 would have to come before the Board once more before they could be proceeded with? He could not help expressing dissatisfaction at the fact that the construction of the Belmont-Douglas line had not been proceeded with. There was no reason given why that line should not be constructed. He thought the money had been found. Would it have to be re-voted? He regretted the one-sidedness of the Government’s construction policy. The Minister should have stated his reasons for all decisions—positive and negative.

said that when the Welverdiend-Treurfontein-Saltpan line was authorised, the intention was to effect a junction with the Mafeking line. The distance was short, the extension would be a cheap one, and many people would be benefited. A branch from the Saltpans to Schweizer-Reneke was also desirable. He supported the proposed Wakkerstroom connection, because it was an old project and the district was a wealthy one, which would ensure the payability of the line.

said that his hon. friend (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) made no attack upon the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman). He thought the right hon. gentleman entirely misunderstood the hon. member for Pretoria East. The point of his hon. friend (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) was that in the Convention the members of the various Provinces entered into an understanding that no fresh lines should be constructed, and that the Cape Government entirely and honourably observed that understanding, but that on June 27, when, the right hon. gentleman had gone out of office, the Union Government called for tenders for the construction of some of the lines which were in abeyance at the time of the sittings of the Convention. All his hon. friend (Sir Percy) said was that he did not consider that in accordance with the spirit of the Convention His hon. friend brought out another point, and that was that certain of the lines which were authorised under the Cape Bill of 1906 were authorised by the Union Government without any consultation with the Board. The hon. member recapitulated the points which he had urged on Friday afternoon, and said that if these matters were not sufficiently defined in the Act of Union they should set upon defining them as soon as possible.

said that he was going to give that Bill his hearty support, although it provided for no lines in his constituency. They talked about developing the country, and here was an opportunity of doing so by building branch lines. The hon. member went on to speak of the desirability of constructing the Buhrmansdrift-Zeerust line.

Ah! (Laughter.)

Oh, it’s not in any constituency. He went on to speak of the possibilities of that part of the country, and the way in which Griqualand West had been neglected in the past. At present the line was only skirting the district. He hoped the Minister would consider the advisability of constructing a line from Prieska to Kuruman, and thence to the main line. (Laughter.) He hoped that during the recess the fullest inquiry would be made. He also spoke in favour of the Welverdiend-Lichtenburg-Mafeking extension, though he did not advocate the Schweizer-Reneke branch.

said that he was very much disappointed with the schemes with which the Government had come forward, and that the line which had been petitioned for by a thousand inhabitants of the Fauresmith district, and which the Government had favoured, had been adversely commented upon by the Railway Board. In regard to some lines in the Transvaal, the Board simply recommended that the lines be constructed, without giving any reasons, and he held that Parliament should be in possession of more complete information. In regard to the proposed Koffyfontein-Fauresmith line, the Board said that the district was mainly pastoral, and that there was no chance of the line paying. It was not taken into consideration that irrigation and other schemes were going forward in a splendid tract of country along the Riet River, where the line would have run. Two members of the Board had visited Fauresmith for five minutes, had motored over to Koffyfontein, and then, later, reported!

Shame.

The Board had recommended a long, unnatural detour from Honeynest Kloof through an arid district, which was not to the benefit of the country, and placed the natural port of the district further away, whereas the salt produced at Honey nest Kloof had its railway even now. The so-called non-political, impartial Board made some queer recommendations.

