from F. G. Fraser, late of South African Railways.

This, with similar petitions of a similar nature, was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions.

from J. W. Dummy, retired on pension.

from Louisa Prodehl, mother of convict Herman Prodehl.

from the Federal Women’s Christian Temperance Union, for certain Railway concessions.

from John Turton, of Claremont, South African Railways.

from H. D. Mears, who met with a railway accident during the performance of his duty.

from George Cooper Macfarlane, South African Railways

Report by Sir Thomas R. Price, on storage and handling of grain.

Report on construction of a railway from Donnybrook to Underberg.

moved that a Select Committee on Railways and Harbours be appointed, the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, and to consist of nine members. He would, he said, give notice with regard to the personnel of the committee after he had consulted the Opposition.

seconded.

Agreed to.

in moving the second reading of the Railways and Harbours Bill—a very important Bill, he must say—explained that last session the second reading was moved of a Bill similar to the present one in name, and afterwards referred to the Committee on Railways and Harbours. They sat a long time on the Bill ; in fact the committee did nothing else It was brought up late in the session, and it unfortunately did not pass. At the time he thought that the non-passage of the Bill would involve very considerable inconvenience to the Railway Department, as it might be necessary to ask Parliament to indemnify certain acts which would be necessary. In the main this Bill was the same. As hon. members were aware, the chief object of the Bill was to consolidate the existing laws in regard to discipline, organisation, and superannuation. Each colony, prior to Union, had its law regulating these matters. The Transvaal was, he thought, the first to pass the Superannuation Bill in regard to the railway service. That was followed in the same year by the Free State, and then by Natal. All these Bills were very much alike, there being only slight differences here and there. In the Cape Superannuation Bill they had only dealt with the one question, whereas in the Transvaal they had the organisation, including discipline, in the one Bill. In the Cape service even to-day, discipline was governed by a Bill passed years ago. This Bill would consolidate—or bring into uniformity—all the existing laws in regard to the matter. Well, the committee had dealt with the Bill before it very fully last session, and it was his intention, after the second reading of this Bill to move that it be referred to the same committee—the committee the House had just approved. He followed this course because the Bill was a highly technical one, and complicated, and he thought it was necessary and right that the people affected by it should have the same opportunities of being heard in regard to the proposed alterations as they had last time. Before when the Bill was before the Select Committee, representatives of all the different branches of the service had an opportunity to appear, and they expressed their views—approval or disapproval, as the case might be. He must say that several suggestions made by them were accepted by the committee, and he was desirous of giving the same opportunity in regard to that portion of the Bill where alterations had been made. For that reason, too, he was anxious that the Bill should go before the Select Committee as soon as possible. He knew that once there it would still take some time, in view of its nature and importance and the desire to do justice. He would refer to the main alterations, and they were material, wherein the Bill differed from that previously before the Select Committee. As the minutes would show, he did not agree with the majority in all cases, but he was now only dealing with the Bill as ought before the committee. The main differences between that Bill and the present were as follows. The first difference affected temporary men seeking admission to membership of the superannuation fund. In the original Bill temporary men were not given the opportunity ; in the Bill as it came from the Select Committee they were. The committee gave them the opportunity ; they altered the Bill. At the time that was very much averse to the view held by the Administration, the reasons being that it involved a great deal of trouble and it was not quite certain whether the majority of the people who were temporarily employed were anxious for this privilege. In many cases—he did not say in all cases—they got a refund of their contributions. The other great objection was that if temporary men were allowed to contribute, it would involve an additional contribution by the Government of about £18,000 per annum. That was a very serious matter, because the contribution was already a very liberal one. If temporary men left afterwards, that contribution would remain there to enrich the fund. For that reason and other reasons, it was thought that this should not form part of the Bill. The other important question was in regard to the punitive clauses. The committee had also made an alteration there. The first Bill gave the Administration the power to dismiss for certain very serious offences, and also to forfeit contributions. Now, the offences for which an employee may be dismissed are limited, and there is a further proviso that the amount of forfeiture shall not exceed the value of the damage to the Government. Another important point in regard to the Bill was that, when it was introduced last year, it provided that the period before anyone could permanently come on to the establishment was: for officers, one year ; for employees other than officers and artisans, two years ; and for artisans, three years. The committee altered that to two years all round. The period in the original Bill had been restored to this. The other important alteration was the reopening of the fund for persons who had the option, but did not exercise it, to go into the service. A considerable number of men in different parts of the Union, in the other Provinces, did not exercise their right to come in, and they now asked that they should be allowed to do so. He must say that he had much sympathy with that request. The principle was a very good one, and he hoped that they might be able to arrive at some agreement. There were other differences of minor importance, but these were the main ones between the Bill as originally introduced and that now before the House. If any further information was necessary about it, he would be glad to give it. He did not expect from what he had heard that there would be much opposition to the main provisions of the Bill, because in almost every respect where an alteration had been made, it had been with the knowledge of those concerned. And for that reason he did not apprehend that in the Bill as it stood would to found objection. But, be that as it may, he was anxious to get on with it as fast as possible, so as to get it to a Select Committee and give those concerned an opportunity of giving their views. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill. (Hear, hear.)

