from inhabitants of Griqualand West, for railway communication, Prieska to Kuruman and Vryburg.

from G. C. C. Muhsfeldt, a German dentist, praying that his name be placed on the Register of Dentists.

from inhabitants of Barkly West, Hay, Herbert, and Kimberley, in support of the petition of H. J. le Riche, presented on 4th instant.

from Mary E. Sprenger, widow of C. F. Sprenger, who served in the Cape Mounted Rifles.

said that he had hoped to be able to give the House some information as to the lines which it was proposed to ask the authority of Parliament to proceed with, but the reason for not being able to do so was that the Railway Board had not yet completed its report, and he hoped that would be very soon. As soon as it was completed, he would furnish the information. (Hear, hear.)

moved that a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon the advisability of resuming portion of the commonage of Pommeroy, Province of Natal, in terms of Act No. 35 of 1904 (Natal), with power to take evidence and call for papers in connection with the proposed resumption, and to consist of Messrs. Wiltshire, Myburgh, Watt, Brain, Hen wood, Sir David Hunter, Messrs. Meyler, Oliver, and the mover.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

said that he wanted an assurance that the regulations would be discussed by the House, as some anxiety was being felt.

replied that the regulations had been laid on the table of the House, and a debate could be raised on them. The regulations could not be dealt with seriatim, however, because if they were amended they might become ultra vires. The Government made the regulations, and was, therefore, responsible for them. This meant, that any member desiring an amendment would have to move that Government be requested to effect that amendment.

said that that Bill was one of the most stringent which had ever come up. He must thank the Minister of Agriculture, however, for having come to a compromise on the matter, because the Bill, as originally introduced, would have been quite unworkable. Unless some attention was paid to the peculiar conditions existing in certain parts of the country, and the North-west, the Act would not work. Another compromise for which he thanked the Minister was that in regard to the quarantine period, and in, regard to simultaneous dipping. He hoped that the Act would be intelligently administered, for if it were not, it would never prove a success. The hon. member went on to deal with the fines which could be imposed under that measure, and said that there were farmers who could never pay a fine of £50; and if they were imprisoned it would be nothing less than a disgrace. He could never agree to that. Again, the onus of proof lay on the accused, under certain sections of the Act, and he thought that was not in accordance with the principles of justice. A man must be found guilty before he could be punished. He deeply regretted that the Minister of Agriculture had not met them with regard to local Advisory Boards, and that he had not seen fit to trust local people. If the people were not trusted, and the Act were administered from headquarters in Cape Town or Pretoria, he did not think the measure would prove a successful one. The Minister of Agriculture had said that the regulations were on the table: he (Mr. Kuhn) had seen them, and he thought that they could be accented; but if any hon. member desired to discuss them on any points with which he disagreed, now was his chance. The Act would only prove a workable one if someone who knew local conditions administered it, because the co-operation of the people was indispensable.

said he had understood that they could have a debate on the regulations—which were the most important parts of the measure—but they could not amend them, so that it did not seem of much use to discuss them. He was as desirous as anybody to see that cattle diseases were eradicated, but the duties of officials should be properly circumscribed, for everything seemed to be in the hands of the chief veterinary surgeon. This did not matter so much now that the present Government was in power, but it was not an impossible thing for Sir Thomas Smartt to be at the head of the Agricultural Department at some future date. (Laughter.) And then he would have the power of making slashing regulations too. (Laughter.) The hon. member went on to complain of the administration of the Agricultural Department, and said that he objected to too much bureaucracy.

moved that that portion of the measure dealing with scab amongst sheep and goats be postponed until next session. From what had just been said, it seemed that the remedy for the disease—that measure—was worse than the disease itself. He deplored that ‘ the Minister of Agriculture had not met them with regard to Advisory Boards and other matters, and that officials would be able to impose fines.

It is too late to move that.

dealing with the regulations, said that a farmer was held responsible for any disease on his farm, unless he were away from his farm or had been ill. If he were asked: “Were you away from your farm?” or, “Were you ill?” and he answered in the negative, there was no help for it, and the farmer must be found guilty. That was unfair, because farmers were often unable to inspect personally every nook and corner of their property. Then it was laid down that dipping in winter was compulsory. He feared that if that was carried out, many cattle would be lost. As far as working in the summer was concerned, the measure was not more stringent than the Cape Act, but, for working in winter, it was much more stringent, and he thought it would not work. In his constituency they would find sheep that had been dipped at night covered with ice the next morning. As to the proposed compensation, he must say that it was absolutely of no use; although he thought that the proposal contained in the Bill, as originally introduced, was acceptable. Sheep did not always die at once. Sometimes they died a long time afterwards in consequence of exposure. If 2 per cent, of the sheep dipped died, as contemplated under the Bill, the inspector who was responsible should be hanged! There was no one who more desired to see scab eradicated than he, but they must dip in summer; and the present measure, he must say, would set the people against the Government.

said that he had supported the Bill, but there were certain provisions contained in the regulations with which he could not agree, such as compulsory dipping in the winter months, and that a man was not given sufficient time in which to dip. As to clause 4, he thought that it was better in the original Bill than in the Bill as amended by the Select Committee. The hon. member was proceeding to speak of the Select Committee’s report, when

said that the 17th Order dealt with the report of the Select Committee on the Diseases of Stock Bill, when a debate on the regulations would be in order.

asked why that order could not have been placed higher up, so that it could be discussed that day? If he had an assurance from the Minister that there would be a chance of amply discussing that, he would not now say anything more, but if not, he would oppose the third reading.

said that he could not understand, why that discussion had taken place, because hon. members had simply repeated what they had said on a previous occasion, and what they had said would only lead to misunderstanding. Dealing with the appointment of Advisory Boards, he said that they would only be creating machinery which would not be in the interests of the public, because one Board would advise one thing and another Board something else. Why he was not in favour of these Boards was because he considered they would only create friction and disunion. The Government fully intended to trust the public, and the way it had set to work amply proved that. The hon. member for Prieska had no right to pose as the sole protector of the liberties of the people, or to make it appear as if Government wanted to strangle these. That measure had not been introduced to please the Government, but for the benefit of the public in general. Some hon. members had spoken as if they did not trust the officials; well, if they did not, why could they not move a reduction in their salary when the proper occasion arose? Government was responsible for the carrying out of the Act—not the Chief Veterinary Surgeon. Why did hon. members table academical twaddle? They could not embody every derail of administration in the Act. Proceeding, he asked why a law was made? Was it to get at the man who did his duty, and helped himself, or was it to get at the man who neglected his duty? It was not the case to say that a man must necessarily be punished under that measure because he could not prove himself innocent; if a case were tried it would come before a Magistrate; and every man would have a fair hearing. It was said that the regulations were too harsh and too stringent; but the Government would take all special circumstances into consideration, and meet the people, if necessary, as had been done during the past few months. What was wanted was co-operation between the people and the Government; and if they did not have that, they could not make a success of their efforts to combat disease. He was quite willing to meet them where necessary, but it was too much to ask that the regulations should be withdrawn. They must not be too much afraid of winter dipping; there was no danger where a man had a shed in which cattle could be dipped. If they dipped thoroughly in summer, it would not be necessary to dip in winter. If it were too cold to dip cattle, one had simply to approach the Government, and if it were found that the cattle would be in danger if they were dipped in winter, the Government would see if it were possible to meet them. In conclusion, he said that if they made a law they should see that it was carried out, and he hoped he would have the loyal co-operation of the people of South Africa in carrying out that measure, and make a success of their efforts to eradicate diseases of stock.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

hoped the committee would not agree to this. It seemed to him an unnecessary intervention. They had always been accustomed to speak of the Crown in dealing with the rights of the Grown. Now in the particular section he alluded to, the word “Kroon” was omitted, and they were asked to accept the word “Staat.” He did not see why they should omit the word that they had been accustomed to and which was the constitutional word. Curiously enough, if they turned to clause 95, where they were dealing with the Crown, they would find no amendment. Staat, which was State, did not necessarily refer to a monarchy at all. He moved that the word “Kroon” be restored in place of “Staat.”

