brought up the report of the Committee of the Whole House on the Second Report of the Select Committee on Waste Lands, reporting certain Resolutions with regard to grants, leases, and exchanges of land. (See pp. 1097-8, “Votes and Proceedings.”)

moved that the Resolutions be adopted.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I wish to call attention to Notice of Motion No. XIII. on the Order Paper for the 11th instant, standing in the name of the hon. member for Border (Mr. Blaine). This proposed motion is out of order, as its adoption would not only go beyond the scope of the order of reference of the Waste Lands Committee, but would be in conflict with Standing Order No. 149. The notice must, therefore, be discharged from the notice paper.

asked the Minister of Railways when he intended to lay on the table the schedule of new lines? They were nearing the end of the session, and yet the schedule had not been furnished.

said the hon. member ought to know that the schedule could not be furnished until the Bill came before the House. He had only just received the report of the Railway Board on the subject, but he promised that the schedule would be placed on the table early next week.

referred to the surplus the Minister derived from lighthouses, and said that as the railway surpluses were generally spent on the railways, he thought the surplus from lighthouses should be expended on lighthouses. In view of the surplus that appeared, he thought the Government should now undertake the construction of a lighthouse at Slangkop. He contended that the shipping that visited the port should have additional facilities to those, that existed at present, and urged that the erection of a lighthouse at this point was one of the most pressing needs. He went on to deal with evidence given in 1907, which supported his contention that a lighthouse at Slangkop was a necessity. He pointed out that both the Late Admiral and the Admiral at present at the naval station advocated the construction of a lighthouse at Slangkop without delay. In conclusion, he said he hoped that the Minister would not lose sight of the matter, seeing that it was of vast importance to the safety of the shipping that visited this port.

congratulated the Minister of Railways on the sound financial condition of the railways, but at the same time expressed the opinion that they should not be satisfied until the railways were run on the lines laid down in the South Africa Act. His reason for rising at that stage of the debate was to bring before the Government certain circumstances which adversely affected some of his constituents. The most northern town in Natal, Charlestown, was built when the railway was extended to that part of Natal. Its population was dependent upon the railway, and he found! that the new arrangements of the Railway Board had adversely affected the people living there. There had been stationed at Charlestown a good many railwayman, but they were now being removed to Volksrust, and the town was financially suffering, so that it would come to almost nothing. He understood that the Government made these changes for financial reasons, but he would like to know if all the circumstances had been considered. He found in the Estimates that a sum of £20,000 was brought up for certain alterations to be made at Volksrust with a view to making further accommodation, whereas there was already that accommodation at Charlestown. At Charlestown there was a good supply of water, whilst at Volksrust they had none. It might, therefore, be found necessary to spend a lot of money to obtain water, and so the removal might not be so economical after all. He had received a telegram from Charlestown stating that a meeting had unanimously resolved that the Natal members and Senators be asked to protest against the removal of the locomotive department from Charlestown in order to build up another town in the Transvaal.

applauded the Minister’s intention of increasing the number of white railway employees. In the Free State white labour on railways had been a great success, not only from the railway’s own point of view but because the system had the advantage of centralising, to some extent, the white population. Children, who might otherwise have remained illiterate, were now enabled to go to school. Unfortunately, the married quarters contained very poor accommodation, which had previously been used by bachelors, who were not particular as to how they handled it. Improvements had been, effected, but not on an adequate scale. A good deal had been said about the “business principles” on which the railways were to be run. It almost seemed as if that meant that the railways were to make as much profit as possible, but he trusted the expression would be interpreted to mean that goods should be carried as cheaply as possible. He especially advocated that course in regard to South African produce, because a quantity of locally produced meat and grain could not be sent to market at present on account of prohibitive rates, whereas there was a large importation of the same articles. Cattle rates had been raised, which was a mistake because that policy led to an increase of the cost of living in the towns. He was surprised to note that practically a new line was being built at certain portions of the main line north of Matjesfontein. In view of the fact that many districts were languishing for want of railway communication he did not understand the reasons for the construction in question.

said when the announcement was made that there was going to be very considerable railway reductions they were all very pleased. These reductions appealed very much to the agricultural community. At the same time, if there were reductions, there were also several increases, and he would direct the attention of the House to some of them. There were some very considerable increases in certain articles, such as dried fruit, raisins, and onions. To-day it cost the Western Province farmer nearly twice as much to send onions to Port Elizabeth or East London, whereas in sending the article to Johannesburg it was very much less. He quite appreciated the fact that it was a great benefit to have the rates reduced to Large centres like Johannesburg, but he was unable to understand the disparity in the rates to Port Elizabeth and East London, which were large centres also.

said he was glad to see that the instalment for the Butterworth-Umtata railway figured in the Bill. Now, a Higher Power than theirs had stepped in and made ox-wagon competition impossible for the time being, and he supposed for the next year or two, because the East Coast fever outbreak in the Transkeian Territories was not going to be wiped out all at once. The railway would undoubtedly pay.

pointed out that not only had the rates on cement been raised, but the rebate on cement used for irrigation: purposes had been taken away. That, he said, was felt as a very serious grievance indeed in the irrigation areas of the country. He would like the Minister to seriously consider whether it was not possible to restore those rates in the Cape Colony for irrigation purposes.

said he had been cudgelling his brains as to the application of business principles to the running of the railways. It appeared to him that the people who principally had benefited by the reduced rates were those who lived inland, and the agricultural population did not seem to have derived much benefit from the reductions. It seemed to be a business principle to suspend the operation of the Railway Sinking Fund. The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Colonel Harris) had said that the Cape had done nothing but bleed Kimberley. But how many millions, worth of diamonds had the old Cape given to Kimberley? (Cheers.) There certainly did not appear to be much gratitude left in this world. (Laughter.) Continuing, Mr. Blaine said the Border districts had been building very much on Union, but with the new principle of running railways on business principles, he was afraid that the Border would not get the new lines it desired. He had the advantage of a branch line traversing his farm, fie found that as the result of railway extension farmers were not confining themselves wholly to sheep or cattle, but were going in for the smaller things, such as dairy produce, etc. He hoped the Government would not forget that what happened in the Transkei might happen in other parts of the country as well, and that the possibility of East Coast fever spreading to those places without railway communication should be borne in mind.

said the Minister of Railways had budgeted for an increased expenditure and for a diminished revenue to the extent of something like £550,000. He had also allowed for a loss on the harbours of something like £274,000, which was to be met out of the profits on the railways. Would Mr. Sauer give the House a clear statement as to the policy to be adopted with regard to the deficit on the harbours, and say whether it was the Minister’s intention to see, that that deficit should not continue, to so large an extent, to fall on the general revenue of the country? His hon. friend (Mr. Sauer) would remember that last December he was asked to place before the House the facts with regard to the capital account of the rolling-stock. The Minister had said that the capital account of rolling-stock On the books of the Railway Department was something like 13½ millions, and that he had allowed for depreciation £695,000, which was something like five per cent. Well, from his (Sir T. Smartt’s) experience of the Cape Railways, he was convinced that the capital amount of the rolling-stock on the books of the railways was far in excess of the actual value of the rolling-stock. He had asked the Minister to get. The Railway Board to go fully into the question, and to have the rolling-stock absolutely valued and certified to by each responsible officer. Until that had been done, it was impossible for the House to give any expression of opinion as to whether 5 per cent, on the capital account of 13½ millions was anything like an adequate provision for depreciation. His view was that it was nothing like adequate. He remembered that in 1900 he instructed the Cape Railway Department to value the rolling-stock, and the result was that the value was found to be £600,000 or £700,000 less than it appeared in the books of the railways. He was perfectly sure there must be thousands upon thousands of pounds of rolling-stock which was useless, and which was put in here to swell the capital account on the books.

They were earmarked for specific purposes. The money available was £280,000.

said that now his hon. friend had given the show away. (Laughter.) The sums he had mentioned had been spent, and his hon. friend would sec by a simple arithmetical calculation that they were considerably more than £280,000. The House had a right to ask where that money had been found, and if that money had been found, what were the circumstances which had actuated the Government in selecting certain specific lines and leaving the Butterworth-Idutywa lines. Theta he would like to call Mr. Sauer’s attention to another matter. He thought they had laid down an admirable principle in the Act of Union with regard to the railway rate reserve, and the Government was in an entirely different position with regard to that than a private company was. During the previous Estimates Mr. Sauer had £165,000 to carry toward the railway rate reserve fund, but now that amount had been reduced to £70,000. He would have thought that in a good year like that they would not have diminished that amount, and that, if anything, his hon. friend would have increased it, because he had sufficient experience of railway working in the country to know that they might again have a period of depression, so that the railway rates would, unless there was such a fund, have to be materially increased, which would seriously interfere with traffic. He thought that was a point to which his hon. friend should have devoted more attention, and he would like to know the reason which had actuated the Railway Board in writing that amount down to £70,000. In connection with the transportation system and the reason for its adoption, he thought they should have more information; although they had had some experience of it in the Cape Colony with regard to the Port Elizabeth-Avontuur narrow-gauge line, where they had appointed Mr. More as superintendent in charge of the line, and the change effected had been very marked, and had done the district very much good indeed. (Hear, hear.)

“ Ikona.”

His hon. friend said that they had a loss of £330,000 on their branch lines, but he did not think it was so large as that; and they would have been able to maintain the loss out of their own resources. Some districts of the country needed railway lines, if ever they were to develop agriculturally. (Cheers.) What the country must recognise was that they had no waterways such as they had in other countries, and the only way of opening up this country was by the Construction of branch lines in suitable districts where they would not be considered from the political point of view, but absolutely and entirely from the developmental point of view. (Hear, hear) These branch lines had not been absolutely fairly treated in connection with the Cape system, and the highest possible administrative charges had always been adopted against these lines, and they had not been or edited with the traffic they brought to the main lines. It had been the united credit of the country which made the building of these lines, as well as the line to Kimberley, possible. He was glad to hear from his hon. friend (Mr. Sauer) that branch lines should be constructed as cheaply as possible, and when he (Sir Thomas) in the old Cape Parliament had submitted a proposal that the engineer’s certificate need not be, necessary for certain branch lines he had not had the support of Mr. Sauer or Mr. Merriman.

Certainly not. Sir T. W. SMARTT (Fort Beaufort) said that when he had advocated the construction of cheap two-foot gauge development dines, he had not had their support either, and he had held that a cheap line in the Karoo was better than an unmade road. It was only by building cheap branch lines that they were able to cope with the development of the country, and if they were going to build expensive branch lines and wanted saloons and the like, they would have to wait a long time before they could develop the country as it should be developed (Hear, hear.) In connection with the working of American railroads as compared with the working of British lines, and the enormous number of accidents which occurred on the former, to which Sir David Hunter had referred, they must take into consideration that conditions were entirely dissimilar, and that it was impossible, in a new country like America, that they could have embarked on the same policy which had been adopted in Britain. In a new country they must begin cheaply, and develop and improve the lines as more goods were carried. He asked Mr. Sauer whether they would get some information about the new lines. (Hear, hear.) His hon. friend had always been a great stickler for constitutional principles and the rights and privileges of Parliament, but he had done a thing which in all his experience had never been done before, in the Cape Legislature, at all events. He had introduced a book with a blank page. Here was nothing and there was nothing, and out of it Mr. Sauer had constructed several railways. (Laughter.) It was extraordinary that the Minister should place upon the table of the House a statement with regard to railway construction which gave the total amount to be spent, but which contained no information whatever as to where the proposed lines were to be constructed. The question of railway construction was of the greatest importance, and the House and the country generally should not be placed at a disadvantage in the matter of the Government’s policy of railway construction, and for that reason he hoped the Minister would place a full statement on the table of the House without delay.

Perhaps it is not ready.

That I can hardly conceive is possible.

in replying to the debate, said that the question which had struck him most during the discussion on his motion was that the railway administration of the various Provinces was very had indeed, because hardly an hon. member had spoken who had not asked him to rectify; what was wrong prior to Union. Speaking for the Cape, all he could say was that its administration was not so defective as hon. members would like to make out. It was very difficult for him to deal with a good many of the questions raised by hon. members opposite, because some wanted one thing and did not want another, and others wanted this and did not want that. The fact of the matter was the Unionist party opposite were divided on almost every important question; there was hardly a question upon which they were not divided, except, of course, that they were “agin the Government.” In a large measure, the criticism which had come from the other side of the House had been answered by gentle-men on the same side. Well, he took first the question of the General Manager’s report. He was asked why was not the General Manager’s report here? Well, he did not know since he had sat in Parliament that the General Manager’s report was presented within the time that had elapsed since the last calendar year. He took the case of the Cape, when it was a separate administration. He found that for the three years immediately preceding Union the General Manager’s report was not introduced before the end of May, and generally in June. He was sorry that the hon. member for Durban (Sir David Hunter), who had grown eloquent on the subject, was not in his place, because he had found that the last report presented to the Natal Parliament by the hon. gentleman as General Manager of the Natal Railways, which was the smallest of all the administrations, was not presented until July. (Ministerial “Hear, hears.”) He was also informed that the greet mining companies only published within the last few days their reports of last year. It was a practical impossibility to get the report out as suggested by hon. members. Well, some of the questions which had been raised, he took leave to say, would perhaps be more appropriately dealt with in Committee of Supply, and as he did not wish to detain the House, he would only deal with the more important matters raised. There were one or two matters in regard to rates, to which he would like to refer. The hon. member for Granff-Reinet had referred to the rates on cement—(hear, hear)—and another horn, member had referred to the rates for galvanised iron. With regard to galvanised iron, the’ old rate from East London to Aliwal was 5s. 9d.; now it was 4s. Galvanised was 5s. 8d.; now it was 2s. 9d. He hoped, therefore, the hon. member would be satisfied. Of course, there were people who were never grateful for any reduction, and he was quite sure that it would be difficult to satisfy the majority unless they ran the railways at rates which were non-paying. (Opposition “Hear, hears.”) Now, he came to the question of cement. Cement used in the construction of dipping tanks was subject to a rebate of 33 1-3 per cent., and cement used in the construction of permanent irrigation works was reduced to one penny per ton per mile. So far as the people engaged in the construction of irrigation works were concerned, they would not have to pay much more now than they did in the past. He would go on to deal with a few of the other questions raised. Hon. members had asked: Why had not the Railway Board reported on this and on that? (Hear, hear.) Well, the Estimates which the House had before it were framed in consultation with the Board, and the rates which were recently enforced were determined by the Board. (A VOICE: “Shame,” and laughter.) All questions of importance came before the Board, and were determined by the Board. Hon. members opposite asked: Why doesn’t the Board send in a report? Well, he would like to say he found in connection with the C.S.A. Railways that there was a Board of which some hon. members opposite were members, and it never sent in a report to Parliament. Personally, he saw no objection to the Railway Board presenting a report, but the Estimates had been framed, the rates fixed, and all important questions determined by the Board He had been asked: Are you going to waste money on betterment without reference to the Board? If hon. members had looked at the papers laid on the table they would have found that they actually stated that the Board approved. No money had been, or would be spent on betterment before being approved by the Board.

Is the Board satisfied with the amount?