said if the present measure was, as described by the Minister, merely an Act to consolidate the existing laws in the Transvaal and the Cape, and in view of the fact that it was to be submitted to a Select Committee, he did not think he would venture to make any remarks at this juncture. But the present measure, as distinguished from the existing Acts of Parliament, introduced a new, and he might say, several new proposals, which affected the artisan class working on the railways, and on whose behalf he desired to express a few remarks—he meant the artisans of Natal. (Hear, hear.) The first serious alteration in principle the hon. Minister himself had alluded to, was that for the first time in South Africa the service was divided into three sections. In former Acts of Parliament there were two sections of the men recognised in the railways: one was the official or officers, and the other was described as employees. Today, for some reason or other which the Minister had not explained—and it was with the hope that he would explain why the artisan had been distinguished from the ordinary employee that he spoke. It was strange, in this regard, that where as in the measure, the interpretation clause was extremely full and particular, no attempt had been made to describe the artisan. (Hear, hear.) And it was a matter of considerable moment to the men themselves that there should be an interpretation of an artisan. It was not impossible of interpretation. And he believed there were precedents. In the English Acts, artisan was defined. The more serious question, so far as these men were concerned, was the matter of the postponement, which for the first time was to come into force with regard to the artisans. Formerly, under the existing laws, an officer was entitled to go upon the permanent service after one year, and an employee after two years’ service. Now it was proposed that the artisan should be postponed for three years, and, so far, he could not, on his own initiative, conceive why that was proposed and he did think it was eminently desirable that the men themselves should know why this postponement should take place in their case and in the case of the other employees in the service. There was no similar provision in the existing Acts in the Transvaal and in Natal, and he had searched through the Australian Acts affecting the State-owned railways, and not only did that provision not appear, but in one of those Acts it was provided that every employee in Government service should be deemed to be an employee on the permanent staff, except supernumeraries. So that in Australia not only did they not make this artificial distinction, but all employees were entitled to come upon the permanent service provided they were not supernumeraries. So he thought it was eminently desirable that the Minister should be given an opportunity of explaining why this provision was proposed. (Hear, hear.) Then again, there was a further material difference proposed in another clause, and that was the differentiation between the officer and employee in another particular. The officer was entitled, it was proposed, to a pension after 15 years’ service and upon attaining the age of 45 years, whereas in the case of the artisan it was proposed that he should not be entitled to a pension until he had served for 25 years and reached the age of 50 years—that was under clause 8, sub-sections 4 and 6. Then again he would ask why this distinction? He need not point out to hon. members that the artisan’s was a far harder life. (Hear, hear.) He was the man who did the more arduous work, and if any differentiation was shown surely one would imagine that it would be in the case of the artisan. Again, the great bulk of the contributions to the superannuation fund would come from the artisan class. No differentiation was made in regard to the percentage which was paid by the different classes. Both paid 3 per cent. Again, the artisan was less able to seek or obtain other employment when he retired on pension. The official was more capable of obtaining other work. So there again he would ask the Minister if he would explain why this differentiation was proposed, and upon what custom it was introduced into this Bill? (Hear, hear.) Then, without going too deeply into detail, he would refer to Sections 18 and 19. These two sections were only two of a number of penalty clauses which appeared in the Bill. But why he ventured to refer to them was because of the extreme stringency which it was proposed to introduce into the service. They imposed a penalty for resignation without leave which he did not quite understand. It meant, he took it, that if a man resigned the service or deserted the service without leave he was subjected not only to a fine of £50, but it was proposed that the Magistrate might punish him in addition with imprisonment for six months. The suggestion might impose one or both of those penalties without an alternative. The offence contemplated was merely desertion of service, and except in the case of unskilled labour, no man was liable under any Act in South Africa—except a man employed in husbandry or menial service. Those two proposals were quite novel. In the Transvaal Act the offences were divided into two sections. No Act reserved to the Administration the right to fine and punish a man by imprisonment, and to-day it was proposed, not for a serious offence but for mere desertion, to introduce into this measure two clauses which would subject a man, if he had deserted the service or left without permission, to a fine of £50 and six months’ imprisonment. And that was not the only penalty attached to desertion. The man forfeited the whole of his pay from the day of his suspension, in the event of his being found guilty, and also forfeited the right of superannuation if he was found guilty. That was a harsh punishment for what was a venial offence. Why was it introduced into this Bill as distinguished from those Acts of Parliament which this measure was meant to consolidate? None of those penalties existed in the Natal Act, but it seemed the Natal Act was not being followed in the proposed consolidating legislation. A clause which contained a new and novel principle was Clause 46. It seemed an extremely harsh provision. If a member was dismissed from the Service, this was the penalty which accrued For fraud, dishonesty, or misconduct, or retirement from the Service in order to avoid dismissal, or be ordered to resign on account of misconduct, he shall forfeit the whole of his contributions and lose all benefits from the fund. So far as he knew, that was quite an original pro vision in comparison with the other Acts of Parliament. It was an eminently harsh thing that over and above the penalties described here, a man should forfeit his own contributions to the fund. In conclusion, he said that there were a number of points he would like to bring to the attention of hon. members of the House, and also to give the Minister an opportunity to make an explanation. He did not oppose the second reading, but would just like to draw the Minister’s attention to these points.