said that the English word Crown stood for two meanings which had distinctive terms in Dutch. The words “Crown property” expressed both the private property of the Crown and the public property of the State. In English, there was the one expression for both; in the Dutch different words were used for the two meanings. “Kroon eigendom” meant the property of the drown in its private capacity; “Staat eigendom” meant the public property, or domain, of the State The hon. member had said that in section 95 they spoke of the “Crown” prosecuting. Exactly; because there it was really in the name of the King and of the Crown that they prosecuted.

said that General Hertzog seemed to be so obsessed with Holland ideas that he seemed to forget that there was a constitutional distinction between the Crown in England and the Crown in Holland. It would be right to draw the distinction he had pointed out between the Crown domain and the State property in Holland; but the position under the English Constitution was altogether different. The Minister had erred entirely both in his constitutional law and in what he proposed to do in this clause. It was not good law, and it was an innovation which was not known to South Africa. It was another of those attempts of the Minister to introduce the Dutch of Holland into the legal phraseology of this country. It was high time they put their foot down, and refused to allow the Minister to commit murder of their own language for the sake of indulging in his fad in regard to the language in Holland. There were other expressions in the Acts passed this session which were wholly foreign to the South African tongue.

said that if the 3 Minister looked at clause 122 of the Act of Union, he would see that the words “Kroon eigendom” were used. Why had not the Minister followed the course he now proposed when he helped to frame the Act of Union?

said he could not see why they should alter the usual term here. In the Interpretation Acts passed this session it was provided that the Acts should be binding on the Crown. Well, that, of course, did not mean the King in his personal capacity; it meant the Crown as the instrument of the State. It seemed to him the Minister was now proposing to depart from the ordinary course—the method of expression which had received the sanction of hundreds of years.

said the Minister had introduced this Bill, and had, no doubt, drawn it up in Dutch. When he introduced the Bill, the words “Kroon eigendom” were used. The Bill went through the House, and the Minister never thought it necessary to make this amendment. Then, in the Senate, the Minister himself moved the amendment, and he would find in his haste that in clause 95 he had forgotten to alter the wording to make it correspond. Everybody in this country, and especially everybody who had sat in the Cape House or the Natal House, had never spoken of these things in any other way than the Crown or the property of the Crown.

put the question that the word “Kroon” proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause.

The “Ayes” were declared to have it.

Consequently the amendment made in the Senate is rejected.

asked how they were affected by the resolution passed in the House yesterday?

The hon. member is not in order.

We passed a resolution in this House yesterday, and—

What is the hon. member speaking to? There must be some motion before the House on which he addresses the House.

On the next amendment,

again rose, and said that, seeing that the House on the previous day passed a resolution that all Bills should, as far as possible, be identical in meaning in English and Dutch

The hon. member must see that the question now before the House is an amendment made in the Senate to omit the words “or a road camp.” (Laughter.)

(resuming his seat) said he would raise the question when the Bill was put as amended.

The remaining amendments were agreed to.

rose to a point of order. He desired to know if there were a quorum present.

after making a count, replied in the negative.

The division bell was rung, and the requisite number of hon. members coming in from the lobbies and elsewhere, business was proceeded with.

again rose, and said that his question arose out of the two Bills—

That is not before the House. I have ordered the third order to be read.

was proceeding to speak, when

said: The question now before the House, the hon. member will understand, is the amendments made in the Explosives Bill by the Senate.

Yes, sir, but we have—

The hon. member must understand that the whole question before the House is whether it will concur in the amendment made by the Senate to include “Justice of the Peace or Field-cornet.”

made another appeal.

Oh, no; the hon. member must take some other opportunity to raise his question.

said he wished to raise an objection to the amendment made by the Senate to insert the words “Justice of the Peace,” unless the Minister could give him some reason why it had been introduced. As the clause now stood, “no person shall use or cause to be used blasting materials unless he be in possession of a permit issued under the authority of an inspector or of an inspector of mines, or of a chief magistrate, or a resident or assistant resident magistrate, or of a police officer not below the rank of sergeant, or a justice of the peace or a field-cornet.” Such power was also liable to the indiscriminate granting of permits, which was certainly to be deprecated.

said that the amendment was very favourably considered by the Senate, and was carried against him. The argument used by the hon. member (Mr. Chaplin) in regard to field-cornets was used in the other House in regard to justices of the peace. It was urged that in out-of-the-way places it might not be possible to get a police officer or a field-cornet, and that a justice of the peace should be allowed to grant permits. Personally, he thought there was some danger in the amendment, but, as he had said, it was favourably considered by the Senate.

quite agreed that field-comets should have power, but in regard to justices of the peace, he would like to point out that they did not exist only in out-of-the-way places, but in towns.

thought that even in a (large centre, a justice of the peace was a proper man to give a certificate.

The amendment was agreed to.

asked if they wore justified in going on with the business, seeing that he believed it was contrary to the procedure of the House?

The hon. member must not interrupt at this stage.

May I explain, Mr. (Speaker? The House, resolved that all Bills must be the same in meaning in English and Dutch. Is this Bill—

pointed out that they were dealing with a Bill that had been passed out of the House and returned with amendments passed by the Senate. They could either concur in these amendments or not, but nothing else was before the House.

The amendments were agreed to.

referring to the insertion of the words “illicit dealing in Liquor” in the schedule, said he could not understand why the Minister of Justice could accept these words, as illicit dealing in liquor was not a crime that could be tried before a superior court. The crimes which could be added to the schedule were those that would have to be indicted before a superior court.

said he quite understood the hon. member’s contention, but it might be that a man might be convicted for one of the other crimes mentioned, and if he had been twice convicted of illicit selling in the lower court, then that could be reported against him at the higher court.

The amendments were agreed to,

as Chairman, submitted the sixth report of the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, as follows:

1. 1. Your committee, having considered the draft Standing Rules and Orders, prepared by the Clerk of the House, referred to them, beg to recommend that the consideration thereof be postponed until next session. 2. Your committee, having had under further consideration the question of the salaries of certain officers of the House, beg to recommend the following increases, to take effect from the 1st April, 1911, namely: Mr. Speaker to £2,000 per annum; Clerk of the House to £1,500 per annum; Clerk-assistant to£650 per annum; Clerk to the Papers to £250 per annum.

J. T. MOLTENO, Chairman.

Committee Rooms, House of Assembly, 6th April, 1911.

said that the Minister of Railways made a very interesting, if not very instructive statement, and he (Mr. Phillips) noticed one extraordinary absence from he address, and that was, that he did not mention any thing about the Railway Board. The Railway Board was practically ignored except towards the dose of the speech, when he said that the Railway Board would assist him in framing a scheme for the raising of railway rates to the interior. They all knew that the Minister of Railways was a glutton for work, and that he was prepared to give monumental Labour to his department, and he (Mr. Sauer) might possibly consider the Railway Board superfluous, but clause 126 of the Act of Union specially provided that the control of the railways and harbours would be centred in a Railway Board of not more than three members, with the Minister of State as chairman. That being the case, he thought it would be reasonable that when the Estimates were laid on the table they should be accompanied by some sort of report by the Board. He saw a reduction in the Estimates for the travelling and office expenses of the Board. That item, he thought, might be explained a little by the Minister. They must all realise the gigantic work which was involved in managing the railways, and he, for one, would say that, in spite of the tireless activity and boundless energy of the Minister, even he could leave something for the Railway Board to do in connection with the work. The capital value of the railways was 75 millions sterling, and was to be increased to something over 79f millions sterling by March, 1912, and the increase, they had been told by the Minister, was accounted for by new lines (£2,800,000) and rolling stock £1,500,000. The item of £1,500,000 must strike every member of the House as a very large item. One was bound to wonder whether that enormous expenditure was due to the extension of lines, or whether it was rendered necessary by the rolling stock having been allowed to run down in the past. The Minister had told them in his speech that his watchword would be economy, that he had succeeded in saving £80,000 in the Estimates before them, and that he saw a further saving in the future. The country, he (Mr. Phillips) was sure, would applaud the Minister in his desire for economy, but that economy must be consistent with the thorough efficiency of the permanent way and rolling stock, and of the railways as a whole. There was a large sum for maintenance and depreciation—£3,400,000, roughly. That would, on the face of it, appear to be sufficient, but he thought that House would like to have a report from the Railway Board, giving some indication of their opinion as to whether the assets of the railways represented in true value the amount they stood at as capital. If they did not, the Minister could not, he thought, have acquiesced in the proposal to stop the Sinking Fund. Notwithstanding, he thought they would be much happier if the Minister had placed on the table Of the House a report by the Railway Board, in order that they might have had some more well-founded information as to the value of the railway system. The Minister, on the whole, was jocular, and anxious to make debating points in his speech. He (Mr. Phillips) thought that if he had laid a little more stress upon items in proportion to their relative importance, they would have been inclined to place a little more confidence in his general review. He had told them that the railway traffic was estimated to produce £800,000 less during the present year than in the past year—goods and minerals £415,000, and reduction of rates £387,000. A portion of that he attributed to the carrying of half a million tons of coal less to the Victoria Falls Power Co. That represented about £200,000. He would say, in passing, that if the railway lost something over the coal to the Victoria Falls Power Co., it would gain it over and over again in the future, because if there was one thing more than another that this country needed it was cheap power. Cheap power was the foundation of the formation of industries. The cheap power which that company would bring about would be a great assistance, he believed, in the future in the creation of industries.