Business was suspended at 1.3 p.m.

reverting to the Koffyfontein line, as proposed by the Board, said the traffic expected would not materialise. The line should have been built from Fauresmith to Koffyfontein. Now that the Board had recommended another route, Koffyfontein would get nothing at all. The Koffyfontein Mine employed 200 whites, two-thirds of whom were Afrikanders. There were also over 2,000 natives on the mine. Altogether, the concern was an important one, and could claim railway connection. It had a long life before it, because it was a high-grade proposition. The present transport rates between Fauresmith and Koffyfontein were something like 15s. a ton, and the mine could not even get all it wanted owing to lack of transport. The construction of the Fauresmith extension would be cheap, and the mining company was willing to refund the loss, if any. He read a telegram from the company, stating that, on certain conditions, it was willing to build the line itself.

said that rail ways should be built for the one purpose of developing the country. Certain parts of the Free State would lag behind unless their legitimate aspirations in that respect were realised. The Board’s report was a great disappointment to him. The North-western districts of the Free State were the Cinderella of the country—in fact, one might draw a parallel between them and the North - western districts of the Cape. It had been said that certain Cape lines had not been built, though the late Cape Parliament had sanctioned them. Something similar had happened in his Province. There had been promises and Bills galore, but further than that they had not got. He praised the agricultural possibilities of the North-western Free State. The Volksraad had authorised the Kroonstad-Vierfontein connection, and it was only owing to the war that the line was not built. During the Crown regime the matter had not been lost sight of, and the late Free State Assembly had passed a motion in favour of the construction of the line, but though the then Government promised to do its very best, nothing had been done at all. A Brandfort-Hoopstad line, with a branch to Boshof, was authorised by the Volksraad, but the war had put a stop to that scheme also. The Free State Parliament, as a result of many petitions received, had recognised the urgency of that line, but beyond that they had done nothing. Boshof contained two important diamond mines, which only required railway connection to be fully developed. At present they could not prosper owing to the dearth of transport. He referred to the saltpans in the districts of Boshof and Bloemfontein, which were no longer being worked, because it was impossible for them to compete with pans nearer the railway. He inquired what had become of the many petitions that had been referred to the Government in connection with the matter. Had they been handed on to the Board? Had the Board reported? Evidently, the Board knew very little about the Free State. Had the recommendations of the engineer, who had favourably reported hon. the proposed line in the North-west, been taken into consideration? At present hon. members were groping in the dark; their constituents were grievously disappointed, and the poor representative had to bear the brunt! He asked whether the Cape lines, which had been authorised, but not built, would have to come before the Board again, because that was what had happened to the Bethlehem-Frankfort connection. He trusted that the Minister would pay more attention to the wail of the inhabitants of the Free State next year. (Laughter.) The building of the Lindley-road-Senekal line (for which there was no public demand) and the non-building of so many lines that were urgently wanted, amounted to the people’s will being overridden.

said he was not going to throw stones, but he trusted there was something in store for his constituency next year. In 1906 the construction of a branch line to Dordrecht had been suggested, at a cost of about £40,000. The Dordrecht Municipality had offered to pay interest on the capital. It would be a paying line, because, on passenger fares alone, the people of Dordrecht would save a large amount annually.

expressed himself as dissatisfied with the Bill, and said he hoped Government would take notice of the speeches which had been made. He considered it should not be necessary for the people to direct the attention of the Government to necessities; the Government should see them for itself. Evidently, every member represented the best part of South Africa; it was clear that South Africa was the finest country in the world. (Laughter.) If South Africa were to support herself, then railway construction throughout the country was essential. It, was only by having railway facilities that the farmers could get their products to the markets. In his district mealies were produced in large quantities, but there was no transport.

confessed that he was also disappointed.(Laughter.) Other members had said that the proposed branch lines through their districts would pay; well, he did not know all the circumstances, so that he accepted what they said; but if there was ever a line which would pay, it was a connection between the Natal main line and Machadodorp. There were excellent coal mines north of Standerton, but at present they could not buy the coal, because it cost too much to send it via Johannesburg. He also referred to the importance of the dairy industry.

said that he was disappointed—they were used to being disappointed in Kroonstad— but he was not without hope. (Laughter.) The Kroonstad district was not only a inch pastoral district, but was also rich in mineral wealth, and a railway line to Vierfontein would be very desirable.