said he was glad of the assurance of the Minister that in sending the Bill to a Select Committee he would give the men a further opportunity of giving evidence, because the Bill was of great concern to the men of the railways. It would be hard on them, for once the Bill was passed there would be no opportunity of amendment for years to come, and he did hope that every opportunity would be given the men of appearing before the committee. The hon. member went on to refer to the relationship between the heads of the Administration and the men, and said that, although the question had been burked by Ministers up to the present, it would have to be settled at some future day. The point was whether they were going to give recognition to the Society of Railwaymen in this country. Ministers could not fail to have seen the movement among the men. It was no use saying they would not recognise a society that the men had formed for the purpose of defending their rights. He would also draw the attention of the House to the contents of Circular 7, and pointed out that the men of Natal carried, or ought to have carried, into Union those political rights which were granted them by the Natal Assembly. There was also the language circular, which––––

pointed out that there was a motion dealing with the subject on the paper.

hoped that sections 13 and 19 would be carefully considered by the committee, because they contained legislation which he did not think existed in any other part of the world. He went on to refer to section 46, and pointed out that the longer man was in the service the greater risk he ran of losing that which he should enjoy at the end of his period of service. Continuing, he said he did not think that the relations between the Administration and the men had improved since Union—(hear, hear) and he thought they should try and bring about a better spirit. Every opportunity should be given the men of discussing their grievances before the committee, and wherever it was possible, a helping hand should be extended to them.

said it was true that a certain number of the provisions were before the House last year, and the Minister of Railways seemed to think that the state of mind of the country twelve months ago when the House dealt with this Bill, was the state of mind of the country now.

Georgetown.

said that the Minister was mistaken. The Minister had heard the hon. member who sat behind him (Mr. Orr) say that the relations between the Administration and the railway servants had certainly not improved. These had not only not improved since Union, but during the last twelve months had become strained, and what railway servants felt was that whatever their tenure of service, it should be dealt with by the House, and made as fixed as possible, and that their emoluments or gratuities should not be at the whim of any Minister in office. Now, that applied to any Minister in office, and it was only right that railway servants should know what was before them. In the old Colony, there was a time when a man knew the Civil Service was secure, even though he might not be able to secure the big prizes. He knew where he was. He knew his pension. He knew how he could be dismissed. He knew by whom he could be dismissed. Without going into all the details of the Bill, because one recognised that a great deal must be thrashed out in committee, there were certain principles to which he would like to draw the attention of the House. Under section 3, the Governor-General had the right to diminish the number of men in the railway service and their emoluments, and the Governor-General had the right to delegate this power to anybody he thought fit. This was a very different thing to the old fixity of tenure which had prevailed in the service of the Cape Colony. Here they started off with the provision that the Governor-General might delegate his power to whom he pleased, and he might diminish the staff and their emoluments.