said that he had moved a resolution the other day asking for cheaper coal rates. It was withdrawn on the Minister’s promise that the matter would have consideration. On the Estimates, however, he noticed that nothing had been done in the direction indicated. It appeared that preferential rates had been granted to a mine at Breyten which had contracted with the Railway Administration to supply coal at 3s. 8d. a ton. No other mine could supply at that rate, but as against that it obtained the privilege to have its coal sent to the Rand at 1s. a ton less than other mines had to pay. That reduction on the price of coal to the Administration, therefore, had come about at the expense of other coal mines. It was alleged that members of the Railway Board were shareholders in the Consolidated Goldfields of South Africa, which were interested in the favoured concern. Why had not the contract been laid on the table? It seemed to him that there was something crooked about the affair. Was that the sympathy the Minister referred to when he induced him (the speaker) to withdraw the motion? The coal mines who objected to the arrangement asked for nothing but equal rights, a fair field, and no favour. He trusted the House would protect their interests and that a committee would be appointed to go into the matter. A similar dictatorial attitude had characterised the manner in which the Board had dealt with the Service on the Pretoria-Delagoa Bay line. The timetable had been radically altered for the sole purpose of promoting the election of one particular gentleman, who had since died. The whole of the service had been subordinated to the interests of the Barberton branch line. Everybody in the district protested. The Portuguese authorities likewise complained. An influential deputation saw the gentleman who now occupied the position of Minister of Finance, who promised to alter the service to the satisfaction of the public. Nothing, however, had been done. About half a dozen deputations had since then seen the General Manager, but without avail. Quite recently a deputation had asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours to look into the matter. On that occasion the Administration pretended that the Portuguese Government opposed any alteration in the existing service, but the deputation had since had it in writing from the Portuguese that they would be very pleased to see changes introduced. That letter had been shown to the Minister, whereupon the Administration had stated that the service had been arranged in such a manner as to connect with the Cape and Natal trains, so that no change could be made.

said that section 130 of the Act of Union laid it down that before any proposal was submitted to Parliament for the construction of new lines, it should be considered by the Railway Board, which should report thereon. To whom was the Board to report? He contended that it was not to the Minister, but to Parliament, and that Parliament was entitled to have before it such a report. On the question of depreciation there was shown on the Estimates to be a deficiency, in regard to railway depreciation, of £420,000, and, in regard to harbours, of £34,000 odd. If these figures were correct, the railways and harbours stood with an unprovided for depreciation of £450,000 odd. Yet the Minister had made a present from the railways to the general revenue of over £350,000. If the Minister had not made up the full contribution to depreciation, which he had admitted, then he was not entitled under section 127 of the Act of Union to contribute £300,000 to the Treasurer.’ (Hear, hear.) The question had also been discussed as to the necessity of a railway contribution to the Sinking Fund, and he should like to submit to the House another view of the matter which he did not think had been presented before. He was quite in accord with the principle laid down in the Union Act that so long as the railways were maintained at full work and at full working value, and so long as they paid interest on their capital, there was no particular need for the railways, as railways, to contribute towards the Sinking Fund. It had been argued that no railway which managed its business on those lines had a sinking fund. But what was the position of State-owned railways? If they had railways and also a country to run, he held that if they piled up debt on their railways, even though fully reproductive and paid fully on charges, they should look to the redemption not of the railway debt as a railway debt, but to the redemption of all debt by means of a consolidated sinking fund in times of peace, so that if they were faced with any great difficulty, war, trouble, or great depreciation, they would be in a sound position. (Cheers.) He went on to refer to the Natal Sinking Fund, saying that the point he wished to make was that a great many advances which had been made from the loan funds for railway purposes would not have been met from loan, funds had not the Sinking Fund been in existence. (Hear, hear; Turning to the balances brought into Union, he said he would give the House some figures relating to the balance derived from the Central South African Railways. He ventured to think that when he had placed them before the House, hon. members would agree with him that the result was a somewhat startling one. According to the Auditor-General’s report, the debt incurred for capital expenditure on the Central South African Railways, and provided from loans from the beginning up to May 31, 1910, was £21,357,472.

You are dealing with the Central South African Railways only?

I am dealing with the balance brought into Union by the Central South African Railways. Proceeding, he said that during the same period there was also provided from the Central South African Railways revenue for capital expenditure a sum of £4,474,745, or, roughly, four and a half millions sterling. There was also contributed by the Orange River Colony and Transvaal Governments during that period the sum of £2,800,000. The total capital expenditure on the Central South African Railways was, therefore, £28,633,541, of which £7,276,069 was contributed from revenue and the Governments of the two colonies, or 25 per cent, of the total. Rut that was not all. The revenue of the Central South African Railways also contributed to the Sinking Fund on the loans of 1903, and, he thought, 1907, but principally the loan of 1903, which was the big one of 35 millions. The revenue contributed the whole of the Sinking Fund for these two loans, amounting to about two and a half millions sterling. In addition to that, they had on the 31st of May, 1910, the sum of £918,000, the balance on betterment. Altogether, the sum of 10¾ millions was contributed by the Central South African Railways, roughly, 7½ millions sterling on capital account, 2½ millions sterling Sinking Fund, and roughly one million sterling betterment balance. In addition, the Central South African Railways had paid the interest on the 35 millions loan, all of which was not devoted to railway purposes. The sum of 3½ millions was paid. And yet, before they came into Union they were told that the coastal colonies were bleeding the inland colonies. He said, with all sense of responsibility, that a more scandalous state of affairs could not possibly exist. The Central South African Railways had for years been deluding their own constituents—the people of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony. The speaker went on to refer to the treatment of the late General Manager of the Natal Government Railways, which he described as shameful and scandalous. He concluded by asking the Minister to inform the House what attitude he intended to adopt towards the Amalgamated Society of Railway and Harbour Employees.

wished to draw attention to the fact that the Minister had informed the House that there was to be a reduction of £465,000 annually in the rates, so that at the end of four years they would come to a position when revenue and expenditure would balance, and industries would be greatly encourages there by. Not with standing this sum, which had been appropriated to the general business of the railways, there would be an additional sum of £300,000 appropriated. Generally, it appeared that trade was rapidly expanding, and, of course, the trade on the railways would increase in sympathy with it. Therefore, he would like to know if the Minister was prepared to give some details about this £465,000.

said £25,000 had been expended in the Transvaal, £70,000 in Natal, and the balance in the Cape Province.