I have told the hon. gentleman that the Estimates have been before the Board. I have stated before to the House that no expenditure of any kind would be incurred unless these specific items were before Parliament. Continuing, the hon. member said that at the same time it was absolutely necessary to spend money on certain urgent expenditure in the interests of the public and railway interests, and the Railway Board were quite willing to take the responsibility for this expenditure, and then come to Parliament for the authority to spend. The hon. member for Yeoville the other day in a speech that was faintly reverberated in the building, and which was dwelled upon by the newspapers as if the hon. member were a Mirabeau and Chateaubriand rolled into one, made an extraordinary statement. He (Mr. Sauer) was very glad to see that there was a large number of people who were not going to see that railway development was stopped because the Witwatersrand people were satisfied with their railway development. He had never heard in his life a more outrageous statement than that they must stop the railway development of this country because the Witwatersrand Mines were satisfied with their railway development.

Stick to facts.

I never heard a more cynical announcement.

I never said it.

said that was the conclusion he took from the hon. member’s speech. What the hon. member said was that if they were building branch lines and they did not pay, they must make the people pay through whose districts they passed. He never heard anything so outrageous. He (Mr. Sauer) had always said that when they built these branch lines they must go slow, and it was very frequently the case that people when they got these branch lines were more unhappy than they were before, but he agreed with his right hon. friend the member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), when he said that they should build these branch lines as Cheaply as possible, and as many as they could, where there was a reasonable prospect of the development of the country. They must not complain also if they put old rolling-stock upon these branch lines. The proper place to use this rolling-stock was upon the branch lines, instead of scrapping it. The hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) referred to a decrease in the railway traffic and in the increase at the ports. The reason was that a good many ships called at the ports that did not bring any cargo. Then there was the question of the Knysna sleepers. The question of these sleepers had been gone into, and the remarkable thing was that they were found to have lasted very much longer than had been supposed. One of the officials, in fact, said they were very much better than Australian sleepers. The sleeper did better in some parts of the country than others. In some parts it would appear that it was as good as the Australian sleeper. There were some of these Knysna sleepers that had been used for 17 years. They had been examined now, and found to be perfectly sound. (Hear, hear.) That being so, his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) would see that at present it was not perfectly clear that if was a loss; in any case, if it were found to be a loss, it would be infinitesimal. It was quite possible it may be found that when used in certain parts of the Union this sleeper was as good as the ordinary sleeper.

There was an Order in Council.

Yes; but the position of the present Beard is quite different from that of the O.S.A.R. Board. Proceeding, he observed that it had been said that it looked as if he used the Board to screen himself. That was not so. That was not his way He was prepared to take responsibility and fight it through, if he could; and if he could not, it was in the day’s march. But what was the position? It was said to him a few days ago in the lobbies that the Board was there to manage and control the railways, but if anything went wrong, the Minister of Railways would be answerable If the Board did a certain thing, and the Minister disapproved of it, what were they going to say? They said that they put in that clause, which made it subject to the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council. If that were so, then they must bear in mind that they could not have that control and management of a Board that they could have if they had not had that proviso. That made all the difference between this Board and Boards which existed in other parts. The Board and himself, as they knew one another (better, began to recognise, he wouldn’t say each other’s defects, but each other’s qualities, and he saw no reason why the Board and himself should not be able to work very harmoniously in the onerous duties which were imposed upon them. But if members of Parliament were anxious to foment dissension, and come there with ill-informed information and give it to Parliament, and incite a sort of difference, he did not know where the end would be. In regard to the new lines of railway, he consulted the Board. He did all that the Act of Union required of him.

It says that the control and management shall be exercised by the Board.

I have been trying to say so. Proceeding, he said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger)—who was so fair-minded that he ought to sit on the cross-benches — said, “Why not lay the report on the table of the House?” He (Mr. Sauer) only got it the day before yesterday. He was not going to ask Parliament to vote two millions of money before they had particulars before them. Before he asked them to vote this money, he was going to give them the report, and tell them what the lines were. He wanted to say again that on all the big questions, and generally, as he understood the position, he had consulted the Board. He did not want to say that the Board and he had always been in accord on every point. They might give different interpretations even to the meaning of the South Africa Act. They had differences of opinion, but that had not prevented them from working together. Now he came to a very important question, and that was the question of capital. The hon. member for Uitenhage was very transcendental yesterday about the Supplementary Estimates, and he (Mr. Sauer) did not know what) and he was sorry to see the fall afterwards when the hon. member referred to the position of some of his unfortunate constituents, but he also raised the important question of the capital account of the railways. They were asked to say right off what it was. The Minister of Finance, when he dealt with this question, distinctly said he was speaking from memory—that the question of the capital account of the railways was not settled, because of the different views held by the Railway Administration and the Treasury, that it was being gone into, and that as soon as possible it would be settled. As to railway capital, he took it that that included all outstanding loans, all loans redeemed out of general revenue, and all amounts paid out of general railway revenue on behalf of the railways. Against that they must put the railway surpluses supplied to general revenue, and railway surpluses out of which they had built railways. He was surprised that a man of figures did not see that it was not quite so easy a matter to get an exact statement. For some time past the Treasury and the Railway Administration had been busy with this matter. In the Estimates, it was said it was not quite determined what the interest on railways was to be in future. The principle had been determined, and now it was a question only as to the amount.

What principle?

The principle I have read— contained in Sir Thomas Price’s letter. Now, he continued, what was the position? In the first place, he would ask the House to hear in mind that there was what was called a Coal Combine in the Transvaal; needless to say, he wished that it were not a combine; but he wished the coal industry of the Transvaal, as well as every other industry, every success, and from what he could hear they did not make that profit which some other mines did in the Transvaal, and something more would be desirable. Still, the fact remained that there was a combine, and it embraced all the coal which was nearer than the Breyten mines, so that the former were in a position to charge anything they chose, and if the Ermelo district were not brought into competition this combine would charge what they liked.

It is absolutely incorrect. You ought to know.

I ought to know. I prefer the authority I have, which tells me that I cannot get coal cheap unless I go to the mines beyond the existing mines in the combine. The position was that unless I was able to do so, and come to an arrangement with a company other than the combine, we would have had to pay very much more for the coal than we do to-day. Last year, before the contract was entered into, and there was no possibility of bringing other companies into competition, the result was that we had to pay 5s. per ton for coal, but since these companies, have come in we have got coal for 3s. 8d.; 4s. from the combine, and a large quantity at 3s. 8d. from the Breyten mines. I consider this extremely good business, and if I had not done it we would have been entirely in the hands of the combine, and paid very much more for the coal than we do now. Under these circumstances I think I was justified in the public interest in entering into a contract by which the railway got coal at a much cheaper rate. Mr. Sauer went on to say that they did not give the cheaper rate to one company alone, but to the area. (Hear, bear.) They gave it to all the mines there. They did not do it for the coal alone, but for the cement, too, There had been a rate which enabled the Daspoort Cement Co. to compete at Jagersfontein, and the company at Fourteen Streams to compete at Johannesburg. Dealing with an article by Mr. Duncan in the “South African Railway Magazine” on railway rates, Mr. Sauer said that Mr. Duncan there advocated that under Union geographical position in regard to railways had been destroyed. Geographica,1 position had now been destroyed, and for whose benefit? That of the public.

The motion was agreed to, and the House will resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means on the Railway Estimates on Monday.

Business was suspended at 12.58 p.m.

said he hoped the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Wessels) would not press his amendment. He had a great deal of sympathy with his amendment, and, personally, he would like to see introduced the system which the hon. member advocated. There were, however, practical difficulties in the way of accepting the amendment. One of the difficulties was that about one-third of the men who went up to the Rand went up voluntarily. Another great difficulty was that the facilities for ensuring examination on the spot were in many eases most defective. He pointed to the possibility of a labour agent in Pondoland bringing in a batch of natives for medical examination, and having to wait three or four days for the services of a district surgeon, who might be engaged elsewhere. At the Labour Bureau in Johannesburg, however, there was a very careful examination of every man, and he hoped that the hon. member would be satisfied with that. With regard to the other amendment by the hon. member for Ermelo (General Tobias Smuts), he would ask him to consider if the clause did not satisfy him?

said he considered that both amendments were fully justified by the evidence given before the Select Committee, and he did not agree with the Minister that they were impracticable, There could be no doubt in the mind of anybody who had read the evidence that, in the interests of the country, and in the interests of the employers of labour themselves, this recruitment of natives far away from the mines should net take place at too early an age. The agriculturists could not pay the wages offered by the mines, and they had practically to fall back upon the services of the youths who were now proposed to be sent to the mines. He thought that, in the interests of all, they should try to work harmoniously, and that the restriction moved by the hon. member for Ermelo should be put in. From the moral point of view, the recruitment of natives under the age of 18 years was undesirable. He also agreed with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bechuanaland. He had received letters from the Transkei pointing out how often natives were sent away in an unfit state of health. Supposing poor creatures who were suffering from diseases of all kinds were sent up, and supposing they were rejected at the mine compounds, what was to become of them? It was not right to do such a thing, and they should not do it. He had never heard of anybody engaging bodies of labourers unless they were in good health. It was contrary to humanity and to the best interests of the country, and therefore the hon. member’s amendment was amply justified. He had seen natives examined at the ports, and the examination consisted of shoving a lusty tongue out, and the native was passed. Certainly it would be best if the natives were examined at the place of recruiting. When they paid these recruiters, they expected them to deliver the article sound.

said he had a great deal of sympathy with the examination of natives before they came to the Rand. Certainly, it would be to the advantage of the mines. In the case of the Portuguese it was possible to do this, because they were examined at the Frontier and at Johannesburg. He thought the clause as it stood should be accepted.

said in bringing forward his amendment he was thinking more particularly of the agricultural community. There was only a certain class of labour upon which a farmer could depend. A father did not want a boy of tender years to go and earn this money, but the agent came and talked to him and persuaded him, and that was what they wanted to put a stop to. He was speaking from experience. The natives were taken away from his farm time after time. A boy should not be allowed to jeopardise himself and knock about all over the country, and come back an absolutely demoralised being.

said if they looked at the clause they would see that a boy whose age was less than 18 was not allowed to contract for service unless his parents had agreed. Even then the Magistrate had the power to refuse to confirm the contract, if necessary. If a boy was found unfit he was returned to his home.

said if the man cost the contractor £5 he would be sent back to settle the debt. It was best if an examination could be conducted at the place of recruiting, although he had no doubt it would be inconvenient. He could not understand why they should want to water down the terms of the Rill, although the Bill in itself was had enough. (Laughter.) The reason why he put his amendment on the paper was because the labour agents were paid by results, and they did not care what class of boys they recruited, whether in sound health or not. It seemed to him that the proper place to make an examination was before the boys left the district. He would make it prohibitive for labour agents to take any but boys in sound health to the mines.

said that when his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) was Prime Minister, they tried this experiment by insisting upon medical examinations in the Territories. He found, however, that it was not satisfactory, and for that reason he abandoned it, and authorised his department to take other steps to carry out the medical examination. There was a medical examination at the Government Bureau. The boys were then taken to the mines, and they were again medically examined, and the recruiter was not paid his capitation fee until the mines had passed the boys as sound, and if they were not sound, they were sent back at the expense of the recruiter.

quoted a contract between a mine and a labour contractor, in which provision was made that natives found unfit for work had, at the contractor’s own expense, to be replaced.

said that the Minister had not answered his question in regard to advances.

said he assumed that the man who had given a native an advance, if the native were rejected must forfeit the advance. He could not say definitely, because he had not considered that aspect of the case

said it was a poor consolation when a man was brought before the Magistrate’s Court, and the Magistrate’s Court, in pursuance of the law, condemned him to pay.

thought that the provisions in regulations 22 and 23 as to medical examination were sufficient. As to the 18 years limit, he was of opinion that a native of 18 years was not suitable for underground work, because he was not fully grown. He moved that the word “apparently” be inserted before “over” in the amendment of the hon. member for Ermelo (General T. Smuts).

urged that a definite provision should be made in the Rill that the repayment of an advance made to a native should be dependent upon the native being passed by the medical inspector.

said he hoped the Minister would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Ermelo. He thought it was a perfectly good and sound principle to say that no native under 18 years of age should be recruited. He would like to see a stop put to recruiting, as it was now carried on in his part of the world on the farms, because already the young natives were getting out of menu and undisciplined, even with their own parents.

withdrew his amendment.

asked, in case a native was rejected as unfit for work, what security the Government had that the labour agent would return the boy to the place where he was recruited’

said he was sorry that the hon. member for Bechuanaland had withdrawn his amendment, because he conceived that a grave situation might arise.

asked whether the hon. member was in order in discussing an amendment which had been withdrawn?

I am expressing regret that the hon. member has withdrawn it.

You cannot do that.

said he objected to the amendment being withdrawn.

put the question that, with the leave of the House, the amendment be withdrawn.

I object to that.

moved that the following be a new sub-section: “(c) In respect of the contract of any native labourer medical proof shall be given to the satisfaction of the attesting officer that such native labourer whose contract is to be attested is in sound physical health, and upon failure to produce such proof every such contract shall be considered null and void.”

moved: To add after paragraph (b):“ (c) No contract shall be attested between any person and any natives obtained or received by him or on his behalf in contravention of the provisions of this Act.”

moved to insert “apparently” after “attested is.”

The amendments proposed by the Minister of Native Affairs in sub-section (1), and the amendments proposed by General T. Smuts, Mr. Schreiner and Mr. Mentz, were agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Wessels was negatived.

moved a new sub-section (c) as follows: “In the case of natives recruited for underground work at mines on the Witwatersrand, no contract shall be entered into for a period of more than six months.” The mover said that if natives were employed underground for more than six months at a time, the risk of contracting miners’ phthisis was considerably aggravated.

said he could not accept the amendment. Government could not tie people down as to the length of time they should work. It was preposterous.

pointed out that the white miners were not under a contract as to the length of time they worked. Natives suffering: from phthisis should be allowed to leave the mines at once.

said the amendment would be futile, as there would be nothing to prevent a native re-engaging at the end of six months.

said a large number of natives deserted from the mines, and it was obvious that they did not do that without reason.

drew Mr. Sauer’s attention to the following evidence given before the committee on the Native Labour Regulation Bill by Mr. J. T. McKenzie: “Do you know that from some stations on the Natal line some of the ‘boys who go up to the Rand are Cape Pondos?—Yes. Is there any difference in the fare paid by Pondos and by Natal hoys?—Yes. The one is 19s. 6d. and the other 30s. 6d. from the same station Do you know any reason why it should be so?—For political reasons. I went to see the manager, and asked him why he made this difference. It was to prevent men going to the Rand.” If that statement were true (proceeded Mr. Merriman) it demanded some explanation.

replied that the matter was being looked into. If he found that the statement were correct his hon. friend would have no need to draw his attention to it again.

said natives would not go to the mines for a longer period than six months. He agreed that natives should not work longer on the mines than six months. It would be a splendid thing if the white miners could be persuaded to return to their homes after six months, for then the House would not be bothered with so many Bills. (Cries of “Oh.”)