Read a little further.

Prescriptive by Act or regulation. The Governor-General may do what I say.

Read it.

“The Governor-General may, from time to time, appoint so many servants as may be required for the service, increase, or, without prejudice to the rights which a servant may have under section 82, diminish the number of railway servants and their emoluments in such manner as from time to time may be prescribed, and, subject to the provisions of this Act, and without prejudice to the same rights, may discharge any railway servant. The Governor-General may, from time to time, delegate the power of appointment or discharge of servants.” If they could from time to time by regulation diminish the salaries, they were giving very little security to the Civil Servant. When they went further they found that the service was divided into two classes—there were those who were in permanent employment and those in temporary employment. He would ask any one to look at section 4 and ask himself who in the world was in the permanent service, because this was the way it was defined: “(b) Persons who entered the service on or after the thirty-first day of May, 1910, and have been admitted by lawful authority before the fixed date to permanent employment or to membership of an old superannuation fund.” A person was deemed to be in permanent employment who had been admitted to permanent employment. (Laughter.) That was, of course, a detail, but it showed the way in which the Bill had been drafted. Surely a man ought to know whether he was in the permanent service or not, when he was in the permanent service and when he was not. Well, supposing they had got over this difficulty as to whether a man was in the permanent service or not, they had now got to see upon what scale or how a man when he was retrenched was going to be paid. In order to know how one was going to be paid, it was necessary to know whether one was only an “employee” or whether one was an “officer.” Time was when they had no difficulty about that, but he must be a very wise man who was going to tell who was an employee under this Bill. If they looked at the definition of “officer,” he was a gentleman whose salary was calculated per annum, subject, however, to what was said about “employee.” So in order to find out they went a little further to “employee.” “Employee” was a gentleman who did not get his salary per annum, or who may, at the whim and wish of the Government, be declared to be an employee. (Hear, hear.) Now, he thought that was one of the most monstrous provisions possible. The Minister of Railways was, as a rule, a fair-minded man. (A laugh.) Well, bad company corrupted good morals—(laughter)—and he could not conceive anybody in a responsible position saying to a man in the Civil Service, “Your gratuity shall be calculated upon the basis whether you are an employee or not, and it lies with us to say whether you are an employee or not.” Let them note what the effect of this was. They knew the discontent, they knew the seething discontent with the way in which things were being administered, and then let them imagine what the state of affairs would be when the Governor-General may delegate his powers to whom he liked, when the Government may declare whether a man was an employee or an officer at its own sweet will. Was that giving any security to a man under this Bill? Surely not. He submitted that it would be a monstrous thing to allow any Government to declare at its own sweet will, “You shall be an officer,” or “You shall be an employee, because we just make you so, and in consequence your gratuity shall be less than it otherwise would be.” It did not require any great amount of foresight to see that that was going to lead to favouritism, bureaucracy, and jobbery. (Hear, hear.) Supposing they got over that little difficulty, and a man was in a position, by some means or other, to know whether he was an officer or an employee, what was he going to get? They turned this Bill over—and it was a very complicated measure—and they looked at sub-section 6 of section 8 and found that what he received would be such as the Minister may from time to time prescribe. Look at the position of this unfortunate fellow who was going to enter the service. On what was he going to get his pension? It depended what the Minister chose to call him, or the man with the delegated powers. He (Sir Henry) said this was one of the greatest revolutions ; it was a total reversal of all system that had been adopted in regard to the man in the service, who ought to have some fixed knowledge of what he was going to get, and it should not be left in the power of the Minister to declare what his gratuity may be. There was another point to which he desired to draw attention. Before a man who was not an officer, but an employee, could receive any gratuity when he was retrenched, he must have served 25 years. He must first be 50 years of age before he could get any gratuity, and he must have served 25 years continuously. Take a man who had served 24 years and a few months. There was absolute power to deal with him, and it could be prescribed what he was to get. What was the position of that man? If they once put the power into the hands of someone to deal, not by absolute rule making the same thing apply to everybody, but as the thought fit, then they knew what to expect. If a man was a favourite in the service, everybody who had had experience of the public service in this country knew that, however clean and however good the departmental government may be, men were human, and they would have their favourites and they would have their enemies, and people should not be exposed to that under the provisions of this Bill. Twenty-five years, the Minister must admit, was far too long a time. Others whom he had communicated with were of that view, and said that fifteen years, which was the limit under section 8 (4), was a fair limit to take. He would also like to ask the Minister of Railways where did the unfortunate artisan come in, because he was one of the biggest components of the railway and harbour service? What was he? Was he an “employee,” or was he an “officer”? They might say it was a detail, but it was not a detail, because the whole of his gratuity and pension depended upon whether he was an officer or whether he was an employee. As had been pointed out to him, if a fellow swept a floor at the Docks and got his 5s. a day, he was in a better position than the skilled artisan under this Bill. Now that must be an oversight. One more point he would mention, and that was in regard to employees who had not contributed to a fund in the past, and who had now to pay four per cent. compound interest. There had been a number of the men at Table Bay Docks who, under the old Harbour Board system, were never called upon to pay to any superannuation system. Those men were now told to pay up former arrears, and were charged four per cent. compound interest. If they took the small salary these men got and calculated what it was they had to pay, it was very hard indeed, and he would ask the Minister whether it was not possible to allow these people to make their contributions in the ordinary manner. After all, the Government got the advantage of the interest on their contributions, and they might very well say that they would not make these people pay the four per cent. compound interest.