said that they would have been glad if the Minister had given them a detailed statement of how this money had been spent. It seemed to him that this was a very small amount to expend on the Transvaal, and appeared wholly inadequate. If it was the interior that paid these very heavy railway rates, then it was evident that it contributed very heavily to the revenue of the country. In the Transvaal they had submitted to these very heavy rates, because they knew that the revenues would be expended upon their own territories, but now they would be spent all over the Union. (Hear, hear.) He hoped that there would not only be a reduction of £465,000, but something in the neighbourhood of £600,000. His hon. friend (Mr. Orr) drew attention to the very heavy railway revenue from coal. Well, he thought there was room for a very large reduction. They were told that, notwithstanding a temporary reduction, due to the Victoria Falls Company, the railway would benefit largely from the coal traffic. At the same time, he was very much afraid that if that company got a proper hold on the country, the coal traffic would diminish very much, and in consequence, heavier rates would have to be imposed, He was very much afraid of combines, and they might have future trouble with the Victoria Falls Company.

said the great disadvantage of discussing railway matters was that they had not the Railway Manager’s report before them. He hoped the Minister would see that it was got out before Parliament rose in future. He drew attention, in the first place, to the decrease in the earnings, which was put down as £802,000, made up of decreases in coal traffic and general traffic. Surely their harbours were just as dependent on the railways as the railways on the harbours, and so, where there was an increase in the traffic of the harbours, they might fairly expect to see an increase in the railway traffic. From an examination of the figures, the Minister did not seem to expect a reduction in the goods imported, but a reduction in Colonial produce. He (Mr. Jagger) could not understand this. While the Minister had budgeted for a decrease in traffic, he had budgeted for an increase in the staff, which showed an increase of 1,800, and this was not alone for the mechanical department, which they could understand, but it was spread over the whole of the departments. This clause was only agreed to upon two conditions, the first being that the railways should be kept up to standard, and the second that they should pay full interest upon all moneys, loan moneys and moneys contributed out of the general revenue. As regarded the first condition, they proposed to set aside £1,003,000 for depreciation, and £550,000 for betterment—a total of £1,553,000. This amount was less than was set aside last year—£1,650,000. It was less than they ought to have set aside by something like £419,000, as pointed out by the department itself at page 7 of the Estimates. Depreciation, as had been shown several times, could be arrived at in a systematic way. That had not been carried out. As regarded betterment, there seemed to be no fixed rule at all. Personally, he should be glad to see a certain percentage of the gross earnings set aside for betterment. Last year they laid aside 7½ per cent, of the gross earnings, this year not quite 5 per cent. In regard to the second condition upon which the clause was agreed to, the Green-book which had been issued at page 2 gave the total capital invested in the railways at £77,096,000. He knew that this did not quite agree with the figures given by the Minister of this sum something like £63,208,000 was owing for loan money on May 30. Then there had been contributed out of railway revenues something like £6,536,000, and there was also £7,419,000 contributed from the general revenue of the country in the shape of loan redemption and also by direct contribution. The total capital of the railways, apart from their own contributions, was something like £70,700,000. Taking the average interest at 3£ per cent., they had an amount of £2,474,000, whereas in these Estimates, as a matter of fact, they were only providing £2,196,000.

said that the absence of separate compartments for coloured people was looked upon as a great grievance in the North. Hand-to-hand encounters had been caused by the fact that whites had to travel with blacks Such a condition of affairs should be put a stop to, because it could only lead to needless feeling. He trusted that part of the large sum appearing on the Estimates for rolling-stock would be devoted to the construction of carriages for natives and coloured people, first, second, and third class.

referred to the Welgedacht-Benoni line, and said the Albu group had refused to pay £10,000, which was its share of the cost of the con struction of the line, with the result that the railway was still uncompleted. The hon. member was still speaking, when

The debate was adjourned to the following day.

observed that the Prime Minister regarded the appointment of Field-cornets as the greatest of his Ministerial trials. (Laughter.) But Field-cornets were not the Prime Minister’s own special children; they were the servants of the Government, and as such they were subject to criticism and to that Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Could the Prime Minister give the House sound idea as to what his policy in regard to Field-cornets was going to foe?

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said the committee would be glad if the Prime Minister would give them some idea of what the policy of the Government was going to be with regard to field-cornets. Was it the intention to extend the Transvaal system of field-cornets, with their large salaries, throughout the Union, or was it intended to reduce the salaries of the Transvaal field-cornets to the level of those paid in the Tree State? Now, the attack which had been made on the field-cornet system had really been founded on two main principles. The first was the belief that the field-cornetcies had been largely political appointments, and the second was the belief that they had carried out their duties inefficiently. With regard to the first point, he would, like to refer the committee to the position in the constituency of Standerton. There, within a radius of 18 miles, there were a resident magistrate, a resident justice of the peace, and two field-cornets, and then, for a distance of 52 miles, there was not a single field-cornet. Now, as to these two field-cornets, the committee would be interested to know whether they were appointed in these particular places for the public convenience, or (because they were the principal protagonists of the Het Volk party in the 1907 election. He recalled that he then opposed the Prime Minister, and he was-pursued by the two gentlemen who were afterwards appointed field-cornets, throughout his meetings, and by them asked embarrassing questions with reference to his nefarious past. (Laughter.) Well, when those gentlemen were subsequently appointed field-cornets, was it surprising that those who belonged to the wretched minority in the Standerton constituency should have sat down and hoped for better days, and exclaimed: “To the victor the spoils”? Then he would point out that in the Wakkerstroom district, a man was appointed field-cornet who did not reside in the ward. He would like the Prime Minister to explain why that gentleman was appointed. Well, these appointments only lasted for three years, and when they came up for reconsideration he hoped the Prime Minister would pay special regard to the convenience of the public and not to other considerations. It was not to be wondered at that, when appointments were made in this way, after an election, many people should come to the conclusion that they were made for political reasons. Whenever the term “field-cornet” was mentioned they found that a political atmosphere immediately arose. Most people associated it with political movements. That was not giving the system a proper chance. Then as to the point regarding the large salaries, when people found the salaries as high as they were, they naturally came to the conclusion that the salaries were in the nature of a reward for services rendered. With regard to the point concerning the inefficiency of the field-cornets, there was no doubt the Transvaal rang from end to end with stories of inefficient field-cornets. Many of them were doubtless untrue, and some exaggerated, but he believed that for others there was a great deal of foundation. He hoped that if the Prime Minister intended to extend the system of field-cornets throughout the Union, he would avoid these two mistakes, because they could not help holding the Prime Minister responsible to a certain extent for the way in which these field-cornets were regarded.

took exception to the speech made by the hon. member for Turffontein, who, he said, had harped on the same string when the 1910-11 Estimates were under discussion. The political activities of field-cornets had been put a stop to by the Minister of Agriculture’s circular, and an attack at present looked like an attempt to abolish field-cornets. Yet they were among the most useful officials, whose appointment was a feather in the Prime Minister’s cap He admitted harassing the hon. member during the 1907 elections, but his field-cornetcy was not offered him as a reward for that; it was the public who urged him to become a field-cornet. Field-cornets assisted in fighting cattle diseases, issued permits, worked every day and never had a holiday, even on Sundays, because permits were sometimes applied for on those days. They were assistant-registrars of births and deaths, and always occupied a seat on the roads commissions. Those commissions had a good deal of work, because, consequent upon the success of the Transvaal Fencing Act, many difficulties had arisen owing to roads crossing private lands being fenced off. The field-cornets went into matters of that description, thereby rendering a quantity of litigation unnecessary. They looked after the poor of their own ward, and acted as agents to the Land Board in the distribution of cattle to persons deemed worthy of assistance. Subsequently, it was their business to find out whether the cattle were being turned to good account, and to report on that. Further, they had to supervise branding operations, and most of them acted as unpaid J.P.’s, in which capacity they were instrumental in amicably settling many serious disputes. Also, they administered the sale of Crown lands, which was a great convenience to the people. The annual statistics for the Agricultural Department were compiled by them, the police assisting. The Land Bank, too, gave them a lot of work. They drew up applications and affidavits, in that manner saving applicants journeys to the towns. Every Government department provided them with a certain amount of work, because they acquainted the people with the contents of all official notices. In a word, the system was an extremely useful one, and should be maintained, not only, but introduced into the whole of the Union.