said that he was one of those who were not very much disappointed—(laughter)—because Hoopstad was used to poor treatment. (Laughter.) There seemed to be much truth in what Mr. Sauer had said, that people cried out for a railway, and when they got one they were not satisfied, but wanted a reduction of rates, and so on. Some hon. members had shown their inconsistency, because when it was a question of taxation and the like, their districts were “exceedingly poor,” but now that a Railway Bill was before them, their districts were “extremely rich and fertile,” and the line was bound to pay.” (Laughter.) The hon. member went on to advocate the claims of Hoopstad. He said that the report of the Railway Board was very unsatisfactory in certain respects, and he wished that Hoopstad had been better treated. They should know the data on which the Board’s decisions were based. Agriculture should be considered to a greater extent. He was opposed to narrow-gauge lines, because it was expensive to work them. He wondered why the Lindley-road-Senekal line was being built. The Board should consist of people who knew the country.

said he thought it was time that somebody protested against this continuous talk coming from the other side of the Railway Board. (Hear, hear.) If hon. members were not satisfied with the lines proposed, the party to attack was not the Railway Board, but the Government. It was not the Railway Board that had initiated this Railway Bill. It was most unfair to pile on the agony in this way. He thought it was time somebody spoke a word of warning against this disguised attempt to interfere with the Act of Union. The Bill had disappointments for himself, but then they had to bear these things, and it was no use trying to throw the responsibility on the Railway Board.

said that the previous speaker did not appear to understand the matter altogether. The Minister could not propose the construction of a line unless the Board authorised it. He was far from applauding that system, because the Board lorded it over the railways, and Parliament really occupied a subordinate position. When the hon. member for Fort Beaufort was Commissioner he once asked for three and a half millions, without supplying any data. At present the hon. member cried out because the Government were not giving the necessary information. (Laughter.) He (the speaker) had clamoured for a railway line ever so long, but he had not got it. Many Commissioners had admitted that Somerset East should be linked up with Oudtshoorn, but no one had moved for a line. The Board had evidently made inquiries, because someone had been there to spy out the land; but there was no report, and he considered he had a grievance against the Board. To travel from Somerset to Cape Town, one had to go via De Aar, and it cost 6s. 8d. to send a sheep by that route.

said that as the Minister of Railways introduced that very important measure without saying a word, he (Sir Thomas) would be justified in waiting until Mr. Sauer replied on the debate before he (Sir Thomas) addressed any remarks on the subject. But he would not do that. He wished his hon. friend to reply to the questions put to him yesterday afternoon when the House was in committee. Yesterday, he asked Mr. Sauer to go into the question of the legal position with regard to certain lines, especially those in the Cape Province. He understood the Minister of Railways to say that he was justified in going on with certain lines sanctioned by the Cape Parliament without asking for any special report from the Railway Board on those fines, but that he was not justified in going on with other lines—also sanctioned by the Cape Parliament—because the lines he was going on with were under construction previous to Union. The lines which were being built were—through some extraordinary coincidence—in districts which sent supporters, to his hon. friend in the House of Assembly, but other lines voted at the same time in other districts of the cape were not being taken in hand. He (Sir Thomas) was not objecting to the principle of the Board reporting, because he thought it was very advisable that the House should have the fullest information it could get. He was glad to see the Minister of Justice in his place, because he was the legal adviser to the Grown. General Hertzog should have been sent for yesterday, so that they could put before him a very delicate problem—that was whether Acts of Parliament—some of them dated 1902 and 1906—authorising the construction of railways did, as the result of Union, practically disappear from the Statute-book, whereas the Act of Union said that all laws in force in the different colonies at the date of Union should remain in force until repealed or amended. When his hon. friend started some of these lines, he asked what more objection he had to building, for instance, the Schoombie-Maraisburg line than to building the Ceres-road to Ceres line? These lines were all sanctioned by Act 34 of 1906, but then his hon. friend raised the point that he was justified in going on with certain lines, but had lost all authority without further Parliamentary authority to go on with others, and he added that it was because a certain amount of money had been spent on these lines which had been authorised before the Act of Union. He (Sir Thomas) had found that on certain of the lines which were authorised previous to May 31, 1910, considerably more money had been spent previous to that date than had been spent on the lines which his hon. friend had selected to have constructed. He wished to protest against the Minister picking out certain lines, and dropping others which were authorised under the same Act. There was another point. Provision was made under the South Africa Act to take the railways as far as possible out of the political arena, and the meagre information which had been placed before the House had caused dissatisfaction. He thought the House was entitled to get a full and complete statement on the new lines. He thought the Minister had sufficient lines under construction to keep him busy until next session, and, therefore, he should withdraw the Bill.