said it was amusing to listen to such speeches as those they had just heard from the hon. and learned member for the Harbour Division and the one before. He would like to remind the House that the Bill committing this crime which the hon. and learned member had protested against, was passed about three years ago, while the hon. gentleman was asleep. (A laugh.)

Somebody else was somnolent. I was speaking about the men who were paying four per cent. compound interest, who have not been in a position formerly to pay, and I drew some comparison between them.

continuing, said that the fact remained that nobody was going to be treated in any different way from what was decided upon by the Bill of three years ago. The great change was made three years ago, and it had taken three years for the hon. and learned gentleman to discover that the change had been made. When they were trying to improve the Bill they had received no assistance from the hon. gentleman. If he would try to follow the work of the Select Committee of last session, it would be better than making a semi-electoral speech in the House. In regard to the remarks of the hon. gentleman opposite, he seemed to be unaware that many of the proposals he criticised as if they were original had been approved by the Select Committee last session. He was not a wholly unqualified supporter of the Bill. (Opposition cries of “Oh.”) He wished to get several alterations into the Bill, and it was his experience that the best way to get alterations was to treat a Bill gently. If they could enlist the Minister’s sympathy, there was no saying what they could get out of him. (Laughter.) Certain misapprehensions were likely to be created by the last speech. He did not know whether the hon. member intended to give the impression that a great change was being made in regard to the condition of the railway men, when no change whatever was being made in regard to some of the points which he mentioned. For instance, the hon. member said that the men would not have the fixity of tenure they have now. What fixity had they had at present in the Cape? None whatever! except those who came on the fixed establishment.

Not even them!

was surprised at this interpolation. Was not the hon. member ashamed of the admission? It was quite true. Some years ago the hon. gentlemen opposite were engaged in a little conspiracy, trying to get away from the men the rights they were entitled to by law. They were not successful. If the hon. member had paid more attention to the Bill he would not have treated it with such levity. (Laughter.)

You are treating it with much greater levity. (Laughter.)