moved to delete the whole vote for field-cornets, simply because the country could not afford to spend £27,655 per annum upon 131 of these people. They were far too expensive, and absolutely inefficient. (dries of “No.”) Hon. members cried out “No”; well, his hon. friend the member for Turffontein had let them down very lightly, and he would do the same, but there were 150 reasons why they should be abolished. These field-cornets were supposed to act in a kind of judicial position, and were called upon to sit in judgment, so to speak, on their relations. It was considered improper for a judge to sit in judgment on his relation. Right, throughout the Orange Free State there were Dutch and English farmers almost side by side, and working amicably together. (Hear, hear.) What they ought to do was to invest these powers with one Dutchman and one Englishman, and he believed they could get better and much more efficient service for nothing. (Hear, hear.)

regretted that that subject, which had been fully dealt with at the end of the previous year, should now again come up. He was afraid that race feeling was at the back of these criticisms of, and attacks on, the field-cornets who had been most useful officials, and had done a very great deal indeed for the people of the country and for agriculture by acting as a connecting link between farmers and the department. As to the question of finance, he thought that they could not have more efficient officials, who cost the State less. The whole reason for these attacks was, he considered, because the field-cornets were generally of one race, and the hon. member who spoke last had let the cat out of the bag. The campaign against East Coast fever in the Transvaal owed its success to the field-cornets.

said he had held a definite opinion upon these field-comets for some years, but after listening to the address of the hon. member for Standerton, one would think they ought to get £2,000 a year each on account of their multifarious duties. The only profession those field-comets did not represent seemed to be the Church. (Laughter.) In fact, they scorned so busy that they had no time to observe Sunday. (Renewed laughter.) If a man had to earn his living, it was impossible for him to attend to all these duties that had been mentioned. How was it that the oldest colony in South Africa had /managed to do without these salaried field-cornets? In fact, it was a remnant of the old patriarchal system—a relic of the past. If these field-comets had to do all the work mentioned, they had to do it at the sacrifice of their own interests, and how many men could do that? The Cape Province did not pay these salaries now. Proceeding, the hon. member referred to the difference in the salaries between the field-comets in the Transvaal and those in the Orange Free State. Did the field-cornets in the Orange Free State work less than those in the Transvaal? Of course, this was a popular policy, he heard it said—a popular policy for something like 150 people, but the taxpayers of the country had to pay for it. The system was wholly bad. These field-cornets were absolutely incompetent to do the work. He was not reflecting upon a man’s occupation, and least of all upon his race. (Interruption.) “Now, don’t be rude,” proceeded Sir Percy. “You can be witty if you like, but don’t be rude.” (Hear, hear, and laughter.) It is impossible for a man, whatever may be his race, to do this work in his snare tame. It is quite impossible to do it.”

He gives all his time.

And how does he earn his living?

He gets others to do it.

Does he pay them?

Yes.

Out of £300?

Yes.

He pays a substitute to do his own business?

Yes.

I must say that if we get one or two more explanations, we will have them in the most unholy mess they have ever been in. We have had two declarations from the back benches speaking for the Government. It is impossible for field-comets to carry out their duties in their spare time. We are told that they give all their time; that they pay others to do their own work. Why do they do it? Because they make a profit out of it. Proceeding, Sir Percy said that in the Republican days field-cornets were elected, and the new system was introduced by Responsible Government. They were now appointed by the Ministry in office. Many of the duties they had to perform were of a semi-judicial character. Did they think that was right? Cries of “Yes” and “No.”) He did not think a field-cornet had been appointed in the Transvaal who was not in sympathy with the political party of the Government.

That is the point.

Quite so. That is the point, as the hon. member says. He (the field-cornet) is supposed to be a Government official: he is supposed; to give all his time to carrying out his semi-judicial duties; but he is appointed because he belongs to a political party.

You are wrong.

The hon. member (Mr. Vosloo) does not happen to live in the Transvaal, and knows nothing about the matter. Proceeding, he said that quite early in the session he pointed out the effect of field-comets dealing with certain matters. He pointed out the action of the field-comets in the constituency which was represented by the hon. member nor Water berg. The hon. member did not say anything about the field-comet who left his niece to sign permits. He went away, and left her to sign permits for people to remove cattle.

interjected a remark which was inaudible in the press gallery.

I don’t depend upon the hon. member for details. I have got a bushelful of details. (Laughter.) The field-cornet signed permits in blank for the removal of cattle. He left his niece to sign them. She knew as much about the difference between tick fever and foot-and-mouth disease as she knew about the difference between the streets of Paris and Berlin. That was one instance, but there were many other instances of incapacity of the field-cornets to deal with certain classes of work. But he might suit a political party. Supposing they (the Opposition) were in power, he could conceive it would suit them excellently to put in field-cornets, and without any effort or particular strain upon his imagination, he could imagine what would be said by hon. members opposite.

What?

You would say it was an outrageous injustice to you. And so it would be. Proceeding, he said that there was no better indictment of the present field-cornet system, in the Transvaal than the defence which was honestly, seriously, and truthfully made by the hon. member for Standerton (Mr. Alberts). It was improper for a man to be called upon to make the great sacrifices which had been described voluntarily. The system was rottenly wrong, and he hoped it would not be extended to the rest of South Africa. (Opposition cheers.)

said that he must confess that he extremely regretted that hon. members had brought up that question again. Judging from the speeches of the hon. members for Langlaagte and Pretoria East, it seemed as if it were a racial question. Nothing had been said on the other side of the good qualities of Field-cornets; and their terrible salaries had been objected to. Nothing had been said of the salaries of the thousands of other Government officials. The policy of the Government with regard to the appointment of Field-cornets in the Transvaal was the policy which was laid down in the law; and the Government would stick to that. If the Field-cornets were done away with in the Transvaal, 76 stock inspectors must be appointed in their stead. That his hon. friend had not stated: had not alluded to; and he would not admit that the Field-comets were any good at all. The Government did not intend reducing the Field-comets’ salaries. Not a word; had been said about stock inspectors in the Cape drawing £200 to £300 a year; and the Field-comet system was without doubt a cheaper system than that of having stock inspectors; but not a word had been said about that on the Opposition side. If they had not had the influence of these Field-comets in the Transvaal, there would have been as little co-operation between the public and the Government as there had been during the Crown Colony Government, and Mr. Duncan would, no doubt, admit that. What had these men not done to stamp out cattle diseases in their districts by means of the influence they exercised on the people? What had they not done to eradicate scab? They had done such good Work that they deserved the best thanks of that House, and certainly not criticism. They must not criticise the faults of a man and say nothing about his good points. It was said that one could not go five miles in any direction in the Transvaal without coming across a Field-comet. Well, in the other Provinces one Could not do the same without coming across a Government official; and if they did away with the Field-cornets in the Transvaal they would only have to appoint more officials at a greater cost to the State. (Ministerial cheers.) Before they had those Field-cornets there had never been that cooperation between the people and the Government which there was at the present time, and which had had such an excellent effect on the prosperity of the country. The hon. member for Pretoria East had assisted in passing the Transvaal Field-cornets Bill, because he knew the people were used to the system. If they appointed stock inspectors, the latter would not enjoy the confidence of the public. During Crown Colony Government salaried J.P.’s from oversea had been appointed, who proved useless because they were too stay-at-home. He only wished Sir Percy Fitzpatrick could come along with him and see what a Field-cornet had to do; and if the hon. member did so, he would stand up and praise them. (Laughter.) He (Sir Percy) had only spoken as he had done, because he did not have an adequate knowledge of their duties. Of course, all Field-cornets were not equally efficient. They were not, all of them, English scholars or cultured men and it was only natural that there should be differences between one and the other, but, taken as a whole, there was no more efficient body of men. The principal qualification for the post was influence among the people, which ensured co-operation between the Government and the public. The hon. member for Turffontein had spoken strongly because of what had happened during the recent election; and because he had been opposed by some Field-cornets. Well, he (General Botha), had been opposed by officials, too; and had he done or said anything to remove these officials?. Nothing at all. (Cheers.) In regard to officials, he could not consider whether they were Dutch or English; and if they wanted to differentiate because a man was Dutch, was he to differentiate in regard to an English official? He would only reply that he did not mean to differentiate at all. (Cheers.) As far as he (the speaker) was concerned, he had no difficulty in understanding the position of affairs in 1907. Echoes of the war had not entirely died out. There were people in the Transvaal who had opposed him (General Botha) on the field of battle, and they preferred to support the hon. member for Turffontein at that juncture, but when he (General Botha) was elected, he made it his business to look after the interests of all his constituents, no matter whether they were English or Dutch. Why, then, were hon. members now singling out a small group of men for obloquy? The hon. member for Langlaagte had said he would be satisfied if, for every Dutchman, they appointed one Englishman as a Field-cornet. He begged leave to doubt, however, whether that was a practicable proposition. If that were the policy of the Opposition, he would ask whether a system of that kind was to be applied to the whole of the Civil Service? He would go as far as he possibly could to satisfy the Opposition with regard to the public service, for he had always advocated equitable treatment. Most of the Transvaal officials were appointed by the Crown Colony Government, yet they were still in the service, whereas ex-officials who had grown old in the service of their country applied in vain under Crown Colony Government. All the time the latter appointed imported officials, who were ignorant of local conditions. Those were hard facts, but no one on his side had made a hullabaloo about them. Reproaches on matters such as these came from hon. members opposite, and this hurt him. It was really beneath the dignity of the House to argue as hon. members had argued. Parliament should look upon itself as the guardian of the interests of every man, whether English or Dutch, who had adopted South Africa as his home. (Cheers.) If hon. members opposite were consulted, he supposed no South African need apply in future—a most regrettable state of affairs. They should not weigh down Afrikanders by getting them to think that they were incapable of performing administrative duties. With regard to what the hon. member for Turffontein had said about a Wakkerstroom Field-cornet, he Challenged the hon. member to mention the name of the official concerned, who was supposed to live outside his ward.