said that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. Smartt) had let the oat out of the bag. He knew that if he spoke long enough he (Mr. Sauer) would get the truth. He wound up by saying that he did not want the Bill. He wanted to kill the Bill.

By not giving us information.

said that he had watched the different methods and listened to the arguments used with a view to killing the Bill. There was no doubt that a few who had not got the railways they thought they should have wished to see the Bill defeated. There were others who wished to see it defeated for other reasons. The hon. member had told them pretty clearly why he objected to the Bill. He simply wanted to kill it. Proceeding he said that the hon. member had complained about meagre information, but all he could say was that he might be bad, but his hon. friend was worse.

I never came down to the House with a railway Bill without saying something on the second reading. (Opposition cheers.)

But I am not so fond of speaking as my hon. friend. (Laughter.) I am never so happy as when I am left alone, and if I can get my own way at the same time.

Which you are not going to get on this occasion.

I know your object is to defeat this Bill.

No.

Yes, it is. My hon. friend has only to go on speaking and I shall get anything out of him I want. (Laughter.) There is no doubt that he wants to kill the Bill. Now that we know his object, we know what importance to attach to the declaration of our hon. friend. (More laughter.) Proceeding, Mr. Sauer said that the question which his hon. friend had asked him about the previous day he had endeavoured to answer to the best of his ability.

interrupted.

Two of us can’t speak at the same time. Your (Sir Thomas’s) voice cam be heard better than mine, and it is a disadvantage to me if both of us speak at the same time. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said that the previous day he promised to endeavour to get legal opinion upon the point raised by the hon. member as to whether they could proceed with the lines not begun—take, for instance, the Cathcart line—without fresh legislation, without first coming to this Parliament. On that point he was able to say that one of the legal advisers of the Government had informed him that they could not go on with the lines without coming to Parliament. (Ministerial cheers.) Perhaps this hon. friend (Sir Thomas) thought that advice was bad, but that was the advice given, and that was the view which he (Mr. Sauer) expressed the previous night. With regard to the question of information, nobody was more sorry than he that he had not been able to give the House all the information he should have liked to give it. He had always endeavoured, when he introduced a railway Bill, to give as much information as any Minister had given in the old Cape Parliament. On this occasion he had nothing to conceal. With regard to these lines, the more information there was the better it would be, because it would show that they were lines which should foe built in the interests of the country, and in this connection he was astonished at the question put the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin), who wished to know by what process the Railway Board arrived at its conclusions. Well, he must say that it did not seem very complimentary to suppose that the Board would come to a definite conclusion on so important a matter as the construction of railways without having fully considered the facts.

moved: That the House do now resolve itself into committee, and that the committee have leave to bring up a report to-day.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved to insert a line from Llewellyn, not exceeding five miles, at a net estimated cost of £30,056. He said that the line from Natal to Riverside was completed some time ago, and the Cape Government then, under an agreement with the Natal Government, authorised the construction of a line of railway from that point to Llewellyn, a line that would be completed very soon. Then it was found that the line could not stop there, but must go forward either to Koksbad or Matatiele. It was now found on approaching Llewellyn that the nature of the ground was altogether unsuited for it. That line sooner or later would be extended, and all that they asked now was authority to carry it five miles beyond Llewellyn. Another consideration of importance was the prevalence of East Coast fever. Mr. Sauer also moved to insert “2 feet” after “Gamtoos-Patentie.” He explained that be was not breaking the gauge there, but simply continuing it.

said he was entirely in favour of that particular line; but there was a question of the provision of the funds.

said it would be included In the Bill authorising the raising of two millions for railway-construction purposes.

agreed with the Minister of Railways on this point.

pointed out that the line in question did not appear in the schedule attached to the Loan Bill.

thought it better for the Minister to report progress, and also to get the Governor-General’s permission to include the line.

said that in that case he would not include the line in that Bill.