The amendment of Mr. Fawcus was negatived.

The remaining amendment moved by the Minister of Native Affairs was agreed to.

On new clause 14,

moved as an amendment, after the word “native” to insert the following: “who has been lawfully recruited to desert or repudiate having been so recruited, or ”.

moved to insert after “headman”: “or owner of the land on which the native resides,” and “or” after “induna.”

said that there was much to be said for Mr. Creswell’s amendment, and he would give what support he could to it.

said that he thought it was necessary that there should be a new sub-section to prevent liquor being sold or given to secure native labourers under that measure. He moved: That the following be a new subsection, to follow sub-section (a), viz.: “(b) Sell, give, or supply intoxicating liquor to any native for the purpose of securing native labourers.”

said that it was not necessary to have it, and he could not accept it. Due provision was made for dealing with misconduct on the part of recruiters.

Is the Minister going to accept my amendment?

Mr. Burton shook his head.

Is that the Minister would say why he would not accept his amendment. He could not see why it should be a criminal offence for a native to break his contract. It was a civil matter. If the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) broke a contract, he would be civilly liable, and could be sued for damages.

Unless he is a British seaman.

replied that a British seaman was under special discipline, and, inter alia, British seamen were, he thought, the worst paid white men anywhere in the world.

said as the Minister had declined to accept the amendment, he would like him to give some reason for departing from the principle laid down in the clause. The whole object of the clause was to prevent undue influence being brought to bear upon the labourers, and he saw no reason why the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jeppe should not be accepted.

considered that the amendment was unnecessary for the state of things they were dealing with. They had not the slightest evidence to show that landowners would exercise undue influence in the interests of recruiting

said that the owners of large farms upon which natives resided had as much or greater power over these natives than the chiefs had, and it was easy for them to exercise their influence in the interests of recruiting. He thought the amendment was necessary. Even though the Minister had no evidence to the effect that such pressure had been brought to bear, it was reasonable to suppose that it might be.

said he would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell), not because he thought it was a sound one, but because he wanted to get on with the Bill.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Schreiner was negatived.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Creswell, Mr. Mentz, and an amendment by the Minister of Native Affairs, to omit “or undertake or attempt to recruit or procure for employment,” were agreed to.

On clause 16,

The amendment in line 51, to omit “shall” and to substitute “may”, was agreed to.

On clause 17,

moved: In line 57, after “labourers” to insert “in any labour district.”

Agreed to.

On, clause 18, powers, duties, and jurisdiction of inspectors,

said it was, perhaps, idle to press his opinion on the Minister, but if be really desired to see that these inspections were fair, it would certainly be wise to separate the functions of these officers, so that officers who inspected the mines should not be allowed to try cases and exact fines.

said it was their desire to separate those who inspected the mines and those who exercised judicial functions. The Bill provided for the appointment of judicial inspectors, who would have nothing to do with the administration.

I don’t think you have gone much further than you did in the Mines Bill. Where are the separate inspectors? The real object of the Bill is not to protect the natives, but to facilitate the recruiting of native labour to carry on the recruiting without paying the price for it.

said that really was a most unjust statement. They found this recruiting in progress. Everything that had been done since the old Transvaal Government came into office, and since the Cape Government had any connection with it, was in the direction of trying to ameliorate the conditions of the people there. So far from this assisting recruiting, it had to a certain extent thrown obstacles in the way of helter-skelter recruiting, and these obstacles had been, he must say, perhaps reluctantly, but most fairly, met by the people who were interested. They did not like this class of labour, but it was there, and what they had got to do now was to try to regulate it as far as possible. All the reward that his hon. friend (Mr. Burton) got for his efforts was abuse by the hon. member and his colleagues on the cross-benches. Mr. Merriman referred to the severe restrictions imposed upon white seamen while at sea. This Bill, he said, was a vast advance on anything they had had before, and it was entirely in the interests of the natives, and, incidentally, of course, of the mine-owners.

said that he took the strongest exception to the right hon. gentleman’s comparison with merchant seamen and seamen generally. He know perfectly well that a very rigid discipline was necessary for the safety of life at sea. Such a necessity, however, did not arise in the present case.

No; not with aborigines.

The right hon. gentleman, who has very liberal ideas, I am sure, would be delighted to see the same laws affecting seamen applied to every other path. We don’t want to see these restrictions on personal liberty to go one iota beyond the limit which the necessity of the calling requires. “We are not,” he declared, “going to be called unjust; we are perfectly consistent, and. I am sure that the next few years will show you that we have been in the right.”

The clause was agreed to.

On new clause 19,

moved to add the following new sub-section, viz.: “(4) Nothing in this section contained shall be construed as depriving a Magistrate of jurisdiction to try such offence and to impose therefor penalties not exceeding the penalties mentioned in section 14.”

objected to the principle.

The amendment, was agreed to.

New clause 20,

moved: In line 58, to omit “this,” and to substitute “the preceding.”

Agreed to.

moved: Before this section to omit “General and Miscellaneous” and to substitute “Compensation”; in line 18, after “injury,” to insert “or for which he was”; and in line 20, after “event of” to insert “permanent.”

said he did not object to natives or anyone else being compensated, but the question was whether the proposed, method was the best one to adopt. It was unwise to deal with the question of compensation piecemeal, and it would have been far better to attack the question by a consolidating Act, and, if necessary, hold the matter over for a year. So far as the mining people were concerned, they were not in any way opposed to paying compensation, and the mining companies had voluntarily been paying compensation. But other employers and the railways had never thought it wise to pay one shilling in compensation. Continuing, Mr. Chaplin said that he did not think any harm would be done if the matter stood over for a consolidating Act. Here they were going to embark on that matter of compensation and extend the liability of compensation; they were going to add to the burden, for what it was worth, upon the industrial population, when this clause was passed, and upon the employers of labour unless they were engaged in farming or engaged in horticulture. He was not going to object to the principle, but he did suggest that if a different standard of civilisation was arrived at it was a question whether that clause should be adopted without further investigation. The only consolation was that as it became known that, the natives were liable to compensation it would have its effect on recruiting. In conclusion, he moved in line 13, after “permanently” to insert “totally”; and in line 24, after misconduct,” to insert “as defined by section one of the Transvaal Act No. 36 of 1907.”

said that, speaking generally, white and black labourers should be exactly on the same footing, but when they came to investigate the question on its merits they found that that position could not be maintained. If an aboriginal native were killed there was no burden on the community, and therefore he was, against compensation being paid in such a case. But when a native was injured he became a burden and a nuisance. On these grounds he supported compensation in case of injury, but not in case of death.

said he was very glad that provision had been made for compensation to natives. If there was one clause upon which they could all agree it was this clause. He was glad to know that the hon. member for Germiston had been converted to the view that compensation should be paid to natives for injuries received. There must be some definite basis of compensation to natives. He agreed that the Workman’s Compensation Act should apply to the native as well as to the white man.

said he was entirely opposed to compensation being paid to Kafirs, because it had never been done before. If once they started paying compensation to any natives at all the system would afterwards be extended to natives on farms, and he felt it his duty to warn hon. members against the clause. The mines were already paying compensation to natives, and there was no necessity for the clause. He wished to move its deletion.

said that the hon. member could vote against the clause when the question was put.

said that the clause would not lead to compensation having to be paid to natives working on farms. He was not in favour of applying the Workman’s Compensation Act to natives, for whom a special should be made.

The several amendments were agreed to.

moved: Before this section insert the following heading: “General and Miscellaneous,” and in sub-section (h), line 2 (page 14), to omit “the execution and attestation of contracts of natives so recruited ”; on page 14, in line 48, after “Union” to add: “and in the case of the Province of the Orange Free State the regulations may provide that native labourers, notwithstanding the repeal of Ordinance No. 28 of 1907, shall continue to be exempt from payment of poll tax and from any law relating to residential passes and shall continue to pay registration and hospital fees not exceeding the fees prescribed by the said Ordinance.”

said he desired to move an amendment which he was unable to carry in committee, and that was that the Government should have the power to establish the compound system, as it obtained at Kimberley and the Premier Mine.

Oh, no.

His hon. friend said “Oh, no.” Had he read the evidence before the committee? Proceeding, he said he did not think there was anything more horrifying than some of the evidence that had been given. Nothing could be more horrible than that natives had opportunities of having connection with white women, and afterwards come down and boast about it. How could they expect anything but the state of things they had heard about, when these natives had an opportunity of doing such things on the Rand. They were allowed about the town freely; they learned the white people’s vices, and then he was told they should not confine these natives and keep them as close as they did in Kimberley. It was for the good of the employer, the good of the native, and the good of the whole of South Africa that they should have this compound system on the Rand. The only people who would suffer would be the pimps, the brothel-keepers, and the canteen-keepers. He did not want, to do anything hurriedly, but he did want to give the Government power to make regulations for keeping these natives in compounds. How could the Government read the evidence, and not try and do something to stop this state of things? It was said they could not do this for trade reasons. What trade would suffer? Only the brothel-keepers and the canteen-keepers; these parasitical traders would suffer, but they surely did not want these to prosper. They read in the papers about the black peril, and where there was that peril, it was because the white people demoralised these natives. He would move, therefore, that the following be a new paragraph to follow paragraph (r) on page 14, viz.: “(s) The establishment of a close compound system similar to that obtaining in Kimberley and the Premier Mine.”

said he quite agreed with everything the right hon. gentleman said as to the undesirable influences at the large labour centres, and the effect they had upon the native character. His hon. friend wanted to put a clause in the Bill to say that no native should be employed in any mine or works in this Union unless he lived in a close compound.

I didn’t ask you to do that.

He proposes to give the Minister the power, and if he has that power it should he in the Bill. At Kimberley the natives are close compounded from the time they go in until they come out. That system, no doubt, is the best for the natives morally, and for the country at large. The same conditions prevail at the Premier Mine, but we know that there are special reasons for it in connection with diamond mines. But you have not got a principle like this in any measure in your Statute-book up to the present, and I hope to God you never will. You are starting to introduce a principle which is directly in conflict with the liberty of the subject.

Tut, tut.

You cannot pin men down in that way. I take no heed whatever from my own point of view of the practical hardship. I base my opposition entirely upon this, that I say you cannot, much as you would like to encourage this thing, put such a thing into one of your laws, and give the Government power to do it, for that is exactly the same thing in principle as putting it into our law.

I do not do this from humane motives at all—not in that sense at all—but I do it from motives of the protection of the white races in this country first; and, secondly, for the protection of the natives from demoralisation. I do implore hon. members to read through this evidence. I don’t believe that they have read this evidence of Mr. Mavrogordato; I don’t believe they have read the evidence of Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Stanford—how the natives go back from this centre of demoralisation, and boast that they have had connection with white women. How can you blame the barbarians for the crimes which they are led to commit— perhaps not so often as people would have it so, but, still, they do commit them. We are gradually causing the demoralisation of the whole of our native races by drink, and by these hideous practices. We have had evidence before us in that committee which ought to shock every European. It is a dozen times worse than working in the mines on Sundays. It is going to have effects which, if we don’t, take some steps to stop it, believe me, we shall reap the fruits of in the future. The children of those who are listening to me to-day will have cause to rue the day when their fathers did not take some steps to prevent this hideous demoralisation. I will withdraw the amendment now, and put it on the paper to move it on the third reading, in the hopes that hon. members will be induced to read that evidence, and it is their duty to read it in the interests of their wives and their daughters, because we hear a great deal about the protection of those who are dear to us. How can we expect them to be protected when we set about deliberately and shut our eyes to the effect of this demoralisation which is going on? (Hear, hear.)

said that the right hon. gentleman should have made this impassioned appeal on the second reading. His whole argument was contrary to the recruitment of natives under State auspices.

Not at all.

said that the right hon. gentleman wished them to go back to the position that they were going to carry out this Dill to its logical conclusion, and that was to make these natives slaves. He wanted to give the Government authority to lock up these people in compounds. The farthest they had ever gone in their law was to lock up criminals. (Hear, hear.) The compound system at Kimberley, and on the Premier Mine, was purely a matter of voluntary contract. As far as the Premier Mine was concerned, the law said that they should not lock these natives up for more than three months. The law protected the natives there from being locked up for more than a certain period. He thought this was a most extraordinary proposition to bring forward at the committee stage.

said he was not prepared to admit that the circumstances on the Rand were any think like what Mr. Merriman had represented. (Cheers.) Although very had cases had occurred, it was by no means the case that the general state of affairs was anything like as had as might be imagined from the hon. member’s speech. There were thousands of honourable traders, whose business would be ruined if the Kimberley compound system was introduced on the Rand. They did not accept the insinuation that because a man was a trader on the Rand, he was necessarily less honest than a trader in Cape Town or Port Elizabeth. Only a few years ago there were Chinese on the Rand, and the whole of England resounded with stories of slavery. But he did not remember that Mr. Merriman made the slightest protest against these attacks which were made on the Rand. The right hon. gentleman knew very well that the Chinese were treated exactly the same as natives were treated to-day, and had! exactly the same liberty. But he did not remember an occasion on which Mr. Merriman raised his voice in protest against the calumny. He (Mr. Chaplin) protested against the introduction of the system, which was unnecessary, and would work infinite injustice to a very deserving community. (Hear, hear.)

said that he had been asked by the Minister of Native Affairs to go on with this matter, so as to get an expression of the views of the House upon it. Let him warn Mr. Chaplin that if he persisted in not taking some steps in this matter, if he could not awaken the hon. member’s conscience by the evidence given before the Select Committee, a cry would arise in this country to stop this recruiting altogether. The country would say: “if you can’t keep your natives in order, if you allow these things to go on, let the consequences be what they may, we will stop that demoralisation and stop your recruiting.” Mr. Stockenstrom knew very well that it would have been quite wrong to have moved the amendment on the second reading, or to object to the second treading, at which time evidence had not been given as to the length to which this state of affairs had gone. Why would the natives be any more slaves than were sailors, who, when their ships were in docks, were not allowed to land? It was playing with the matter to try to find an excuse and to deaden their consciences about this hideous evil. (Hear, hear.)

wished to know if it were competent at that stage to introduce a provision of that kind? The provision did not seem to come within the scope of the Bill. Mr. Merriman brought the matter up in the Select Committee, and many of the members of the committee sympathised to the very uttermost with what he had said, but the point was that, trying to give Government these powers was like trying to sweep back the Atlantic with a broom. In his view, Government’s powers were too great, and a great deal of the evil was due to the want of proper local government on the Rand. He protested against the Union Government being saddled with the job; if Government had to undertake the work, the whole thing would be in just as had a mess in twenty years as it was now. The proper body to deal with the matter was a local governing body on the Rand.

ruled that Mr. Merriman’s amendment was quite in order. The title of the measure was “A Bill to Regulate the Recruiting and Employment of Native Labour.”

Not for the segregation?