said Field-cornet Pringle was the man he meant.

denied this. If Field-cornets neglected their duties, they should be dismissed. He intended introducing uniformity into the Field-cornet system, but he had not yet made up his mind as to the particular way in which that was to be accomplished. The Cape had 778 Field-cornets; the white population numbered 600,000. In the Transvaal the figures were 76 and 300,000, respectively. If, then, the Transvaal system were applied throughout the Union, it followed that over 600 Field-cornets would have to be discharged in the Gape. If the Cape stock inspectors were kept on, the Government would even have to dismiss all Field-cornets in that Province. The hon. member for Pretoria East had made much of the fact that Field-cornets sometimes were guilty of dereliction of duty. Well, other officials occasionally trespassed. The hon. member had again referred to the Field-cornet who allowed his niece to issue permits. When the hon. member mentioned the matter some time ago, he (the speaker) had caused inquiries to be instituted, and as a result the official concerned had not been reappointed when his term of office expired. He only quoted this to show that, in the case of Field-cornets, dismissal was just as much the punishment for wrong-doing as with regard to other officials. They were going to initiate a terrible vendetta if they dealt with matters such as these on racial lines. All officials should be justly dealt with, whatever their race. (Cheers.)

said he agreed that the appointment of Field-cornets had done a great deal to remove the difficulty alluded to by the Prime Minister, and he (Mr. Duncan) would very much have liked to have appointed them before Grown Colony Government went out of office. His experience in the Transvaal was that it was almost impossible in the then condition of the country to get people living in remote districts to understand the different laws, particularly about stock diseases, without some officials like Field-cornets to explain them. (Hoar, hear.) He disagreed with the Prime Minister, however, when that gentleman said that the opposition arose from a feeling of race. (Opposition cheers.) He knew that certain suggestions were made that Field-cornets should be appointed on the chessboard plan. To his mind, the question was not a racial one at all. It was felt that £200 or £300 a year was a very large amount to pay to a man who was not a whole-time officer. It was undoubtedly a fact that after the first election in the Transvaal, there was a widespread feeling throughout the country that these appointments had been given in order to reward the Government’s supporters. (Hear, hear.) In a large number of cases, be thought there were good grounds for that suspicion, and one would have to examine the list of Field-cornets very carefully to find a single name that did not belong to the party returned to power. It did not follow from that, however, that the men appointed were not capable of performing their duties. It did follow, though, that if these appointments were made on political grounds, it was creating a very bad precedent—(hear, hear) —and would lead to a state of chads. Field-cornets should be selected because of their influence in their particular districts, their education, and their capacity. If the Prime Minister could convince the committee that the appointments were made on these grounds alone, then he would hear very much less of this matter in future. The Prime Minister said that after the war, officials were brought from oversea, and put into office here, and that old officials were refused appointments. He (Mr. Duncan) would like to have a single instance of that brought to his notice. He knew of more than one ease in which, when the Crown Colony Government asked old officials of the Republic to take office, they declined to do so, On various grounds, some of the grounds leading him to respect those who put them forward. He did not know of any case where a man was refused an appointment because he was an official of the old Republic. (Hear, hear.) The Prime Minister said he had always stood up for officials, no matter where they came from. Everybody who knew the Prime Minister would give him credit for that, and the Opposition would stand by the Field-cornets as soon as it was assured that they were appointed oh the ground of their qualifications, and that alone. (Opposition cheers.)

said that he considered that Mr. Wyndham and Mr. Rockey had spoken as they had done simply because of their ignorance about the work which the Field-cornets had to do. He did think—and he might be alone in thinking so—that he cause a man was a Field-cornet he should not lose any political rights. The Field cornet system had worked so well that he thought it should be extended to apply to other parts of the Union. Hon. members from the towns could hardly understand what the Field-comet meant to his surroundings—he was their only official.

said that Mr. Wyndham had blamed the Government for appointing Field-cornets after the election; but the Government had only come into power after the election, and how could the hon. member, therefore, charge them with what had happened before? The people did not understand the veterinary surgeons with whom they had to work previously. All that was changed now. He (General T. Smuts) denied that the public were against the Field-cornets. If he (Mr. Wyndham) had said that a section of the public was against the Field-cornets, he would have beep nearer the mark; but he would not have said what that section was. That section was, said the hon. member, the “Johnnies come lately,” who were against the farmers of the country. That was the section who objected to the Field-cornet. The hon. member said that the Field-cornets were a hard-working class of men who did their duty, and the only objection to them seemed to be that they were Dutch South Africans. If they were not Dutch they would have heard nothing of all this. The hon. member for Langlaagte had “given the show away.” No one who knew the Field-cornets’ duties would consider the salaries excessive. Supposing the hon. member for Pretoria East were correct, did they think the system of party appointments was a Transvaal invention? A Conservative Government in England once appointed nothing but Tory J.P.’s.

said that the hon. member for Ermelo (General T. Smuts) had given them an excellent example of the reason why they on that (the Opposition) side of the House objected to this system. There was in Transvaal a system of part-time officers called Field-cornets, and there was a system of part-time officers called Road Inspectors. Well, the hon. member (General T. Smuts) had been one of the most energetic political road inspectors there ever was. (Laughter.) There had been no more active political agent among the part-time officers than the hon. member had been. Now it was absurd for the Prime Minister to say that they had raised this question on account of the racial issue; they raised it in the best interests of the country, in the interests of efficient and pure administration. The reason why they objected to this vote was because they objected to the money being paid to any political party in this country. He objected to this vote purely on political grounds, because these officers had been, almost the lot of them, nothing more or less than political agents for the Het Yolk party. He had seen Field-cornets going around putting up posters giving details of Het Yolk meetings, and giving the names of all the eloquent gentlemen who were going to give addresses. So long as these officers went on taking an active part in politics, so long would that side of the House object to this vote. This system would lead, them to a system of Tammany government. It meant that with each change of Government would mean a change of Field-cornets, and that would not be good for the country. They said: Have these officers, but don’t let them take part in political matters. The hon. member for Standerton had said that this system would stop, and he (the speaker) hoped that such would be the case. Proceeding, the hon. member referred; to an amount of £171 7s. 8d. alluded to in the Auditor-General’s report, representing commission paid to Field-cornets for the purchase of cattle. He (the speaker) thought that if such a system went on, these officials would be paid so much a head for every head of infected cattle that was shot. He trusted that the system would not be allowed to grow and permeate the whole country.

said that he only wanted to say that the Field-cornets of the Cape Province should be better paid; for what did they get? Only £5 per annum.

said it was clear that it would be extraordinary if the Field-cornets of the Transvaal did not belong to a political party. They had been told that one had been guilty of the heinous offence of putting up a political poster. He, for one, held that a Civil Servant did not forfeit his civil rights. The question was: Do these men do their duty? If they were competent, don’t let them grumble because they belonged to one political party or another. The question was, whether the country was justified in paying such large salaries in the Transvaal when the officials in the other Provinces got very much less?

said the question was not whether Field-comets should enjoy political rights, but whether Government-paid servants should take an open part in elections.