Item 2 was verbally amended.

said they believed this was going to be a payable line from the very beginning, for the country it would! open up was capable of producing a considerable amount of traffic. It was estimated that the line would carry 48,702 tons per annum, and that was quite sufficient to make the line a payable one. It was estimated that 44,500 tons of grain would be sent over the line. He thought they would have to run more than three trains a week.

asked whether there was any prospect of reducing the cost of construction by exercising economy?

replied that every economy would be exercised.

The vote was agreed to.

explained that the line would be 37 miles in length, and that the gross estimated cost was £163,000.

asked how far would the line stop from Van Rhynsdorp?

thought about 15 miles. He did not know where they could have finer irrigation works than on the Oliphant’s River. It would make the land along the river very valuable. That part of the country was not developed to the extent it should, and that was largely owing to the fact that there was an absence of railways, and, as hon. members knew, to talk to farmers about development when they had no means of getting their produce to markets was useless. The Commissioners were strongly of opinion that it would be in the public interest that this line should be constructed.

The vote was agreed to.

said that the approximate distance was 18 miles, that the estimated cost per mile was £3,955, and that, after providing for interest at the rate of 3½ per cent., there would be a loss on the first year of £2,000. That amount, he thought, was of no moment at all. The district was extremely fertile, and the estimated tonnage outward and inward was 3,732. It was also believed that the passenger traffic would be good.

asked if the amount was not excessive for a two-feet gauge line?

replied in the affirmative, the excessive amount being due to the nature of the country.

The vote was agreed to.

said that the estimated cost was £3,59D per mile. Provision to the extent of £68,000 had already been made and the amount required to complete the line was £43,000. The estimated loss after paying for interest was £2,500 for the first year.

asked if the alternative line to Lobatsi would not be better? It would be considerably shorter.

was understood to say that the alternative line could not be conducted at a profit.

thought that the line from Zeerust to Lobatsi would be a better proposition, as 50 miles would be saved.

thought that the proper thing had been done by the Minister, The route was in the best interests of the district, as well as of the country as a whole. If they wanted to link up with Rhodesia, they could extend the Rustenburg route.

said that a big trade was being developed North, and he favoured the line from Lobatsi to Zeerust.

said that if Mr. Jagger had an idea that they would be able to distribute from Johannesburg to Rhodesia, he was mistaken. He thought the direct line would benefit Delagoa Bay.

said that Johannesburg was the best distributing centre for mining material.

said that the best thing to do to encourage the distributing trade was to give them as direct a connection as possible with Rhodesia and the North.

said the question was whether one was going to lay that line out. As a developing line or a main line? They were now going along two sides of a triangle. It was true that it was a very good district, but if they wanted to have a distributing line, it should go via Lichtenburg.

supported Sir Percy Fitzpatrick’s suggestion.

said he did not think that Delagoa Bay would benefit.

urged that the claims of a line to Lobatsi ought to be seriously considered.

moved to omit “Buurman’s Drift, via Ottoshoop,” for the purpose of inserting “Lobatsi”

I cannot accept that. It is altering the destination.

said that he thought the Board had considered the other suggestion, but had reported in favour of the line in the schedule.

It would be enormously to the advantage of Parliament if the Board were bound to consider these things; even now I am not clear that the other suggestion has been considered by the Board.

supported the Government.

said that he did not think they could alter this line without a report from the Board. Again, they had to consider the position of Mafeking.

said it all depended upon what instructions the Minister had given to the Board, whether they should report on the Lobatsi line. The Minister could not tell them definitely whether they did report on the Lobatsi line. He would move after “Ottoshoop” to insert “or Zeerust to Lobatsi.”