That is my ruling. If you like, you can have the Speaker in.

regretted that Mr. Merriman had moved’ the amendment, for the matter had been debated in the committee as to whether the compound system, as it was in vogue in Kimberley, should be introduced. Mr. Merriman seemed to consider the interests of the natives rather than those of white traders. It would be a great advantage to the mines themselves to have that system adopted. The right, hon. member seemed to convey the idea that the whole of Johannesburg was a hotbed of vice, but that was not the case at all, and there were very many respectable traders. If the compound system were introduced, the whole of the shop trade would fall into the hands of the mining companies, which was undesirable. If the mine natives had to be kept in compounds why should not all the kitchen boys and Kafir servants of Johannesburg go there, too? (Hear, hear.) As to what had been said about Kimberley, they all knew how much trade was done before the compound system had been introduced, and how quiet things were now. He would certainly not be an favour of putting all the trading rights into the hands of the mines.

said that a good service had been, rendered to South Africa by Mr. Merriman by the amendment he had just moved, because it showed what would be the result of that artificial system, unless the natives were strictly compounded. The Minister of Native Affairs talked about the liberty of the subject; but, good heavens, let them look at the treaty with the Portuguese Government by which they practically paid 15s. 6d. for each native. The whole of the present system was artificial, and would lead to more artificialities. They (the Labour party) had in season and out of season been trying to prove that that state of affairs would be the ruin of any governing class in the country, and must ultimately be the ruin of the working classes of the white population. He ventured to say that the only people who were consistent on that subject were Mr. Merriman and themselves (the Labour party), but Mr. Merriman looked at the matter more from the native aspect, and they from the white aspect. If Mr. Merriman looked at it from the Latter aspect too, he would have been as bitterly opposed to the recruiting as he had been opposed to the introduction of Chinese labour. He agreed with Mr. Chaplin that it would be unjust and unfair to say that the traders on the Witwatersrand were scoundrels too black to be painted. That was not the case at all, and the majority were respectable men, as he could say from personal knowledge of them. If he had spoken intemperately against this measure during its various stages, he had done so because he was absolutely convinced that it was necessary for the country to take stock now of the policy it was pursuing with regard to State-aided recruiting. He considered that, instead of continuing the course they were now pursuing, they should take such measures as to stop the present state of affairs.

said that if this resolution had been brought forward at the beginning of the session, when there was time to discuss it, some useful end might have been served in educating the people up to the seriousness of the native problem in South Africa; but they were not going to get a solution by its being suddenly brought forward now. Nothing could illustrate the extraordinary difficulty of this problem more than the two speeches made by the hon. member for Heidelberg and the right hon. member for Victoria West. If the hon. member for Heidelberg objected to State-aided recruitment, with the idea of stopping this evil, then he must go a step farther, and if the right hon. gentleman wanted to compound the natives on the Rand, then he must go a step farther, and compound all natives. If they were going to deal with these evils, they must compound all. He had some knowledge of the Witwatersrand, and he said that the evils existed among semi-civilised natives in the town to a greater extent than among the natives on the mines. (Opposition “Hear, hear.”) If they were going to deal with this evil, where were they going to draw the colour line? And why go to Johannesburg, a thousand miles away, when the problem was at their very doors here?

In Cape Town?

Yes; but you will have to go very much farther than Cape Town to find the remedy. I absolutely despair of finding the solution in a hurry like this.

said that from 20 years’ experience of the Rand, nothing could be more exaggerated than, the description of the state of affairs given by the right hon. gentleman. The right hon. member for Victoria West had given an exaggerated idea of the extent of the evil which did exist, and he wished to say frankly that the evidence of Mr. Mavrogordato was altogether misleading. No figures were produced. He gave, as a police officer, only his impression. He admitted that the evil was bad, but he thought it was being remedied every week; and if the Minister of Justice would only see to it that the police on the Rand were in sufficient numbers, and were equipped and given proper powers, he said that the evil would soon be non-existent. They had got the same evil in Cape Town. They had only to walk down St. John-street. They had it in Durban also. But they could not stop it by means of a compound system.

said he was glad to see the position which the right hon. gentleman had taken up. He would like to point out that his proposal was permissive. It provided that if the Government saw fit it could establish the compound system. Of course, he believed it was impossible to have the compound system established on the Rand at once. Even at Kimberley the compound system was confined to the mines, and there were locations round about. The compound system was started there, not only to stop the theft of diamonds, but because of the terrible state of things that existed there.

put the question that the new sub-section moved by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) be adopted, and declared that the ‘“Noes” had it.

called for a division, which was taken, with the following result:

moved: In line 66, to omit “or engagement ”; and in line 67, to omit “or engaging or attempting to recruit or engage.”

Agreed to.

On clause 25,

moved: In line 10, to omit “therewith,” und to substitute “wherewith.”

Agreed to.

On now clause 27,

raised the question of whether the amendment in regard to Ordinance No. 28, 1007, of the Orange Free State, could not be given effect to in the schedule. He asked the Minister whether the time had not arrived when distinctions as to the taxation of natives in certain classes of employment should be abolished?

In is the intention of the Government before long to do away with all these distinctions throughout the Union, but we cannot deal with that in this Bill. I agree as to the necessity of uniformity in these things, and we intend to carry it out.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 28,

moved: In line 50, to omit all the words from “one month” to the end of the section, and to substitute “on a date to be fixed by the Governor-General by Proclamation in the ‘Gazette’.”

Agreed to.

On the schedule,

moved: To omit the word “refers” wherever it occurs in the fourth column, and to substitute “applies”; and in the second column, Orange Free State Laws repealed, before “No. 6 of 1906,” and “No. 28 of 1907,” respectively, to omit “Act,” and to substitute “Ordinance.”

Agreed to.

On clause 5,

The amendments were withdrawn.

The clause was negatived.

moved: That the following be a new clause 5, viz.: “No person shall recruit natives for employment by him or on his behalf upon any mine or works or for employment outside the Union unless he be the holder of an employer’s recruiting licence issued under this Act, and recruit in accordance with the conditions of his licence, the provision of this Act, and the regulations. No such licence shall be required by any person (a) who engages natives for employment in farming, agricultural, horticultural, or irrigation operations, or in domestic service, or in any shop or store, or (b) who engages natives at any compound of a Government labour bureau, provided such person is authorised there to in writing by the Director; (c) who employs not more than twenty natives at any one time.”

moved to include stevedoring in the operations described in sub-section (a).

asked Mr. Jagger not to press the amendment, but, looking at the clock, he would— in order to save time—accept it.

The amendment was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments.

moved: That the amendments be now considered.

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 4: to omit “or conductor,” and to substitute “conductor or runner, unless he be duly authorised: by licence or permit and,” and after “licence” in line.5 to insert “or permit.”

moved: In line 2, to omit all the words from “and unless” down to “issued” in line 3.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

moved: In clause 2, after line 18, to insert the following new definition, viz.: “‘ Employer,’ shall, in respect of any native labourer, mean the person to whom such labourer is registered under this Act or the regulations.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

The remaining amendments were agreed to, and the third reading was set down for Monday.

from inhabitants of Edenburg, for introduction of fencing legislation.

amid cheers, laid on the table the report of the Railway Commissioners on proposed new lines of railway, as follows:

read a list of the lines submitted to the Board for inquiry and report, and added that all these lines had been recommended by the Board with the exception of two. One was the Gairtney-Barkly Bridge line. The Board had found that it, would take about two years before a bridge was completed, and until that bridge was completed it was not desirable to go on with the railway. The other line not recommended was Volksrust-Wakkerstroom. The Board suggested that instead of the Fauresmith-Koffyfontein line they should proceed from Koffyfontein to Honey Nest Kloof. (Hear, hear.) The result was that, instead of £2,050,000 being required, they asked that the lines not immediately recommended by the Board should be taken off, and then the amount required to complete the lines was £1,733,000. To this, however, a further amount had to be added for the line already commenced, which would bring the total to £1,835,000 to complete the lines in respect of which they had intended to ask for a vote of £2,050,000.

said he would like to ask the Minister a question as to whether he had taken into consideration clause 130 of the Act of Union? That laid down the procedure to be adopted by the Board in the case of new railways which the Board did not think would pay—

said as could not allow a debate at this stage.

said he was not going to debate the Minister’s statement, but he wished, with the Speaker’s permission, to ask the Minister an important question arising out of what he had just said. The Minister would know that in clause 130 of the Act of Union provision was made in regard to new railways that if the Board considered that a line would not pay, they should present a statement showing what was the estimated annual loss and other information. Was that report included in this statement?

No, I am not clear that I am in accord with the hon. gentleman’s view of the Act. I think the Act has been fully complied with.

was proceeding to refer to the Act, but

said that this was not the proper time for such a discussion.

laid on the table the sixth report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts reporting the Public Debt Commissioners Bill with amendments.

The Bill was set down for the committee stage on Thursday.

moved that it be an instruction to the Select Committee on Native Affairs to inquire into and report upon the operation and suitability of the various laws in force within the Union relating to the settlement of natives on private property, and the necessity or otherwise of amending legislation.’

seconded.

Agreed to.

read the following letter from the Administrator of the Province of Natal, viz.:

Administrator’s Office, Natal, 6th April, 1911.

The Honourable the Speaker of the House of Assembly, Cape Town.

I have the honour to transmit the accompanying resolution, pasoed by the Provincial Council of Natal in accordance with the provisions of section eighty-seven of the South Africa Act, 1909.

CHARLES J. SMYTHE, Administrator.

Resolution: That in terms of section eighty-seven of the South Africa Act, 1909, this Council begs to recommend to the Parliament of the Union of South Africa the passing of legislation having for its purpose the granting to this Provincial Council the power to pass legislation for the granting and withholding of all trading licences in the Province.

moved that the sessional order, adopted on March 27, relating to the consideration of the Estimates of Expenditure during evening sittings shall, on the conclusion of those Estimates, apply to the Railway and Harbour Estimates, provided that if before that time the Railway and Harbour Estimates are under consideration at five minutes to six o’clock p.m., these Estimates shall take precedence for that evening.

seconded.

asked if it was the intention to lay on the table of the House the report of the Railway Board before the House went into Committee of Supply on the Railway and Harbour Estimates?

replied that there was no report from the Board, and he could not conceive a report possible. He could not lay on, the table a report which he had not got, and which he did not intend to ask for.

said the Board was the power which administered the railways, and the Estimates of Expenditure laid on the table were the Board’s Estimates. The Board should tell Parliament why it was tasking for this money to spend. How Parliament could authorise the expenditure without knowing what the (Board’s opinions as to this expenditure were he did not know.

said the Board had approved of the Estimates. How could it do any more?

said that the point was that the Estimates of Railway Expenditure were of an extremely sketchy nature. There were certain globular sums put before the House without any details, and it was necessary that the House should have before it some guide from the Board. In the Cape Colony, Parliament had the Railway Estimates in far greater detail. If the House was to do its duty in controlling the enormous sum invested in the railways of the country, it must have proper figures before it. The Railway Board was the constituted authority, and should give the House an explanation of this expenditure.

said the Cape House had dealt with the Railway Estimates in one single sum.

Never.

In one vote.

Never.

Well, my hon. friend’s memory must be dim. If he looks up the Railway Estimates, he will find there was only one vote. Continuing, the hon. member said he agreed it was well that there should be more detail, but it was unnecessary that there should be a report by the Board. The Minister was the chairman of the Board, and spoke as its mouthpiece.

said the Cape Parliament always had an appendix to the railway vote laid before it, which gave very great details. He thought it was necessary that there should be a report from the Board, and that the law required it.

read from the regulations of the Railway Board to the effect that the Board had to submit a report to Parliament.

said that it was absolutely laid down in the regulations, laid down by that Parliament, that the Railway Board was to bring up a report. Sir Edgar Walton was perfectly reasonable in asking for what he did. Mr. Sauer had; said that at all times he had consulted the Board, and that it had agreed to these proposals. Well, all he could say was this: he had examined the Board in the Public Accounts Committee on the Railway Bill called the Discipline Bill, and the Board in evidence practically admitted that that important Bill had never been submitted to them before it appeared in public print. No more important Bill could be produced for which the Railway Board should be responsible, than a matter dealing with discipline and superannuation in connection with the railways. Therefore he did think that, as there was such a divergence of opinion between the Minister and the Board, the least they could do was to ask for the report.

said that whenever any matter of great public importance was brought up there, he noticed some members, like Mr. Fremantle, always got up and referred to what had been done in the old Cape Parliament. Even if it had been done in the old Cape Parliament, what had it to do with them? and it was no justification for the future. Here they had certain rates fixed—he supposed the Board had fixed them—but they determined the whole trade of South Africa, and were they not going to know the principle on which they were fixed? Nearly £460,000 had gone in one direction. It might be perfectly right; hut upon what principle had it been done? What was the opinion of the Board? Really, if it were going to be a business operation at all, he must say that the Board must submit its annual report, for Parliament could not judge in any other way. The other day they had heard that £300,000 from the present year’s railway working was to go towards the revenue of the country—

It is the surplus of the past year.

One would like to hear from the Board whether that £300,000 might not have gone towards the reduction of railway rates? He went on to say that there were regulations which were quite conclusive on the matter. He must say the impression left on his mind was that, so far as the working of the system was concerned, which they had taken such pains to introduce in the Convention, it was an absolute and a total failure. There seemed to be no safeguard, and the whole thing seemed to be done in a spirit of autocracy. No one knew whether the Minister or the Ministry or the Board did it. At no other period of the Board’s existence was it more important that this should be laid down than at the period when they were starting. What had been the first thing? The transportation system. What did he know about it? As much as the most ignorant man in the room. He wanted to know something about it, so as to be able to do his duty; yet they had inherited that system—which might be good or might be bad—and had put it in force throughout the whole of South Africa. Not a single word had been said about it by the Board. The whole thing seemed to him as if they were working in the dark, and the terms of the Constitution had been wholly and calmly ignored.

said that it seemed to him that there had been a confusion of thought. So far as the ordinary Estimates were concerned, the Government had followed a strictly constitutional manner, but in so far as any proposals for new construction were concerned they were bound to lay the report of the Railway Board on the table. It was clear, from the Act of Union, that in so far as the Estimates were concerned, the Governor-General-in-Council was responsible; but if there were any proposals for future new construction, the Board should report thereon.

agreed with what hon. members on the Opposition had said, to the effect that the Railway Board should lay its report on the table. He was in favour of doing away with the Board altogether, because it was a secret body, not responsible to Parliament, and could alter rates and change times of trains, and so on, without Parliament having anything to say. It might even enter into contracts with coal mines without the matter coming before the House. Therefore, he was in favour of “scrapping” it altogether. (Laughter.)

said that he had had some experience of the Minister of Railways on Saturday, and as the whole of the House was present, and heard what he (Mr. Phillips) had said about the branch lines, and heard Mr. Sauer’s version, they would accept his (Mr. Phillips’s) view, and have the report direct from the Railway Board, instead of from the Minister’s lips. The hon. member quoted section 26 of the Act of Union, and said that it was intended that the Railway Board! should be set up as a protection to the country, and not swallow holus-bolus what the Government put before it. Thanks were due to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir Edgar Walton) for having reaised the question, and if the lapse were condoned by Parliament, then the Railway Board would cease to be of any consequence in the country, and he was sure that the opinion of the country at large would be that Parliament had violated in the very first session of Parliament the spirit and letter of the South Africa Act under which they were supposed to be acting. The Minister of Railways would have to bring more forcible arguments than he had to justify the placing of Estimates on the table without having a report of the Railway Board to back them up. The Minister had said that the Board had been consulted, but that was not enough. Parliament should have a report from it. (Opposition “Hear, hear.”)

said that there might be good reason why it was desirable that the Railway Board should make a report upon these Estimates, but he could conceive of no more unfortunate reason than the one the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Phillips) had mentioned, namely, that the Minister was not to be trusted to inform the House what was the opinion of the Board. Nothing could be more unfortunate or in worse taste. The Minister had informed the House that the Estimates had been approved by the Railway Board; that they were the Estimates of the Board. He (Mr. Burton) agreed with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (Mr. Orr) in his views of the question, and he could not help thinking that the request for a report from the Board on the Estimates had been raised owing to a confusion of thought as to the exact functions of the Board. He would say this—that to say that because the report of the Railway Board, which might be far from wishing it laid on the table of the House—

Why?