It had been discovered that permanent men in the Cape service had no fixity of tenure. The hon. gentleman had suggested they had. Such an insinuation ought not to have been made in the House by a responsible speaker. It certainly could not be substantiated. Even as regards the fixed establishment, what sort of fixity was it? The men were not protected against dismissal at all, as they could be dismissed by passing a vote through Parliament, and it had been long since proved that the fixity supposed to be given by membership of the fixed establishment was very slender indeed. The suggestions of the hon. member for Cape Town were not worthy of his record. (Opposition laughter.) Then, as regards permanent work. What was permanent and what temporary work was not defined, and never had been defined. He (the hon. member) suggested that this was a great outrage against the men, but failed to toll the House that there never had been a definition and the distinction between the two classes of work had always been in the hands of the Government. The hon. member had said that some clauses of the Bill had been considered last session. He wondered whether he had the smallest information as to how many. Of course he had not. (Laughter.) No but he had exerted the extraordinary gifts with which Providence had endowed him in an endeavour to read the Bill first backwards and then forwards. (Laughter.) He suggested that there were few clauses that were before the House last session. As a matter of fact, the whole Bill was before the House, and only two or three fresh clauses had been introduced. Certainly these were not liable to the criticism the hon. gentleman had passed upon them. As far as the new clauses were concerned, the Minister was perfectly correct in saying that they were entirely in the interests of the employee. Three or four clauses had been left out. They were punitive clauses. Of the four new clauses, throe of them had been suggested by the committee last session, and the fourth aimed at providing gratuities for certain men who at present did not contribute to any pension fund at all. It was very undesirable that the men should be brought under the impression that the House was going backwards in this matter. The Bill was undoubtedly a considerable advance on the present law in some important matters. However, he did not understand why the Government had decided to go back on some of the decisions of the Select Committee of last session. The hon. member for Maritzburg had drawn attention to a subject of great moment in sections 19 and 20, euphemistically called “resignations without notice ; desertion by servants.” As the clauses stood they undoubtedly appeared to be extremely strong, to go very far, end to inflict very great punishments on the men for what on the face of it did not mean very much. But he presumed that clauses 18 and 19 referred to the right to strike ; he would like an explanation. He hoped that they would come to some understanding on the question. He was not acquainted with the views of hon. gentlemen on the cross benches on the matter, but he knew that his constituents were perfectly prepared to recognise a point which he thought the House had a right to insist upon. In a service of this kind it was quite right and sound not to allow a strike.

If the men are treated justly.

What was desirable then was to get some definition of striking An effort ought to be made to make this matter clearer. If the men were well treated and adequate provision made for the settlement of disputes between the Administration and the men, it was a perfectly sound principle, which the House ought to lay down, that in a great national undertaking of this kind, in which a strike might bring the whole business of the country to a standstill, men should not, as in a private business, be given the right to strike. In regard to section 20, he thought it most deplorable that the Administration had apparently gone back in the matter. It had been agreed to by the Government that in the case of a serious dispute between the Administration and their servants there must be a Commission appointed partly by the Government and partly by the railway servants, to inquire into and dispose of the matter. And he did believe that this change that had been made was the best thing to promote strikes, differences and disagreements between the Administration and the men, and he for one very much deplored it, because he was not in favour of those industrial upheavals which had never resulted in any good to the men or the Administration, but were very damaging to the interests of the country. Therefore, he trusted that the point would be attended to. He was quite confident that no settlement of the question would be arrived at until it was put right. It seemed to him that the settlement of last session was perfectly satisfactory. Then he thought the preference which appeared in one or two places for officers was regrettable, and he thought it was desirable that the committee which was to be appointed should see that the men were not left with a rankling sense of injustice ; that they were not being treated in the same way as men in a better position to protect themselves. One point not taken up by the Select Committee was: why should only minorities of the men go on to a fund of this kind? Why should not every railway servant go on the fund? Was their actuarial basis wrong? He remembered the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir Edgar Walton), saying some time ago that if they brought all the men on to the fund they would ruin it. If that was so, then the actuarial calculation was wrong. He thought, however, that it was correct, and under the circumstances he could not think why they should not say that every man should become a contributor to this fund. And, above all, he did not like the principle which left those who were poorest, and least able to make provision for their old age, without any protection under a Bill of this sort. He would like to call the attention of the House to facts in connection with that, because, according to the latest information, only a third of the men in the Cape Service were provided for in any way by the old fund or the new fund. That was a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Something like 5,000 men were provided for, and something like 10,000 men were not provided for. He thought that matter should be looked into. He believed content could only be had if they could make sure that men who were on the superannuation fund would get something like the same privileges that were accorded to the men on the old pension fund. He did not think they were excessive. He entirely agreed that it was most desirable that all these matters should be settled, so that the men should know what privileges they were entitled to. At present nobody seemed to know that. The real decision was generally in the hands of some minor official, who should not be trusted in matters of that kind. It should be decided by Parliament, so that the men should have certain rights guaranteed by law, and in that way alone would there be satisfaction in the railway service of this country. (Hear, hear.) He was compelled to agree to some extent with Sir Henry Juta that a certain amount of dissatisfaction had been created among the men. He thought a feeling of that kind tended to vanish when the facts were explained, and he thought that speeches which told the men they were worse treated than was the case were not patriotic speeches. He personally would like a more rapid advance, because he did not think the interests of the men and the interests of the country at large were at variance in a matter of this kind. He always found that if they trusted the men they took a most reasonable view of matters. There was only one thing to make the men satisfied, and that was to create something like those Boards of Inquiry which the Minister had spoken of in the past, and which, he supposed, he was not creating at the present time because the questions which they would decide were engaging the attention of the Grievance Commission. But he trusted the Minister would consider the creation of Boards which would have the confidence of the men. He believed they were moving in the right direction, and believed this Bill was in the right direction except in so far as it departed from the settlement made last session ; and if conciliation boards were set up, he believed in a year or two such discontent as now existed in the railway service would vanish.