I cannot put that.

It is only an alternative.

It will alter the destination.

I have not the slightest doubt, from a commercial point of view, which would pay best.

said that the Lobatsi line was not a new idea at all. It had been under discussion for ten years. In what way could the vote be altered?

said they could reduce the amount, but they could not alter the destination of the line.

asked if the Minister would submit the matter to his expert advisers?

said the Board had approved of the line. He believed they went into the question of building the line to Lobatsi. The line was justified on its merits.

The item was carried.

said it was estimated that the gross loss, after the payment of interest on capital, was £19,000, which was by no means large for the first year.

The vote was agreed to.

stated that it was estimated that the total loss on the first year’s working would be £4,400, but it was hoped that this estimate would not be reached. The country to be served was most productive.

The vote was agreed to.

said it was strange that the line from Belmont to Douglas, sanctioned some years ago, was not being proceeded with.

said he was keenly disappointed that the Northwestern Districts of the Free State were being neglected. He would not vote for any further lines in the North-east after the present one, because there was a clear understanding in this connection, and he protested against the unfair treatment they had accorded the North-west.

The vote was agreed to.

said that the estimated cost was £50,000. The line was a 2-ft. gauge one.

protested against the construction of this line, on the ground that the Cape Province was very much more in want of lines than the Stuartstown district, which was already well provided for.

thought that the small amount spent on railway construction in Natal would have been sufficient to prevent any objection being offered.

The vote was agreed to.

said that the distance was 18 miles; the estimated cost, £86,706; and the estimated loss on the first year, after providing for interest, £3,791.

The vote was agreed to.

said that the distance was approximately 33 miles. The estimated cost was £172,130, £35,000 of which had already been authorised by the Natal Executive Council. The estimated loss on the first year after paying interest was £3,500 odd.

pleaded for the cheapening of the cost of constructing branch development lines.

was understood to say that that was the policy which was being pursued.

The vote was agreed to.

The first schedule as amended was agreed to, and the second schedule ordered to stand over.

Clause 1,

said than he was satisfied with the assurance given by the Minister that the lines would be constructed as cheaply as passible, but he thought that the figures were abnormally high.

moved: To insert the following proviso between lines 9 and 10. “Save as in the said schedule is specifically provided, the gauge of each such railway shall be three feet six inches.”

Agreed to.

On clause 2,

In line 12, to make “section” in the plural; and after “one” to insert “and two”; and in line 14, after “Parliament” to insert “or out of any other moneys so appropriated.”

Agreed to.

On clause 3,

urged that some uniform restriction should be put on the land to be taken for railway purposes.

asked whether, in dealing with the expropriation of railway ground, the Government would consider the recommendations of the committee appointed to go into the matter?

asked for a reply from the Minister in regard to the application of the Koffyfontein mine for a concession to build their own line?

said that the matter was receiving consideration. Even if they came to an agreement with the company, they could not build the line without legislation. Absolutely nothing could be done this session. He was sorry, because he looked upon this as a necessary line.

asked what width of land the Minister proposed to take for railways in Natal, in view of the divergence in the width allowed under the Cape Act and the Natal Act?

said that he would not take more land than was absolutely necessary.

Clause 3 was ordered to stand over.

On clause 4,

moved: In line 45, to omit “an amount of” and to substitute “a claim for ”; in line 46, to omit “that amount” and to substitute “the amount of the claim.”

Agreed to.

Clause 6 having been agreed to,

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again on Monday.

asked if the Minister of Railways had any information with regard to the lamentable accident on the Kowie railway?

stated that 20 parsons were killed and 20 injured.

moved that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means to consider the following: “That the amount of £2,224,204 1s. 3d. provided in the first resolution adopted by this House on the 12th April, 1911, for the purpose of meeting the cost of certain public works and services, be increased by an amount of £750,000.”

seconded.

said the line had not yet been agreed to.

said they had to go into Committee of Ways land Means in order to get the money before they could proceed.

The motion was agreed to.