I don’t say they are. I don’t say they would be. I say they may. Proceeding, he said that it was absurd to say that the Railway Board ceased to exist because they did not get a report from it. The Estimates which were now before the House were the report of the Board, as the Minister had said. They had the report of the Board, unless they disbelieved the Minister when he said that the Estimates had been approved by the Board. Personally, he thought the discussion had been unnecessary. What was the position of the Board? It was constituted by the Act of Union to control and manage the railways conjointly with the Minister. That being the case, if they demanded a detailed report from the Board, they might as well say that they could demand from the Cabinet the details of Bills which came before Parliament.

said that he was astonished at the explanation given by the Minister of Native Affairs. He made a point that the Board might be far from wishing to have the report laid on the table of the House. They had, however, got regulations framed by the Railway Board under the South Africa Act, which set forth that the Board should submit to Parliament, through the Minister, a report upon the result of the previous year’s operations, and upon the probable requirements of the current year. The Minister had tried to make out that the Estimates were a report of the Railway Board, but the regulations showed clearly that the report was not meant to be the Estimates, because they would have said that “they (the Board) shall lay on the table of the House the Estimates for the current year.”

said that there was some doubt as to what were the intentions of the Government in this matter. He understood that the [Minister of Railways said that he had not got a report, and did not propose to ask for one. Apparently, it was his view that he was not obliged—

On the Estimates?

Yes. Apparently the Minister thought he was not obliged (he continued) to present a report to Parliament from the Board, as it was not in the public interest to do so. That was one view, whether they agreed with it or not. The argument of the Minister of Native Affairs was that the Railway Estimates which were before the House were the report, and he, therefore, did not take the same view as his colleague (Mr. Sauer). He seemed to think that in the Estimates they had got a report, and that they ought to be satisfied with that. He (Mr. Chaplin), however, thought that the House was entitled to know whether the Government intended to adhere to the view of the Minister of Railways that there was no necessity to bring up a report, or to the view of the Minister of Native Affairs, that the printed Estimates were a report, and satisfied the regulations referred to. There was no doubt that, according to regulation 19, which had been quoted, the House was entitled to a report of some kind.

said that so far as his recollection went, the provision of the South Africa Act in this connection was framed by the Convention in order to keep the Railway Board and railway administration away from party politics, and he could not conceive of a better way and a shorter way of bringing the Railway Board and the railway administration into politics than by this debate. His hon. friend (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) suggested that the [House Should have a report on railway rates, the transportation system, and all the details, which the Convention wished to keep out of politics, and which it tried to keep out of party politics by the creation of the Board, which was to control and manage the railways. He thought that if they were to have a report from the railway Board on every issue and upon the whole administration of the railway system, they would very soon find that the Railway Board was entirely unnecessary, and they might as well fight out every issue on the floor of the House.

That is what we are doing now.

But my hon. Mend wants that. Proceeding, he said that under the South Africa Act the railway administration was left to the Railway Board, which was asked under that Act to make a report to Parliament on one special question, and that was the question of the construction of new lines. (Cries of “No, no.”) The whole underlying principle of the Act was to invest the Railway Board with the administration of the railways, and to keep railway matters away from politics. He thought the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Phillips), who was a leader in that House, should not have done what he did when—simply under the influence of strong private feeling—he called in question the positive statement of the railway administration that these Estimates had the approval of the Railway Board. The hon. member should not have given that exhibition of private feeling. He (General Smuts) thought the more they kept the Railway Board and its working out of their discussion the better, and if anyone were to be punished, let it be the Minister of Railways.

said the Minister of the Interior had stated that if they had a report from the Railway; Board, that would be a way of dragging its decisions into the arena of politics, and then General Smuts said that the Railway Board was regarded in the same way that the Cabinet was. Why the analogy should, bold between the Cabinet and the Board he (Mr. Duncan) failed to see. It was not intended to entrust the Board with the power to decide railway policy, for that should nest with the Government. The management of the railways by the Board would not be impaired through the Board reporting to Government, nor would its usefulness be restricted: in fact, by so doing the Board’s position would be strengthened. Was the report of the Auditor-General to be withheld from the House on the ground that if it were submitted to Parliament it would be subject to discussion,? It was because the Auditor-General was independent of Government that he reported direct to the House. It was because the Railway Board was not a political body that Parliament could not allow it simply to be an advisory body to the Minister of Railways. (Hear, hear.)

said the whole of that discussion seemed to be uncommonly like the conflict between two knights as to whether the shield was silver or gold. It only showed the absolute necessity for an Act defining the powers and duties of the Railway Board. (Cheers.) Otherwise they might go on ad infinitum, one person saying they should do this, and another person saying they should do the other thing

said that if the Railway Board, by submitting a report on the past year’s services, brought that report within the purview of politics, the same argument might apply to the report of the General Manager of Railways which was submitted to Parliament.

The motion was agreed to.

appointed Sir T. Smartt a member during the absence of Sir S. Jameson.

said he desired to call attention to the great danger which threatened a large section of the Rand population as the result of the passing of that measure and Saturday’s discussion— a danger which had been brought appreciably nearer by that discussion. The Bill would carry out a policy which would be inimical to the people of South Africa, although they recognised it as a measure designed to reduce the evils attending the recruiting of labour. The policy which led to those evils should be reversed. It was thought that the Kimberley compound system had resulted from the necessity of checking the theft of diamonds. It would come as a very great shock to people to learn that that compound system was instituted largely to deal with the very evil which Mr. Merriman had brought before the House. The only safeguard the trading population had against the introduction of the close compound system on the Rand was the restraining influence of local opinion on the heads of the mining industry. The evil was one which could not continue. They recognised, with the right hon. gentleman, that these things must be put a stop to. He believed that if this system were continued public opinion throughout South Africa would say that they must either close compound these natives or they must do their utmost to discourage the recruitment of them. He need not say on which side he and those associated with him would cast their votes. They said that they would insist that the recruitment of natives should be put a stop to. They asked from the Government a distinct pledge before this Bill passed, that no assistance, no sort of countenance, should be given to the institution of the close compound system. He wished to protest before this Bill was passed against the policy of this State-aided recruitment, and against this hot-house recruitment of State-aided labour. He asked the Government to provide an efficient police to deal with the present evils, and that they should give no encouragement whatever to any attempt to bring in the Kimberley compound system.

said he did not understand what the hon. member for Jeppe meant

Nor does anybody else.

said that the hon. member for Jeppe protested against the institution of the close compound system on the Witwatersrand. There, he thought, they were all agreed with him. But then he (Mr. Creswell) went on to argue against any assistance being given for the recruitment of these natives. Well, they could not have it both ways. The hon. member’s position, it seemed to him, was most illogical.

Hear, hear. Running with the hares and hunting with the hounds.

I would not say that, but one really cannot understand his argument. Proceeding, Mr. Quinn said he thought it was unnecessary to make any demand upon the Government to say that they would not countenance the close compound system. He thought the remedy for the existing evils was that the Government should control this native labour in the strictest manner possible. If the Government went on doing that, the evils which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) denounced so strongly and properly on Saturday—evils which he (Mr. Quinn) thought were not so had as the right hon. gentleman depicted—would, he thought, disappear entirely in course of time.

referred to clause 12 (a), and urged that the age limit for the employment of boys on underground work should be made to harmonise with the Act which had already been passed, and should be changed to 18 years.

said that in the Select Committee they had a discussion—unfortunately a hurried one—with reference to the medical examination of recruited natives. Provision was made for the examination of the native at the port of entry, but he feared that the Bill did not clearly safeguard the native who, after being recruited and sent up, might be rejected on examination. He would suggest that a clause should be inserted to the effect that in the event of any native, on arrival at a labour centre, being declared unfit by the medical officer, such native should be returned to his place of residence at the expense of the recruiter, and that any advance made to him by way of inducement to engage should be forfeited. He could not move in such a clause now, according to the rules of the House, but he suggested that the Minister might move it in when the Bill came before the Senate.

was understood to intimate that he would do so.

said he could not understand why the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Quinn) and others opposed the Labour party in its efforts to resist the State-aided recruitment of natives, when they were opposed to the close compound system. In the prevailing conditions on the Witwatersrand, there was every inducement to crime. The natives were taken away from their women kind and close compounded, and it must inevitably lead to crime. It was inconsistent that those who opposed the close compound system should assent to the policy of State-aided recruitment.

said, that the close compound system was a direct result of the recruitment of natives.

said that really to hear Mr. Creswell talk in the way he had done that afternoon one would have supposed he had spoken on Saturday against the mine compound system, and that those connected with the mines had spoken in favour of it. As to the hon. member’s constant talk about introducing the De Beers system, and about capitalism and all that sort of thing, that had been going the rounds of the Labour platform for years. There was nothing in it whatever, and as for the hon. member’s reference to the great volume of opinion that was said to be behind the right hon. member for Victoria West, they knew how to measure that volume. Seven members had voted with the right hon. gentleman, and if Mr. Creswell had voted as his speech led the House to think he would vote, there would only have been eight. There was no question of anyone on the Rand proposing to compound the natives. Things would go on as they were, excepting that day by day conditions would improve.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

in moving the second reading, said the Bill was to give effect to resolutions of the House. The important parts of the Bill were sections 3 and 4. In section 3, it was provided that a duty, in terms of the resolution of the House, of ½d. per half-ounce should be assessed upon all cigarettes manufactured in the Union, whether from South African tobacco, imported tobacco, or partly from South African and partly from imported tobacco. There would be a surtax on cigarettes entered for consumption in the Union. In section 5 prohibition of manufacture of cigarettes except on premises licensed for the purpose), he had followed the machinery laid down in the Cigarette Tax Act of the Cape Colony; and it was laid down that every person who desired to manufacture cigarettes should take out a licence of £1. The reason for that provision was to make it easier for the Excise officers to deal with the tax. Section 6 provided that no person should be allowed to remove cigarettes from his licensed premises unless they were securely enclosed, and the “container” had been duly stamped. Section 8 provided heavy penalties for using or supplying unauthorised stamps or previously used ones. Section 10 gave Excise officers the power of entering premises where they suspected the law was not being complied with.

said that he did not intend to oppose the measure. The fault of a similar measure introduced by Mr. Merriman in the Cape Assembly some years ago was that no penalty clause held been included. Mr. Hull had not fallen into that error. He saw that no provision was made in regard to imprisonment without hard labour; and in no other country, he thought, was there a provision that if a man did not pay a tax he was to be imprisoned with hard labour. If a man kept wrong books, he would also be liable to hard labour under that measure. An Excise officer would be allowed to enter any premises where he suspected that cigarette manufacturing was going on; and he thought that these matters should be looked into. He considered that a warrant should be given before premises could be searched.

said that he supported the tax, but he would like to point out the extreme powers which Mr. Hull took: powers beyond what Sir Edgar Walton had referred to. An ordinary police constable might enter or search premises. Where there were licensed premises for the manufacture of cigarettes, he could understand it; but in the case of the ordinary storekeeper who sold cigarettes, a police constable could enter and look around. As to the matter of keeping books, he could quite understand that provision in the case of a manufacturer: but why should the man who sold cigarettes retail foe called upon to keep books?

said that, the burden of proof under section 12, in the case of prosecution, lay with the person prosecuted. Supposing in a club they were to expose cigarettes in a box on the counter, and they were being sold: how was it possible for the club to prove that the stamp had been fixed on the original package? He would like to know what the policy of the Government was with regard to sub-sections l(a) and (b) of clause 13. If cigarettes were imported into the country and not sold within it, were they exempted from the tax?

said that the matter to which Mr. Jagger had referred had been going on in the Cape for years past. As to what Mr. Nathan had said, could anything more be done to evade the daw? One could get a box to hold 12 cigarettes and always keep 10 in.

It’s the principle.

When you come down to ha pennies, the principle is not worth studying. (Laughter.) I do think that there is some point in what the hon. member for Cape Town has said about every constable having authority under this Bill to search premises.

asked whether the effect of sub-section (a), clause 13 ;(b), would not be that the manufacturer had to stamp cigarettes which were intended for consumption outside the Union?

agreed with Mr. Jagger as to what he had said about the provision in the Bill for the retailer to keep books.

in reply, said that with regard to the question of imprisonment, with or without hard labour, referred to by Sir Edgar Walton, he was prepared at the committee stage to consider that question, to see whether a change could not be made. There might, of course, be certain cases, where it would be necessary to impose imprisonment with hard labour. With regard to the question of the keeping of books, it had struck him that it was rather unusual to ask a retailor to keep books, but the object of the provision was to prevent arrangements being entered into between the manufacturer and the retailer, and he thought it was quite fair. He agreed with what the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Brown) had said, and he would amend the clause referred to in committee.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill read a second time. The committee stage was set down for Wednesday.

moved that order 4 (the motion to go into Committee of Supply on the Railway Estimates) stand down, and that Order 5 (the House to resume in Committee of Supply on the Estimates of Expenditure) be proceeded with. He said he thought it would be more convenient if the Railway Estimates were taken after the General Estimates had been considered. He thought that that was the course which had usually been adopted. (Opposition “Hear, hears.”)

The motion was agreed to.

moved to report progress.