said he agreed with Sir Henry Juta. Theoretically Mr. Fremantle might be right, but practically he knew very little about the matter. Had he been more in touch with the working-man he would know that the feeling both in the railways and harbours at the present time was very acute. Since Union it had gone very much back, and the feeling to-day was seething on practically a strike, if the men were strong enough for it But he would back up Sir Henry Juta on the point of the security of the employee. He would vote for the Bill, and thought it was a step in the right direction ; but when Mr. Fremantle said they had been moving in the right direction, he thought if the hon. member went among his constituents at Uitenhage he would find he did not know very much about it. (Hear, hear.)

said that after hearing the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle), he came to the conclusion it was the next point of attack for the Labour Party. He did not intend to oppose the second reading of the Bill, because when the Select Committee stage was reached, should his party find sufficient favour with the Minister they would have a representative on it, and he would tell him what they thought of the Bill. He thought the Minister was entirely wrong when he called this a Bill to provide for the organisation and discipline of and the payment of the retiring allowances and financial benefits to persons in the Department of Railways and Harbours etc. It was a Bill for the herding of cattle.

Why do you agree with it?

I don’t agree with it. Proceeding, he said he would commend to the hon. member’s attention the report of the Select Committee of last year, and he would see how far he agreed with that Bill. A good deal had been made of several clauses, but one of the worst clauses had not been alluded to at all except in a superficial way by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle). That was clause 20, and it was an instance of the topsy-turvydom of the whole thing. An amendment was brought forward to the Bill last year that whenever a dispute arose between the Administrator and any member of the service … and the dispute could not be amicably settled the Governor-General shall, etc., etc. That provision was moved by the chairman of the committee, who was not the introducer of the Bill. Now he ignored that absolutely and inserted the word “may” in place of “shall.” In order to point out how well the administration was apparently safeguarding itself in opposition to the employees of the railway service he would like to read that clause in toto. It read: “(1) Whenever a dispute arises between the administration and a considerable number of its servants as to any general alteration by the administration in the rates of pay or hours of work of such servants, and the dispute cannot be amicably settled, the Governor-General may, within fourteen days of the receipt by him of a request in writing signed by not less than one-fifth of each grade of the servants affected by the alteration (and unless the dispute be other wise previously settled) appoint a commission to investigate the cause of dispute and to make recommendations as to the manner in which such dispute shall be settled. (2) The commission shall consist of four servants, of whom one-half shall be elected by the body of servants affected and one-half nominated by the administration. The members so elected and nominated shall elect as chairman a person holding a judicial or magisterial office, or an advocate or attorney (not being one of themselves), or if they fail to agree in such election the Governor-General shall appoint a chairman similarly qualified. The chairman shall also be a member of the commission, and shall have the same voting power as an ordinary member. (3) The commission shall, for the purposes of any such inquiry, have the power to summon witnesses, to examine such witnesses on oath and such oath any member of the commission is hereby empowered to administer. (4) The report and recommendations of the commission and any report or recommendations made by a minority of members, shall be published in the “Gazette.” The recommendations of the majority of the members shall be adopted and shall be binding on the administration and on the body of servants affected for the period of twelve months from the date on which effect is given to such recommendations.” In the first place the only grounds upon which a dispute could arise were a general alteration in the rates of pay or the hours of working—a very one-sided arrangement. The men had no option. It was only when the administration decided to alter the rates of pay or hours of work that a ground for dispute arose Yet, according to the Bill, the Governor-General might appoint a Commission. It did not say “shall.” If a Select Commit tee did not alter these clauses he hoped the House would see that the word “shall” replaced the word “may.” But the whole Bill bristled with injustice, and they were putting 26,000 men under the autocratic sway of one man. He protested against that. The Minister told them that he was going to ask for a Select Committee to go into the details of the Bill ; he wanted them to do double work. Surely the Bill that emerged from the last Select Committee was sufficient to go upon. The Minister, in truth, was sitting on a safety valve that would send him and his Bill skywards one of these days.