Why not?

I am surprised at the question. Why were the policemen in Johannesburg warned not to take part in the elections? The same Government employs both classes of officials. If it is wrong for policemen, it is wrong for Field-cornets. Continuing, he said that Field-comets were paid by Government, and most Governments took up the position that it was not good for a country that State-paid men should be allowed to take part in any active political propaganda whatever. Surely they were all agreed that this was the very hast thing that they wanted to see. Judges had political rights, but they would be very sorry to see them on (political platforms. He certainly thought if the Field-comets did their work they ought to be paid, but it seemed to him that they were paying too much. If the Government took up the same wise attitude to the Field-cornets as they did to the policemen, there would be no further trouble upon that score.

pointed out that the Prime Minister had sent out a circular before the election, warning Field-cornets not to take part in the election, because it was found that they were. In comparison with the amounts paid to scab inspectors, he thought they paid these Field-cornets too much. In round figures they made something like £300 per annum. He asked the Government to take into consideration the fact that the sum was too much for the services rendered.

said that ever since the Union there had been an agitation among the Cape Colony field-cornets for an increase in pay, and he was informed by the Government that it was their intention to investigate the matter during the recess. He believed that the Field-cornets, among their other duties, had also the administration of the law dealing with diseases of stock. The Scab Act was administered by inspectors in the Cape Province, who devoted their whole time to it, and the Prime Minister, he believed, said if they adopted the Cape system they would find it very expensive. But these laws dealing with animal diseases were essential laws, and he hoped that the wide ideal underlying the Cape system would be continued. He would be very hopeless indeed of any efficient administration of the Scab Act if they were to adopt the Transvaal system.

said hon. members were continually asking questions about the prorogation. If they were anxious to leave, why were they prolonging the debates? He regretted that a certain set of officials were considered targets for violent criticism because they happened to belong to a particular political persuasion. He knew of many officials who had worked against him during the recent elections, but surely it would not do to dismiss them on that account! No Field-comet had drawn more than £260 a year. The Land Board, who were acting independently, had appointed four Field-cornets to purchase cattle for them, away into the backveld, because that was the only place where they could obtain the requisite number of immunised cattle. The persons concerned had naturally incurred expense. The salary proper was £200, with an allowance of £60 per annum in respect of horses or mules, which had! to take them anywhere within the scope of their duties. Veterinary surgeons drove about the country in Government conveyances, yet their travelling allowance exceeded that of Field-cornets. In the Cape, the Free State, and Natal they had 400 stock inspectors whose salaries ranged from £200 to £300, and if they abolished the Transvaal Field-cornets, the same number of stock-inspectors at similar salaries would have to be appointed. Hence, the opposition to the Field-cornet system was not a matter of economy but a racial question. The hon. member for Georgetown had waxed indignant because a Field-cornet had posted up an election placard, but omitted to refer to officials who, during the elections, covered locomotive engines with posters, bearing the legend: “Vote for Farrar.”

said he was extremely pleased: to hear the statement which had been made by the right hon. gentleman. He (General Botha) had given a promise that under no circumstances would be be a party to allowing officers in the employ of the Government, like field-cornets, to take part in political matters. He was certain that the Prime Minister’s statement would give satisfaction to that side of the House. He would, however, like to mention the case of a Field-cornet at Heidelberg. This man asked for leave of absence for two months, and, instead of that, he had his services dispensed with, and another man was placed in his stead. He hoped the right hon. gentleman would inquire into the case.

said that the Field-cornet in question had applied for leave to go to Europe, and he (General Botha) had said that if he wished to take extended leave, the position would have to be filled by somebody else He considered the position of Field-cornet so important that a man had to apply for leave if he merely wanted to take a fortnight off; the Field-cornet in question had, however, been promised that he would be reappointed on his return.

who rose amid cries of “Vote,” said that the question had been raised of this being a racial matter. He would like to dispose of that. He wanted to give instances where he thought political influence had been brought to bear. A certain Field-cornet was dismissed for flogging a native illegally. Compensation: Appointment to the Fencing Department in the Transvaal. His name was J. L. Pretorius. He had since been removed from the Fencing Department and was enjoying fencing contracts in the Transvaal.

said that what the hon. member had just stated showed how misstatements were made. The J. L. Pretorius who had flogged the native, and whose case had been before the Court, had immediately been dismissed by him (General Botha), and was no longer a Field-cornet. (Ministerial cheers.) The member of the Provincial Council was quite a different person —coming from a different district. (Ministerial cheers.)

Those cheers are excellent from the M’bongos. I never said a word about the Provincial Council. Proceeding, he mentioned the case of one Watkins, of Barberton. This man, he said, was an Englishman as pure as they could get them—a rooinek. He was a rank politician in Barberton. Through that man he (Sir P. Fitzpatrick) got information of the candidature of the Minister of Finance a fortnight before the date of election or nomination was announced. That was not racial. It was a purely political charge.

The vote was agreed to.

asked whether this system was going to be maintained?

said he was going to put an end to that system.

said that the transport department was instituted in place of little transport systems for each department. He hoped the Prime Minister, before he did away with it, would consult somebody who knew something about the conditions in Natal.

said he would like the Prime Minister to inquire further before he did away with his system. This vote was intimately connected with the question of defence in Natal.

said that if that were so the Defence Department was concerned with the matter, but he could not see his way to differentiate between the various Provinces.

recommended that the Nata system be thoroughly inquired into before it was abolished.

said the Natal transport system was costing the country a very great deal more than it was worth. (Hear, hear.) Drivers were paid £7 a month, the ordinary driver’s wages being £2 a month.

took exception to the last speaker’s remarks.

The vote was agreed to.

said that the Inspector of Grain, who drew a salary of £545 a year, was, so he was informed, a schoolmaster at Beaufort West 12 months before his appointment. He (Mr. Jagger) did not know that Beaufort West was a big grain centre.

said he had had several letters from Port Elizabeth expressing satisfaction with the old grader there, but he was dismissed. There appeared to be some sort of official favouritism, he having been removed to make room for a friend of some official.

replied that when the mealie export trade had started, he had gone to the Railway Department for a grader. A grader had been appointed in Durban, and later graders had also been appointed at Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, and East London. The graders had been temporarily appointed, and the basis of payment at Cape Town had been so much per bag. Eventually they had to take the matter put of the hands of the Railway Department. When Union was brought about the Transvaal grader had been appointed grader for the whole of South Africa, and he was a man who had given the greatest satisfaction, and in whom they had every confidence. He had been sent to the different ports to make an investigation as to the best system which should be adopted. The London people had stated that the South African grading system was the best they knew of. As to what Mr. Jagger had said about the grader having been a teacher, he (General Botha) had never known him to be a teacher, but he knew that he was a capable man for the position of grader. As to the grader at Port Elizabeth, to which Sir Edgar Walton had alluded, he had merely been transferred from Cape Town, and they thought that that was better than to appoint a new official, in view of retrenchment among the Service. On the mealie export season coming to a close, the graders would be employed in fighting scab.

The vote was agreed to.