Progress was reported, leave being granted to sit again in the evening.

moved the second reading of the Bill. He said it would be seen from the title what were the objects of the Bill. When the Bill was read a first time, it was agreed that it should be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Subsequently the Select Committee handed in its recommendations and report, from which it would be seen that very material alterations, and improvements he might say, were made in the Bill. He thought it would ’be well if he explained the Bill in the light of the amendments’. Clause one of the Bill had not been materially altered by the Select Committee, and it contained rather an important provision. It would be seen that power was given to the Government to raise stock within the Union to be known as local stock, and to raise stock in the United Kingdom, to be called consolidated stock. In anticipation of the issue of a permanent loan, there was a proviso under which the Governor-General was authorised to issue local or Consolidated stock, and be might, in anticipation of raising a loan, borrow money on the security of Treasury Bills. That was the first important provision of the measure. The Select Committee recommended the insertion of clauses making provision for the keeping of a register of local stock in Great Britain, and for the convertibility of local stock into bearer stock. The committee recommended the insertion of the following new clauses: Clause 2, sub-section 2: When stock has been disposed of or a tender has been accepted, as in the last preceding subsection prescribed, the purchaser shall, on production to the Department of Finance (hereinafter referred to as the “Treasury ”) of proof of payment of the full amount duo by him, receive credit in books to be kept for that purpose by the Treasury for the amount of stock which he may have purchased; and the books aforesaid shall be prima facie evidence of the title of any person in respect of stock of which he is entered as owner. The purchaser shall further receive from the Treasury a certificate signed by the Minister of Finance or by an officer nominated by him to that duty, and countersigned by such other officer as the Minister aforesaid may appoint, specifying the amount of stock for which credit is so given. Clause 4: Local stock shall be convertible into local stock certificates to bearer, and, as often as occasion shall require, such certificates shall be rein scribed as local stock. Local stock certificates to bearer shall pass, and the title there to be transferred by delivery of the certificates: Clause 6: Neither the Treasury, nor any agent appointed in its place as hereinafter prescribed, shall enter in a register of local stock, or be otherwise affected by any notice of any alleged right, interest, trust, power, or claim of or by any person in respect of any stock, other than the person entered in the register aforesaid as owner of such stock or lawfully entitled to be so entered in accordance with the provisions of this Act. In conclusion, Mr. Hull said that the committee, after full discussion, thought it would be inadvisable at present to make provision under this law for a general conversion of existing loans into consolidated stock. The whole of the schedule would fall away.

said it was rather unfortunate that they had not got before them the amended Bill— (cheers)—for it was very difficult, even for those who sat on the committee, to follow the thing as it now was. Was it proposed to have a London office for the registration of stock? That meant, of course, that they could sell stock in London, but they would fall under the clutches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would demand stamp duty on that stock. At the present time they could convert Colonial stock into consolidated stock in London. That appeared to be all they wanted to do. Under the new proposals, however, they would have two registers of stock in London—one at the bank, and also a local stock register at the High Commissioner’s office. Would such a register not subject people to the payment of the consolidated stamp duty of 2s. 6d. per annum in England? On the whole, the Bill was an improvement, but there should have been a schedule showing what Colonial Acts were repealed.

Is there any necessity to repeal Colonial Acts?

It is not Acts for raising loans, but general Loans Acts prescribing how loans should be raised.

Surely those powers lapsed on the passing of the Act of Union?

said that as the Bill now stood, one could register stock only in the name of a single individual.

said he saw no reason why a partnership should not be allowed to have stocks inscribed in their own name. He did not know of any law which prevented, say, the Rand Mines, Ltd., from being inscribed as the registered owners of stock. A partnership in law was in the same position as a company. In regard to the point raised by the right hon. gentleman as to the establishment of a register in London, he should take good care to find out whether the establishment of such a register would involve the imposition of a stamp duty.

remarked that it Would be rather an inconvenient thing to pass a law about this register, and then find out that they could not carry it out.

said he took it that his hon. friend (Mr. Hull) would make inquiries before he went to committee stage.

The Bill was read a second time, and set down for committee stage on Thursday next.

in moving the second reading of the Bill, said that in the absence of his right hon. friend the Prime Minister he might be allowed to say a few words on this Bill, although he must confess that he had no profound acquaintance with it. He believed that in the Bill on animal pests and diseases, which had already passed through the House, provision was made for the compulsory erection of dipping tanks. The present Bill was simply a Bill to enable owners to obtain a loan from the Government under certain provisions for the purpose of erecting these tanks. In the Provinces of the Cape Colony and Natal, provision was already made for such advances; but this Bill extended the provision all over the Union. He understood that the object of his right hon. friend was to extend the scope of this provision to some extent. On section 2 he intended to move an amendment, which would enable every owner who wished to erect a tank to go to the Government for a subsidy. The amount which might be advanced was what was necessary for the cost of the material, and so on, for the erection of a tank. The terms were 3½ per cent, interest, payable over a period of 10 years, and redemption spread over a period of eight years. His right hon. friend intended to move an amendment which would enable the Government to advance not only to owners, but also to natives in locations or reserves.

said that he was entirely in sympathy with the object of the Bill, but he would! point out that there was no limit to the amount of the loan in any one case, and there was no financial provision whatever in the Bill. As the Bill stood, he did not think it would be of any service to the Government.

Amendments will be moved.

said that in the Loan Bill there was provision for the erection of dipping tanks and East Coast fever, £45,000 and £61,000. In regard to the Natal Act on the subject, he thought it should be definitely stated in the Bill whether that Act was to remain in force, because if it did remain in force, there was a limit of £100 upon loans, and in other Provinces there would be no “limit to the amount which might be advanced.

thought it would be desirable to give Municipalities and other local authorities power to erect dipping tanks, so that tanks could be provided on Crown lands, where a large number of stock belonging to different owners grazed.

considered there should be provision on the lines of the Transvaal Lands Bank Act, so that a lower rate of interest should not be charged than the rate of interest on the loan raised for the purpose of making these advances.

said he was glad the Bill had been introduced, but he would like to know what provision would be made for people living on quitrent farms belonging to the Government. If the lease were over before the eight years for which the money was advanced had passed, what course would then be taken?

said it appeared that the Bill was to be administered by the department, who had to approve of expenditure—of the kind of tank erected, and so on. He thought that was a mistake. The experience in the past had been that tanks constructed departmentally had worked out expensively. He thought it would destroy the usefulness of this measure if they burdened the farmer with the necessity of having in every little particular to please the department.

welcomed the Bill, but did not think it went far enough. Public bodies should be included in the scope of the Bill. He referred to the recommendations of the Transkeian General Council on the matter.

hoped that the Minister would repeal the Act of Natal, which required 5 per cent, interest to be paid on advances for dipping tanks. They should make the rate uniform throughout the country. He, too, hoped local authorities would be authorised to obtain advances.

said the Bill was one thing which had been wanted to encourage the building of dipping tanks. He would like to know, however, what would be the position in regard to dipping tanks built in native locations, which were looked upon as Crown reserves. He thought the natives should be encouraged in every way to build dipping tanks.

asked whether the Bill gave sufficient security to the Government for advances made for dipping tanks?

while welcoming the measure, complained that it was somewhat too complicated, and this would stultify any good the Bill might effect as far as many farmers were concerned. Government should send plans of dips to farmers, instead of farmers having to submit plans to Government.

welcomed the Bill, which, he said, would fill a great gap. He hoped that the omission (of not including certain public bodies) would be rectified. He had made inquiries as to the cost of these tanks, and had been told that £50 paid for the construction of a very serviceable tank. He mentioned that because he saw that £200, £300, or £400 might by some be spent for a tank. When people borrowed money like that there was a tendency to be lavish.

hoped that Municipalities would be included.

hoped that the Minister, while making advances to farmers, should limit the amount to £50, for which one could construct a good tank. Personally, he had constructed one for half that amount. He hoped that the Minister would meet them in regard to some provision for advances to farmers for fencing, for dipping tanks without fencing were as good as fencing without dipping tanks. He spoke against the shooting of cattle, and said that it should not be done.

said that he did not like any opportunity to pass without making, an appeal to avert East Coast fever, and in the direction of compulsory dipping. He knew perfectly well that if one wanted to stop a veld fire, one headed it off. The best barrier for East Coast fever was to cleanse the country, and to get rid of the tick altogether. Personally, he would like to ask the Prime Minister for a million, and then have compulsory dipping—and, yes, for fencing. One million was not too much, and it would be repaid. As to what had been said about the cost of constructing dipping tanks, he thought that for £50 a good tank could be built, but he knew of a case where a farmer had not only put up such a tank, but also attached a heating apparatus, so that he could dip in winter. He did not think, he continued, that sufficient had been done to stop tick fever, and did not believe it would be done unless they had compulsory dipping. Unless a united effort were made, the disease would spread through the whole of South Africa. He had received a letter from Mount Fletcher, in which it was stated that the writer had seen a single fence, through which the cattle were licking each other. He believed firmly in fencing, and shooting might be necessary under certain conditions, but he agreed with Mr. Fawcus that dipping and fencing should go together. It should surely be no hardship to repay £2 or £5 a year. The money would be absolutely certain, and the country would be cleared for ever from that disease and the risk of many other diseases.

in replying on the debate, said that he agreed with Sir Percy Fitzpatrick that that was a very serious question, and that compulsion should be applied, where it was possible. Very large power had been taken under a Bill which had already been passed to apply compulsory dipping, and now it was simply a question of the Agricultural Department exercising that power.

I want money placed in their hands.

said that a number of speakers had raised the question, of specifications, and it had been said that private tanks were much cheaper, much simpler, and yet as effective as those erected according to Government specifications. Well, he wished to say that the Agricultural Department were considering the cheapest form of specification which could be considered effective. As regarded the charge constituted under clause 3, he agreed that there was much to be said in favour of the charge being made a first charge. There was also much to be said for another point raised, namely, that local bodies, such as Divisional and Municipal Councils, should dome under the provisions of this Bill.

And the natives?

Yes. Native locations, missions, and reserves ought to come within the purview of this Bill. Proceeding, he said that one important provision had been left out owing to a misunderstanding. He referred to the question as to where the money was to come from, and he understood that the necessary amendments would be moved. If the policy of erecting dipping tanks became universal, there was no doubt that it would prove a, very great blessing.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a second time.

The committee stage was set down for Thursday.

Before proceeding to the next Order, I should like to call the attention of the House to the following: On the 12th December, 1910, this House, by Message, transmitted to the Honourable the Senate the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Bill, which contained clause 31 dealing with the auditing of amounts of the Senate and the House of Assembly. I should like to point out that it would not be proper, in view of the decision then arrived at on that Bill, which is still before another place, to deal with clauses 12 and 14; and unless these clauses are brought into conformity with the provisions of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Bill as passed by this House, they must stand over until that Bill is returned to this House, or be expunged from the Bill under consideration.

said that he thought it was desirable that the correspondence which passed between the Controller and Auditor-General and himself, on behalf of the Government, at the time of his appointment should be placed before Parliament. He moved that clause 5 should stand down.

moved an amendment to the effect that the salary do not exceed £1,500 per annum. He reminded hon. members that there had been constant demands for economy from both sides of the House. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, had prophesied red ruin unless the country mended its ways financially, and he (the speaker) considered £1,500 ample. He could not vote for the present occupant of the office being remunerated at a special rate, because in doing so the House would be making a most invidious distinction by in plying that Mr. Gurney was a more capable man than his successors were likely to be. His third reason for moving the amendment was the Public Accounts Committee’s recommendation to the effect that £1,350—with local allowances—should be the maximum salary for any official. The Bill granted a salary of £1,500 plus allowances, and he could not agree to that.

The motion that clause 5 stand down was withdrawn.

hoped that the committee would not agree to the amendment. The gentleman who held the position of Controller and Auditor-General was appointed under the terms of the South Africa Act at a salary of £2,000. That was an agreement, and if the committee carried that amendment they would be breaking that solemn agreement. He (Mr. Merriman) need not mention what the result would be. The House easily could imagine it. We had an Auditor-General now upon whom we could thoroughly rely. They had every confidence in him. He was a fearless man; but, like the rest of them, sometimes he made mistakes. But they could thoroughly rely on him, and the whole interests of this large Union depended on the scrutiny and honour of the man who held the position of Auditor-General. It was one of the most important posts next to that of a Minister, and was almost equal to that of a Judge, and, in that respect, whether they paid £100 more or less, the great thing was to secure a man upon whose honour, probity, and integrity they could thoroughly rely. For that reason they would be striking a most fatal blow at the interests of this country, if they adopted the amendment, for if they did it would be one of the greatest mistakes that could possibly take place. He moved as an amendment that the salary be £2,000 a year.

said it would be convenient if he had read the correspondence. On June 28, 1910, he wrote to Mr. Gurney, stating that the Government had decided to appoint him Controller and Auditor-General of the Union, the salary of the office to be £2,000 per annum. On the following day Mr. Gurney wrote acknowledging the appointment, saying: “I beg to tender my appreciation of the confidence the Government have placed in me, and to express my determination to do my utmost to discharge the important duties committed to me in a satisfactory manner. Availing myself, however, of your kind permission to do so, I beg to place on record that, in accepting the appointment at a salary of £2,000 per annum, I have done so from a sense of duty notwithstanding my feelings that the sum is not adequate to the position and responsibilities, although all that the Government felt prepared to authorise in the absence of any Parliamentary vote. I am trusting, therefore, that Parliament, in considering the Audit Bill, will give the question of the Auditor’s salary careful consideration, when I hope that a larger sum will be approved.” Proceeding, Mr. Hull said that the salaries of the Auditors-General, prior to Union, were: Cape, £1,200; Transvaal, £1,800; Natal, £1,200; O.R.C., £1,000; while the railway auditor of the C.S.A.R. received £1,500. The Government, before offering the post to Mr. Gurney, considered the question of salary, and decided to fix it at £1,800. The offer was made to Mr. Gurney, and he (Mr. Hull) intimated to Mr. Gurney that Government thought that that was the salary that should be attached to the post. Mr. Gurney at once informed him that he did not think that that was an adequate salary, and that the Auditor-General should be paid not less than the highest paid official in the service of in Government, and that unless he got paid at that rate he would not accept the post He (Mr. Hull) pointed out to him that if that were his view it did not seem to him that they would be likely to come to terms. Mr. Gurney was perfectly frank about the matter, but he had not so much in view the salaries of the Judges— the Chief Justice was paid £4,000 a year— as that of the General Manager of Railways, which was £2,500. Mr. Gurney thought his poet should carry that, salary at least. After some discussion the correspondence that had been read took place on the understanding that when the Audit Bill was considered Mr. Gurney would have an opportunity of making representations with a view to a higher salary. As proposed by him (Mr. Hull), clause 5 of the Bill stated that the annual salary of the Auditor-General should be not less than £1,500, and not more than £1,800, except that the salary of Mr. Gurney should be £2,000. When the clause came before the Select, Committee on Public Accounts, the committee first of all decided to amend it by fixing the salary at £1,500 a year, plus a non-pensionable allowance of £300 per annum. Subsequently, the committee, on further considering the two letters he had read, made an amendment as it now appeared in section 5, making the salary in the case of Mr. Gurney £2,000. That recommendation was sent to the House, and he had received the following letter, dated March 29 last, from Mr. Gurney: “My attention has been drawn to the alterations proposed by the Select Committee on Public Accounts in section 5 of the Audit Bill, whereby my salary would be reduced to £1,500 per annum, but with the addition of a special non-pensionable allow once of £500 per annum. May I be permitted to point out that I was appointed by the Governor-Gonera1-in-Council, under section 132 of the South Africa Act, 19C9, as Controller and Auditor-General of the Union, with effect from the 31st May, 1910, with the salary of £2,000 per annum, and that in your letter of the 28th June, 1910, intimating this to me, I was informed that the provisions of section 144 of he South Africa Act, 1909, would be applicable as regards my previous official services. As you are aware, I accepted the post upon these terms, by my letter of the 29th June, 1910, although with some reluctance. I availed myself, however, of your kind permission to place on record that I had done so from a sense of duty, notwithstanding my feeling that the sum was inadequate to the position and responsibilities, although that the Government felt prepared to authorise in the absence of any Parliamentary vote, and I expressed the hope that Parliament, in considering the Audit Bill, would see its way to approve of a larger sum. It is, of course, evident that the suggestion of a larger salary does not commend itself to the Committee on Public Accounts, but I beg respectfully to submit that any reduction in the salary forming the contract would constitute a departure from the terms of the South Africa. Act, 1909, and would, therefore, be ultra vires. Moreover, the reference in your letter to section 144 of the South Africa Act, 1909, in regard to my pension rights, distinctly implied that the whole of the £2,000 in question would ultimately count for pension purposes. I trust, therefore, that the Government will be prepared to take such steps as will prevent the suggested amendments being adopted by the House of Assembly.”

said that under ordinary circumstances he should have had a good deal of sympathy with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rustenburg, although he thought the hon. member had put it too low, but in this case the committee were faced with a contract entered into by the Government themselves. Let them ask what that meant. The Government were especially empowered by the Act of Union to appoint an Auditor-General. They got the Auditor-General to Pretoria, and, after consultation, appointed him. There was no condition mentioned in that letter. They wrote a letter saying: “We appoint you Auditor-General at £2,000.” To his mind, that was final. If there had not been that letter, he thought they would have been prepared to discuss the matter. He did not think it was right or fair to discuss the question of a reduction of the amount in circumstances of that kind. The country was committed to that appointment. It was not a right thing to give a man an appointment of that kind, and then come a few months afterwards, and say: “No; we are not going to give you quite so much,” When later they came to consider the position and salary the Auditor-General should get, he thought a reduced salary would be a fair remuneration for other appointments, but he could not think that the committee would be acting honourably if they broke the engagement that the Government had made. He should, therefore, support the proposal of the Minister of Finance.

pointed out that no hard and fast contract had been made. Mr. Gurney had accepted the provisional arrangement, hoping that Parliament would increase the salary. Naturally, if Parliament was entitled to do that it was equally entitled to reduce it it seemed to him that the Public Accounts Committee had allowed themselves to become rather obsessed by Mr. Gurney’s personality, and he would support the amendment.

said that he was against high salaries, but when a contract was once entered into they must stick to it, and it was plainly stated on paper that the Auditor-General was to receive £2,000—as plainly as they could state it. Once they broke a contract like that they did not know what the consequences would be. Now they proposed to break their contract with Mr. Gurney because of the pension rights on the £500 which it was proposed to consider an allowance. (Hear, hear. )

rose at 5.55 p.m., but

pointed out that at this stage the debate must be adjourned

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

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

asked if the Minister proposed to bring in a Bill next session dealing with trademarks and patents?

referred to the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, relative to a surcharge made with the Transvaal before Union in connection with payments on account of salaries to officers of the Attorney-General’s Department, who were not eligible for employment in the public service, which surcharges had not been remitted or satisfied, and therefore required to be voted. If this was the proper time to bring the matter forward, he would like to know why this expenditure had been incurred. He also desired to know what steps were being taken to require employers to conform to the Transvaal Shop Hours Act in respect of their keeping books, giving certain details regarding the names of their employees, the times of working, and so on. There had been complaints about this not having been done, and he was informed that on a report being made to the officers in Johannesburg, the reply was that the officials had no time for that kind of business.

said that the Controller’s report and the statements made therein could he discussed when the report of the Public Accounts Committee came up.

agreed. He said that with regard to the question of trade marks, he might mention that he was already busy getting a committee of the best men he could to draw up a report, with a view to introducing legislation relating to trade marks and patents next session.

asked a question with reference to fiscal divisions.

said that he was considering a method by which once and for all the further cutting up of fiscal divisions would be done away with; and how he could meet the grievances of certain districts. (Hear, hear.) He could not, however, make a start before the registration was completed.

inquired as to the item, legal expenses, £5,600, and the question of the Medical Council in the Orange Free State.

replied that as to the latter he had nothing to do with it. It did not come under his department. As to the £5,600, that had to do with a great many things, such as expenses incurred in regard to certain cases. For instance, a sum of £1,000 had been paid only the other day in connection with the Walfish Bay dispute. Then there was Government civil work, and they had to pay the attorneys and advocates.

said that he had been informed that certain Civil Servants received a local allowance at Pretoria, and a subsistence allowance when they came to Cape Town. It had been represented to him that some of these officers were peculiarly happily situated in that respect; and he would like to know what the rule of the whole Service was.

replied that he could give Mr. Currey the assurance that when a man came to Cape Town he did not get a local or subsistence allowance; he got maintenance, if he left his family up there.

said that as to the question raised by Mr. Vosloo, there was some discontent in his district with regard to the boundary line of the proposed Pearston division. He hoped that the Minister would make a thorough investigation before coming to a conclusion on the matter. He said nothing with reference to the new fiscal division there.

said the hon. member was altogether wrong. He added that everybody was satisfied, and that it was not sought to include people in the new division who preferred to stand out.

What about the Medical Council?

The Medical Council has nothing to do with this: it does not come under my department.

The point is not that, but a question of a breach of law, which is being committed by a public body.

That comes under the vote of the Minister of the Interior. (Laughter.)

thought that, a breach of the law would come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice.

referred to the Eastern Districts Court and money being spent in connection with improvements.

said he would see what could be done.

said that he hoped the Minister would look into the question raised by Mr. Botha. If an illegal act had been committed, he hoped he would inquire into it, and take the necessary action. He wanted to direct the Minister’s attention to the fact that local allowances and transport, and travelling allowances amounted to £5,200, and that the vote for salaries and wages totalled £52,000. That was to say, that 10 per cent, of the amount paid in salaries was paid in connection with local allowances and transport and travelling allowances. Now, he wanted, to know whether the Minister himself had inquired fully into the necessity for moving Civil Servants about. Was it necessary for the country to spend £5,000 in moving these men backward and forward? He was of opinion, from what he had seen of other votes, that there was a good deal of unnecessary expenditure. He appealed to the Minister not to move men unnecessarily. If men were doing their work efficiently at Bloemfontein, Pietermaritzburg, or Cape Town, for heaven’s sake, leave them. He thought men should not be moved simply for the sake of a fad.

said that, so far as his department was concerned, only those whose presence was required, either in Cape Town or Pretoria, in the interests of the country had been removed. He thought he could say the same thing in regard to the other departments. Men were not moved about unnecessarily.

asked for an explanation of the amount of £450 which was set against maintenance of destitute children.

said that that amount was necessary, in consequence of Act 38 of 1901 (Natal). Under that Act, destitute children were given to private individuals or private institutions, and were paid for.

said he understood that Civil Servants, who had been transferred to Pretoria, and wanted their families to join them, were not allowed to come down at Government expense in order to take them up.

The vote was agreed to.

asked for some explanation of the amount of £4,515 for Clerks of the Peace in Natal, whose offices, he was given to understand, had been abolished.

expressed the opinion that it would be a good thing if the salaries of Appeal Judges were fixed by Statute.

asked for some information with regard to the reduction of the salary of the Judge-President of the Natal Provincial Division Under Act 12 of 1910 (Natal), the Judge-President’s salary was fixed at £2,750, whereas in the schedule annexed to the Estimates his salary was given at £2,500.

referred to the hardships suffered by jurymen under the present system. He pointed out that in some parts farmers had to travel long distances, and were only paid 5s. a day.

said he hoped the Minister would take into consideration, during the recess, the whole question of the administration of justice in this country. He had had access to statistics of the work done by the various courts, and it seemed to him that the Griqualand West Court was a luxury, and also that there was a duplication of Benches in Natal. He did not consider there was any force in the charge that the country was over-judged, having regard to the great area of the country. If they reduced the number of judges, they would have to have single judge courts, and the result would be large numbers of appeals, and a consequent increase in the cost of litigation. He thought that, considering the economical administration of Magistrates’ Courts, the jurisdiction of those courts should be increased throughout the country to the level in the Transvaal, and that, so far as possible, the status of the magistrates should be improved.

asked why the salaries of the Judges in the Eastern Districts Court were less than those paid to the Natal Judges?

asked for an explanation of two items in respect of “barristers’ fees and expenses ”—£475 and £3,350.

asked the reason for the increase of 50 per cent, in respect of Circuit travelling?

referred to the anomalies in the treatment of barristers in respect of criminal cases in which they conducted defences pro Deo. In a recent murder case in Cape Town a barrister, who spent seven days in court in defending one of the accused, got nothing. In Natal, barristers were remunerated for pro Deo defences, and he thought that the same principle should prevail in the Cape.

said that they had heard a good) deal of talk about the increase in the cost of administration, and about high salaries. Yet every appeal which had been made to the Minister was for higher salaries, and an increase of expense. He hoped the Minister, when he replied, would remember the taxpayer

said he hoped the Minister would consider the question of doing away with the system of jury trial in criminal cases. Apart from the great cost, opinion in the country was growing that the system should be done away with.

said he was opposed to the jury system in large centres, but trial by jury had been a success in small places in the country, and he would be very sorry to see it abandoned in these outside places. He quite understood that the difficulty was to ‘get a good jury. It was quite true that a jury might be misled by a certain feeling in a district, but he would rather see ten criminals released than that one innocent man should suffer. (Hear, hear.) His experience of juries, while on the Bench and as an advocate, was that they sometimes committed what were palpable legal blunders, but which, as la man, he could not help thinking they acted rightly. He admitted in a place like Johannesburg it had got just to the stage of being a disgrace, and he thought that steps might have to be taken to see if they could not get good juries, or whether they should not do away with juries there. The best men to serve on a jury were just the men that did not want to. The hon. member for George (Mr. Currey) had asked why there was an increase in the Circuits. The increase was only temporary, and no additional expense was involved. Then the question was raised with regard to the salaries of the Eastern District Courts. One thing he recognised, and that was the salaries of the Judges of the Supreme Court of South Africa should be similar. The puisne Judges should stand on one basis, the Judge-Presidents another, and the Judges of the Appeal Court another. It was one of the most difficult things that he had to deal with in his department, but before he would do anything he resolved to come to Parliament, so that it should be set, down in the law what the salaries should be. The result was that he did not want to raise the salary of the Judge-President of the Eastern District Court just then, but next year he hoped to provide for his salary, as also the salaries of the puisne Judges. With regard to the salary of the Judge-President of Natal, hon. members would remember that when Sir Henry Bale died, he (General Hertzog) decided that the salary should be £2,500, and he felt it his duty immediately to say to Judge-President Dove Wilson, that he was prepared to offer this position, provided he would take it at £2,500 a year. If Parliament found that the salary was not enough then Parliament could raise it, but he thought that should be the salary of Judge-; Presidents in the Union, making allowance, of course, for the increased cost of living in the interior. In regard to Judges’ clerks, he felt that they must try and effect some economy, and he said that in future when a vacancy occurred, no clerk should be appointed until such time as it was found that two Judges should have assigned to them one clerk.

said he saw that the Estimates had been prepared, as far as he could gather, on the assumption that the office of the Master of the High Court at Kimberley would be dispensed with.

urged that more Circuit Courts should be provided in the Territories for dealing with criminal cases, and complained that farmers in the district of Kokstad were required to serve on juries and spend three weeks or a month in dealing often with cases with which they had no earthly connection. There should be a Circuit Court in Pondoland belonging to the native districts proper, where they could try their own cases.

said that he agreed with what had been said about the jury system by the hon. member. It was ridiculous to expect a juryman to come in from a long distance and get paid but 10s. a day, when he had to get someone else, perhaps, to look after his farm. He hoped that the Minister of Justice would see that the jurymen were better paid. (Hear, hear.)

reminded the Minister of Justice that there was no distinction in Natal between members of the Bar and solicitors. Would the Minister give the assurance that he would do nothing to alter this state of affairs without giving those concerned an opportunity of considering the matter?

asked, would a Circuit Court be held in Pondoland to try native cases?

said he noticed that one of the Judge-Presidents was paid £5,250. It seemed to him (Sir Edgar) that that salary required explanation. He took it that the salary was received by the gentleman who lately was Attorney-General of the Transvaal, when he got £5,250, which was £500 more than was paid to the Judges-President of the Cape and the Free State. He did not see any justification for the bigger salary in the case of the Transvaal Judge-President, and was hardly justified on the individual merits of the man, who was junior to a great number of men on the Bench, who were probably there before he was called to the Bar. Sir Edgar asked for information with regard to Judges’ houses at Johannesburg.

advocated a Circuit Court for Elliot.

explained that two houses were built at Johannesburg in Crown Colony days, when hotel accommodation was not what it was to-day, for the convenience of Judges who stayed there at Government expense. He was trying to see what could be done to economise over this matter. He had done away with one of the houses, and handed it over to the Minister of Public Works. As to the other house, he did not see his way clear to do away with it. The question of a Circuit Court in Pondoland had not been brought to his notice before, and he could give no assurance on the matter. He tried as a general rule to have a Circuit Court in every district, and he admitted that it was a tremendous inconvenience to the public to have to travel long distances to go to Circuit Courts. But then there was the question of the expense involved in having sufficient Judges to do the extra work. As to there being no vote here in connection with the Master’s Office at Kimberley, he might say that when the Estimates were drawn up, he contemplated abolishing the Master’s Office; but in consequence of representations made to him, he decided to leave it over until next year, when he contemplated dealing with the Kimberley Court. He bad, therefore, made provision for the Master’s Office-there under a different head. With reference to the question of barristers, he would not do anything until after consulting with the members of the profession in the several Provinces. Regarding the payment of jurymen, he could not agree that 10s. a day was too little. It did not pay a man exactly, and he would not advise a man to make a profession of it; still, the question was not to be considered from a merely monetary point of view, but from the point of view of a man’s duty to the State.

In reply to Mr. T. ORR (Pietermaritzburg, North),

said that some of the Clerks of the Peace in Natal would be left until June, and others would be found other occupations. He had, therefore, left this vote as it originally stood, as it was uncertain how much would be required.

regretted that the Minister took up the attitude he did in regard to the payment of jurymen.

The vote was agreed to.

said he would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the very miserable salaries some of the magistrates in the outer districts of the Cape were paid. In the Victoria West district there were three magistrates. Two of them, who had jurisdiction over large areas, got a miserable pittance of £450, while at the same time there were 27 gentlemen in the Minister’s head office getting greater salaries. That showed the injustice of the distribution of the State’s salaries. What was felt by these Civil Servants was the extreme injustice of men who bore the burden and heat of the day in the outer districts, doing the most important work upon miserable salaries, when their juniors in the head office, who led very pleasant lives, were drawing vastly greater salaries. He supposed the Minister would say that nothing could be done until they got the report of the Civil Service Commission, but he thought they should at least make some allowance to these people immediately, to enable them to get about their big districts as they ought to do, to explain the different laws and get in touch with the people. They had had their salaries reduced in the hard times at the Gape, and had the satisfaction of seeing men much junior to them in the Civil Service getting a higher scale of pay. There was a young man, whom he had in mind, who had been stationed at Rietfontein, in the Kalahari, who had by his action stopped an expedition which was going to kill some Hottentot chief, and had not only saved the lives of the Hottentots, but also saved both the German and their Government £25,000 apiece. It was a burning shame, the injustice meted out to some of these up-country magistrates. (Hear, hear.)

drew attention to there being too many magisterial districts, so much so that in many of the smaller ones there was not sufficient work. He hoped the Minister would look into the matter. He had no doubt that much money could be saved.

alluded to the want of a suitable magisterial residency in Port Elizabeth, and said that a sum of £3,000 for the purpose had been in a Loan Bill, but had lapsed.

endorsed what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South-west) had just said, adding that he believed a sum of £120 a year was allowed to the Port Elizabeth Magistrate for a residence. Seeing that the urgency for a suitable residence existed, and seeing that money could be got cheaply by the Government at the present time, would it not be possible to include the amount in a Loan Bill?

said that at Bedford the same thing had happened as at Port Elizabeth. A sum of money figured in the Loan Bill, but had lapsed.

drew attention to a few grievances of Transvaal magistrates. They had, he said, so many administrative duties to perform that they could very seldom sit on the bench.