The vote for agriculture was then put, as increased, and agreed to.

alluded to charges, couched in very vague language, which had been made against the Civil Servants of the Union, who had borne patiently with the rest of the people the effects of years of depression. Union had not brought great content so far to the Civil Servants. They did not know whether they were going to be retired or retrenched, or what was to become of them. He thought this was not the way to treat the Civil Service, or they would get a Civil Service which they deserved. He referred to the general paragraphs 12, 13, and 14 in the Select Committee’s report on Public Accounts, and would ask the Minister if he would give an expression of opinion upon the recommendation there.

moved to reduce the vote on salaries, wages, and allowances by £5,700, as he thought the Medical Officers of Health should not be included under this vote.

desired to know the difference between scavengers and natives. (Laughter.)

strongly supported the motion of the hon. member (Dr. Watkins), because he thought the Minister should give some definite opinion of what would be his future method of dealing with the Health Department of the Union. During the session, they had a Bill dealing with this, but gradually it found its way lower and lower upon the paper. The members of the medical profession, who were, after all, the protectors of public health, were naturally anxious to have some definite statement as to what the Minister intended to do in regard to public health. At the present moment there was no official head in connection with public health. He was sure that it was never intended, and the Minister of the Interior would never agree, to place a responsible department like that of public health under a chief clerk. He felt that at an early date, certainly before this session was out, they should have one responsible head dealing with all public health matters in South Africa. Personally, he would like the Public Health Department to be under a medical officer, who would be directly responsible to the Minister. He felt that in this Province, in fact, throughout South Africa, there was a great need to-day for more care being bestowed upon the Public Health Department than had been bestowed in the past. He wanted the Minister to make a definite statement in order to ensure confidence, not only amongst the medical profession, but amongst the public generally.

said that he wanted to put a question in regard to some criticisms which had been made on the Budget debate as to the Public Service Commission. He thought it was very desirable that some authoritative statement should be made by the Minister in reference to the Commission’s recommendations. He would also ask the Minister to give the Committee a statement of the Government’s intentions in regard to the appointment of a permanent Commission.

in reply, said that he would deal with the last question first. He was very sorry that in the Budget debate undeserved strictures were passed on the Public Service Commission, which was now trying to do a very difficult and delicate piece of work. A general report had been issued, and a special report dealing with the Department of Commerce and Industries. A third report had also been prepared, but not yet published. Owing to the stress of work during the session it had not been possible for the Government to consider either the general report or the special one, although he believed, in regard to the Commerce and Industries Department, what appeared in the Estimates agreed generally with what was contained in that report. There had been a number of important Public Service Commissions in South Africa of recent years. All these Commissions dealt on a very high level with Civil Service organisation, and Government had their reports as guides Government would carefully consider not only the report that was coming forward, but the other reports as well, in order to arrive at a stable settlement of the Civil Service of the future. The permanent Public Service Commission referred to in the Act of Union could not be appointed until a law had been passed for the purpose, and to define the functions of the Commission. Next session Government would have to introduce legislation dealing with the subject. What the hon. member for Maritzburg had said was very largely true, but he (General Smuts) did not think there was much reason for unrest in the service. There had been almost a revolutionary dislocation in the service, and, no doubt, people were disquieted about the way their interests would be dealt with in the future. But he did not think there was any real ground for this feeling, and he believed that Civil Servants would be dealt with under Union as well as, if not better than, they were under the old system. As to the medical service of the Union, he thought he made some statement of policy on that during the second reading of the Public Health Bill. Although that measure had occupied a humble position on the Order paper, he was as keen as possible on passing it. He agreed that matters of public health were of great importance, and it would, he thought, be necessary to have one officer to advise the Government at present, with four officers, if some difficulty was experienced.

said he passed no strictures on the members of the Commission, but he had passed strictures on the Government for having appointed these gentlemen, and strictures on the work. Could the Minister give the committee the assurance that he would not take action on the general reorganisation of the service, as contained in the first report, until the matter had come before the House?

said he could not give an undertaking that would go such a length. A number of important matters alluded to in the report required legislation, and would have to come before the House. But there were subordinate suggestions that might be put in force for the sake of economy.

said that the House was tired, and he moved that progress should be reported.

replied that the hour was early, and that some progress might be made that night.

supported the proposal that progress should be reported.

put the question, and declared the motion negatived.

referring to the report of the Commission, said he did not want to cast any reflection on the personnel of the Commission; but added that he considered the general report—to which the Minister said much weight must be attached—absolutely disappointing. It seemed to him in face of the report, that the Commission ought to be strengthened before it was allowed to proceed.

Do I understand that the Minister accepts my motion? Continuing, the hon. member pointed out that these items he referred to should have been put under the vole for public health. If he would look at the matter, and see that It was put right in the future, he would withdraw his amendment.

said he wanted to correct the impression that had been made by the Prime Minister, when he said that this Civil Service Commission was not appointed by the Government; but was one that had been approved of before the Union. That was a most erroneous idea. Without casting any reflection upon the personnel, he found a great deal in the report that went against, the grain. The Commission recommended that the Civil Servants, who had gone for years without their increments, should be put upon an equitable basis by being given one year’s increment allowances. That, however, he considered very unfair. If the Minister would give him an assurance that the Government would not adopt this part of the report, he would say no more. If it were adopted, then great hardship would be suffered by Civil Servants in the Cape and Natal Provinces.

What was the Advisory Board to which the Hon. the Minister referred?

It consists of four or five heads of departments. These heads have been constituted as an Advisory Board to advise the Minister on such matters as promotion, transfers, and discipline in the service. They have no statutory power.

said that if the Minister would give his personal attention to the Commission’s report, he would agree with the Opposition that its feature was that it evaded every issue. There had been three reports which were valuable, because they faced every issue. These were the Play fair, Solomon, and Graham reports. The present Commission’s report, however, was not of any value to them in starting Union. They must have difficult problems fairly and squarely, faced.

said he hoped the Minister would take into consideration that the Government, according to the Act of Union, under clause 142, should have appointed a Public Civil Service Commission. It was one of the first duties of the Government at the commencement of the first session of the Union Parliament to have introduced the necessary legislation. He hoped that that would be one of the first Acts next session.

said that the Minister had given them an important piece of information in regard to the present conduct of the Public Service, which he thought ought to have been laid before the House before, viz., the appointment of an Advisory Board, a Board which was absolutely doing the work of the permanent Civil Service Commission directed to be appointed by the Act of Union. On what authority, he asked, was such a Board carrying out its duties at the present moment? Would it not be possible, even at that late stage, to introduce a resolution into both Houses saying that there should be appointed a permanent Commission to carry out the duties at present being discharged by the Advisory Board?

said that at present all these powers were vested in the Governor-General-in-Council. He did not think it would be the right course to pass the Civil Service Bill before the interim Commission presented its report. The idea of the Convention—and no doubt of the South Africa Act—was that immediately after Union an interim Commission should be appointed to advise as to the reorganisation of the Civil Service, and when its work was finished its place was to be taken by a permanent Board. No new appointments were being made, the Board having been advised that all vacancies must be filled from the Service, and salaries were kept very much where they were. Even when a man was promoted he worked very much at the old salary, with the exception of local allowances in the case of transferences.

said the Minister’s own statement showed that there must be constant appointments and transferences. The intention of the Act of Union was that a permanent Commission should be appointed which would advise on these appointments. But Government had appointed a temporary Board, which could not possibly act in the same unfettered and independent way that a permanent Commission could. As the hon. member for Liesbeek had said, the clause did not mean an Act of Parliament; it said “as Parliament may determine.”

said that the Public Service Commission was the proper body to make recommendations. The Prime Minister told them the other day that the Agricultural Department was being reorganised. Who was doing that? Whose advice had been taken? Under the present system it was not an independent inquiry at all. It was a vital matter, and the future of the Agricultural Department rested on its recommendations. They were getting more hopelessly in a mess over this matter every day. The time was now ripe for the Government to appoint an independent Civil Service Commission.

said that his hon. friend now wanted a permanent Commission appointed to advise Parliament. To deal with the functions of a Commission they needed an Act of Parliament of 100 clauses. It was a most serious and difficult matter, and it would have to engage the attention of Government and Parliament.

asked in what way the Government were going to treat the recommendations of this Advisory Board, which was composed of the heads of departments?

said that the Board was only dealing with minor matters; reorganisation work would be done by the permanent Commission.

appealed to the Minister to report progress.

said he did not want to force any procedure on the House.

said there was going, he believed, to be considerable discussion upon this vote, and he thought it would be best if his hon. friend would agree to the adjournment now.

The amendment moved by Dr. Watkins was withdrawn.

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