Where do they, sit? (Laughter.)

asked the Minister whether he intended next session to introduce a measure to consolidate practice in the courts so as to bring about uniformity? At present great differences existed as to jurisdiction, procedure, and the like. He endorsed what Mr. Merriman had said about the inadequacy of the salaries of many of the up-country magistrates. No doubt, he said, many of them were very badly paid, indeed. They were not the men who got high salaries; but the men who were “near the fire,” and had a good time of it, got them.

said he endorsed the remarks made by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman). When one turned to the schedule, and compared the salaries paid to the magistrates in the different Provinces, one could not help coming to the conclusion that the magistrates in the Cape had been very, very hardly dealt with. (Hear, hear.) For the last six years they had been practically at a standstill, whilst they had seen the magistrates in the neighbouring Provinces draw their increments regularly. They had looked forward to Union, when they would be fairly dealt with. But what had happended since Union? Whilst the salaries of the magistrates in the neighbouring Provinces were being increased on a fixed scale, it was found that for some reason or other the magistrates in the Cape had been informed that no scale existed, and many of them were at a standstill even to-day, and naturally they were dissatisfied. He thought that a little more sympathetic treatment and a little more kindness would go a long way. There was a feeling abroad that they were out of touch with the head office, and he hoped that before the House re-assembled, the Minister Would have done something to ameliorate the condition of magistrates in the Cape.

said he thought the committee sympathised with the statements made by the right hon. member for Victoria West and other hon. members in connection with the position of many of the magistrates in this country. When it was considered that these gentlemen were the representatives of the Government in the districts in which they were placed, it was the duty of the Minister to go carefully into the question, and see if nothing could be done to improve their position. He would like the Minister to state the procedure adopted in appointing Government nominees on the various Licensing Courts throughout the Cape Province.

said that if the Government would not abolish all taxing fees, he hoped it would alter the present system.

wished to know if the Minister proposed to do anything with regard to the housing of magistrates generally. The Minister must know that in many places, magistrates were terribly inconvenienced in regard to housing accommodation. He thought there was a great danger in this matter, because in a small place a magistrate was at the mercy of an individual. It was unsatisfactory that he should be a tenant of a resident of the place over which he had jurisdiction.

agreed with the last speaker, remarking that many magistrates were very badly housed.

was pleased to see the alteration in the tone of the hon. member for George, and the right hon. member for Victoria West, who usually urged economy, but row pleaded for the poor Civil Servants. The remarks of Mr. Jagger showed that he was not very well acquainted with the conditions of the country, or surely he would realise that it was essential for the people of the country to have a court as near to the place where they lived as possible.

said there was a growing tendency to march prisoners through the streets When they were passing to and from the Magistrate’s Court. He had noticed six prisoners being marched through the streets, and he had also seen a coloured man handcuffed to a white man. He saw that these prisoners drew their hats over their faces so as to hide their identity as much as possible, but it was not fair to make men hardened criminals by marching them in this way. With regard to the salary of the Medical Officer at Cape Town: the salary of this gentleman for attending the administering of corporal punishment at the gaol was £50 a year, so that if he attended the gaol once a day he would receive 2s. 4d., and out of that he would have to pay his own tram or cab fare. He hoped the Minister would remedy this.

took exception to the manner in which the salaries had been lumped together. It was rather difficult to follow the various items under the arrangement.

drew attention to the salaries of the magistrates at Standerton and Pretoria. Both were set down at £1,200, but surely the position at Pretoria was much more important.

said that, in answer to the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger), he had to say that the Magistrate at Standerton had been Commissioner of Police. That position had been taken away, and he was re stored to the magistracy. It was purely a personal matter. In regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Woodstock, he would look into those points and see what could be done. As to houses of Resident Magistrates he did not know what policy would be followed. He could only say that it was the general feeling that where possible the Government should build its own houses for the magistrates. He was anxious that a house should be built for the Magistrate at Port Elizabeth during this financial year, but it was not found possible to do so. As to the matter of taxing costs, raised by the hon. member for Worcester, that was a question which he would look into to see what could be done. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort wanted to know what principle was observed in reference to Government nominees on Licensing Courts. They tried to find who were the people to be put on those Courts. Since last year they had tried in the Cape to do the same thing as had been done in the Transvaal—to bring in new blood in these licensing Courts. Members had been on for years and years. He thought that, as far as the Licensing Courts were concerned, the members should be changed every two or three years. The hon. member for Heidelberg had raised the question of the inadvisability of a junior clerk pitting to hear Magistrate’s Court cases. He quite agreed that it was time that the magistrates should be graded differently from what they were at present, and that there should be a difference not only as regarded salary, but also as to jurisdiction. He was however, only just beginning to tackle this question. He moved: On page 123, before “Messengers of the Court,” to omit “39” and to substitute “4”; in the “scale of salary” to omit the items “£60, £24, (34)”,

Agreed to.

said he hoped the Minister when he began to consolidate Magistrates Court Acts of the various (Provinces would not forget to look at the Natal Act, which was working very well.

asked the Minister if his object was to popularise the Licensing Courts?

said his view was that the personnel should be changed. He had tried to have new men put on the Licensing Courts in the Cape. He preferred to see the district surgeons off the Courts.

hoped the Minister would proceed with extreme care with regard to changes in the personnel of the Licensing Courts. Some valuable men might have a great many enemies who might bring their influence to bear on the Minister, or those who advised him. Very often representations of that kind were a tribute to a man’s value on the Court. He also hoped the Minister would be very careful in reducing the number of Magistrates in the Cape. We had populations scattered over a very large area, and frequently the only representative of Government, and the only civilising influence, was the Magistrate. Although some of them might not do very much work, they performed very valuable functions.

hoped that when the Minister made changes in the membership of Licensing Courts, he would obtain recommendations from the Magistrates with regard to appointments.

Always.

mentioned the case of Mr. Holden, a most representative man, who for over 20 years was a member of the Somerset East Licensing Court. This gentleman, who was Mayor of the town, had his services summarily dispensed with.

A few minutes ago. I asked the Minister to remember Natal. When I hear of these changes in the Cape, I ask him to forget Natal.

said, under the new regime, nearly all the Magistrates in the Transkei did not understand the native language, and accordingly they had to depend entirely on the interpreters. He did not think this was a proper state of affairs at all.

said he did not know the facts of the Somerset East case. Invariably the Magistrate was consulted, but that did not mean that in every instance their recommendations had been followed, because in these cases they found exactly what he said—they found a number of men who had been a very long time on the Licensing Court. In some cases Magistrates did not like the personnel of the Courts to be changed. In one case a Magistrate had objected, but he had not taken the representation of the Magistrate.

said that if the Minister did not take the representation of the Magistrate, whose representations did he take? Why did not the Minister take the representation of the Government representative of the district?

was understood to say that he did not know that Mr. Holden had been removed. He (Mr. Holden) had been a supporter of Sir Thomas Smartt when he went through the district with a shillelagh. (Laughter.) If a man had for 20 years been on a Licensing Board that gave him no monopoly to sit on it.

said-that here was a point that Mr. Vosloo did not recognise. Here was a man who had been on the Board for 20 years, and that showed that he must have much experience, and be well known in the district.

I don’t know.

Of course he knows.

Mr. Holden was the hon. member’s political opponent once. The hon. member’s only objection to Mr. Holden was that he took a strong side in politics. He had no complaint against his decisions when a member of the Licensing Court; neither could he point to one decision which had given dissatisfaction in the district.

said he did not know that Mr. Holden had been removed; neither did he know the person who had been appointed in his place. The point he wanted to make was that the fact of Mr. Holden being a member of the Licensing Board for the last twenty years did not give him a monopoly.

said that the question was one to which the Minister should give his close attention. He considered that a change in the procedure of appointing Government nominees should not be made in one district only; it should be made universal.

said he would like to know what was meant by expenses of Liquor Licensing Courts?

said that this was the assimilation of fees paid to the Licensing Courts in the case of the Transvaal, Orange Free State, and elsewhere. They simply paid out-of-pocket expenses.

said that one suddenly discovered by this question that a new system was being started in the Cape. For many years they had been able to obtain in the Cape the very best men to serve upon these Licensing Courts; now they were going to be paid. What he wanted to know was what was the additional expenditure in connection with the payments in these Cape Licensing Courts?

said that members who resided more than three miles from the Court were paid the amount of (he actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred by them for road transport, but not for the use of their own transport, together with subsistence allowance, in each case of 10s. for each day or portion of a day actually and necessarily occupied by them in travelling to and from the Court and attendance at the Court. Take Johannesburg and places round about; they could not possibly get these men to come and spend all their time there and not no subsistence or travelling allowance. He quite agreed with the hon. member that he would have liked to see the Cape system, extended over the rest of South Africa, but when payment was made in the Transvaal and Free State, he thought they could not continue that system and not pay the members in the Cane.

said he thought the estimate was much too high. He would like to impress upon the Minister the danger of interfering with the settled policy of the Licensing Courts.

moved to reduce the amount by £2,360, being the item “C, Expenses of Liquor Licensing Courts,” on page 1124. In the Cape for years past, he said, they had had satisfactory Licensing Courts, and had not paid a single penny to the members. He protested most strongly against the system of payment of members of Licensing Courts. As to Johannesburg, it was quite unnecessary to pay members.

said they could not look at the matter purely from a Johannesburg or Cape Town point of view.

The country members of Licensing Courts have never been paid for attending Licensing Courts.

But we have always complained. Continuing, he said that in the Caledon Court difficulty had been found in obtaining a quorum, and it was not fair to expect men to spend two days travelling in order to attend Licensing Courts without payment. Let them look at the matter fairly and squarely, and not purely from the town’s point of view. The change was a good one, and had his support.

said it was strange that all the time he had been in the Cape Parliament the point as to the need for the payment of members of Licensing Courts had never been raised. Every man who took an interest in the country book an interest in the Licensing Courts, and in the question of the sale of liquor. What had led the Minister to change the procedure in the Province? He was going to support Colonel Crewe, and vote against the matter.

thought that instead of the Cape protesting against that vote, it was the Orange Free State which should protest, because where the payment had been 30s. before Union, they were only now paid a third of that sum. Mr. Jagger spoke of patriotism; hut was he prepared to serve for four days twice a year without his expenses being paid?

Yes, and a good deal more.

said, that only three were required to; form a quorum, and not four, as stated by Mr. Krige, one of whom, was the Magistrate. It would certainly show a lack of public interest in Caledon if they could not get three men to form the Court. The man who lived in town spent as much time on the Licensing Court as the man who had come in three or five miles. Yet he got nothing. Provision had to be made for advertising the lists of applications in the; newspapers, and when the Government had done that it had done sufficient. If the Government were going to pay some members, then he said it should pay all. He was certain that would be the next cry.

said that no new principle was being introduced. If the hon. member knew anything of the circumstances of the country he would know that the proposal of the Minister of Justice was a reasonable one. Was it right that men should pay money out of their own pockets to attend a Licensing Court in the public interests? The country members of Divisional Councils received allowances, whereas the town members did not. That, state of affairs, however, had never led to criticism. School Boards were similarly situated, and people had often complained; about Licensing Courts paying no allowances.

said it appeared to him that the only people who worked in the public interest were the townspeople. The men in the Municipalities gave hours and hours of their time. In the country they had tremendous expressions of patriotism, but they did not find a man who would lift his little finger for nothing.; The only people that worked for nothing and did not whine were the men in the towns.

said they could not expect poor farmers to come in from long distances for nothing and attend these courts. Much good work; had been done for nothing on the School Boards.

who rose amid Ministerial cries: of “Vote,” pointed out that Municipal Councillors had only a short distance to go to attend the meetings, and had no expense, while in the case of men living in the country, they had to travel a good distance to the Licensing Courts. Many members of School Boards had to travel long distances to attend the meetings at personal sacrifice and loss of time. The strictures of hon. members opposite were unfair.

said that one might suppose that people in the country never went to the towns at all. The House must begin to think that it was time they put a stop to these things. The system of non-payment of Licensing Courts had worked extremely well in the Cape in the past. He thought they would get better men in the country districts if they were not paid than if they were paid.

said he was sorry that the hon. member for Cape Town had made this attack upon the country members, but he thought he was led to do so by the nasty things said by the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Vosloo). He could speak from personal knowledge of the great sacrifices made by the country members for the public good, and he wished to dissociate himself from the attack which had been made upon them by the hon. member for Cape Town. (Ministerial cheers.) He hoped, the Minister would withdraw the payment of members of Licensing Courts so far as the Cape was concerned. The giving of money would detract from the honour of the position.

said the Cape had never asked for payment, the members being willing and proud to do the work without remuneration. He doubted whether there had been any complaints on this head from Caledon.

Of course there have, and from the townsmen.

said complaints of this nature had never been uttered, in the Cape House. We were not so flush of money as to be able to throw it at people who did not want it.

said this was the only way open to him. In the Free State members of the Licensing Courts were paid 1½ guineas a day, and in the Transvaal 3 guineas a day. If he had had to start with a clean slate, he might have agreed to dispense with payment. But he had either to ask the House to vote the necessary sums for payment in two Provinces, or to see that justice was done all round. They had actually to pay out of their own pockets for the purpose of going and rendering these services. He had to provide, and he could not help feeling that it was right, that when you came to get men to render these services, you should pay them sufficient to repay them for out-of-pocket expenses. He was prepared, if hon. members decided that these expenses should not be paid, to abide by it. It was not a party question, so far as he was concerned. He agreed with Mr. Jagger that there were services which, as far as (possible, should be rendered free of charge to the country, but it must not at the same time be forgotten that there were matters which were formerly undertaken by the Central Government, which now, by the devolution system, were taken on the shoulders of private people, and while they rendered these services, they could not go so far as to ask these people to incur expenses in connection with the rendering of these services.

said he hoped the Minister would not extend the principle of paying members of Licensing Boards to the Province of Natal.

also expressed the hope-that the Minister would not insist upon members of Licensing Courts being paid in the Cape Province.

moved that the vote be reduced by £1,000.

This amendment was negatived.

withdrew his amendment, and the vote was agreed to.

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