said it was curious that many of the recommendations made by the last Select Committee had not been regarded by those at the head of affairs. He emphasised the fact that there was discontent and dissatisfaction among the men of the railway service which might result in serious consequences to the Union. He would not refer to the causes of the discontent, but he would say that when the Bill was in committee of the whole House last year, he had drawn attention to the unjust practice of privately trying and dismissing a man after he had been adjudged not guilty of an offence in a court of justice. He went on to deal in detail with sections 18 and 19, and said that the punishments were most unjust and unduly severe. It was not as though it was a case of the loss of life a matter considered in another section. Clause 19 he thought to be most harsh. He also criticised clause 20, which he said did not give the men a fair opportunity. These were points which the men felt to be most unjust. Then there was clause 46, and he characterised the wording of that clause so far as loss of superannuation allowances was concerned as harsh and inequitable. As to the regulations, there was no definition of overtime, and he pointed out that this was always a serious cause of dispute. He felt that this obscure point should be properly fixed up before the Bill went forth from the House. These were points of far-reaching importance, and he also thought it was the duty of the Administration not to lose sight of the movement which had for its object the recognition of the Society of Railwaymen. He touched on the state of affairs in Great Britain, and said that the case was different from the one that existed here. It was useless trying to rule the tide of democracy by a Railway Bill. (Hear, hear.) He believed that moderate measures would remove discontent and dissatisfaction, and make a far better railway service.

said he did not desire to speak upon this occasion ; he had intended to reserve whatever he had to say till the committee stage, but he could hardly let pass, without criticism, the remarks of the hon. member for Uitenhage. He had always thought that Uitenhage was one of the railway centres of South Africa, and he had always thought that a member for a railway centre would be more in touch with the feelings of railway servants than the remarks of the hon. member conveyed. As one that represented this class of employees, he would say that it was far from their desire to make use of any party for the purpose of furthering their interests. They had approached all sections of the House to get their wishes, and it was their duty to bring up vital points, so as to make the Bill satisfactory. No one would welcome criticism of the Bill more than the Minister himself. This Bill was to provide for the future contentment of the whole of the Railway and Harbour employees of South Africa. At the present moment they had many reasons for dissatisfaction. They had many reasons to feel that they were being treated unfairly. This Bill was dealing with the savings of the men. After all, they were forced to contribute to the funds, and it was only right for them to be certain that the Minister should deal with these savings justly and honestly. He felt that there were too many “mays” and! too many “shalls” in the Bill. It was to be regretted that the word “shall” came in when the clause was in favour of the Government, and “may” when it was in favour of the employees. It might be possible that a man might get into difficulties, such as bankruptcy and other money difficulties, and not only lose his position, but might lose his savings as well. He realised that some very great improvement was needed, although he regarded the skeleton as a step in the right direction. He felt that it required a good deal of amendment, and hoped the committee would be able to effect that.

said he had hoped that the Minister in charge of the Bill would have recognised this Society of Railwaymen, by which means he thought strikes would be obviated. The society had been ignored, and they knew many people thought that it should be ignored, but he would point out its membership numbered close upon 15,000, and was likely to increase. That society was formed with the object of bringing before the Minister the grievances of the men and to get them adequately redressed. It was well known that the society looked upon the Bill as harsh and unsympathetic. One clause that should be brought to the notice of the House was clause 14. It was a well-known axiom that when a man was tried for a crime and acquitted, there the matter should end. But the Government were not content with this. He had hopes that the remarks made in the House would induce the Minister to deal more sympathetically with the men, as it appeared from the clause that even if a man were acquitted of a crime, he might still be subjected to dismissal. Therefore, he freely confessed that he did not entirely trust the administration. The hon. member went on to refer to the case of one R. E. Harris, who while in the employment of one of the departments sent a doctor’s certificate stating that he was suffering from neurasthenia and unable to attend to his duties. The head of the department wrote stating that he could not grant leave of absence for neurasthenia, as it was contrary to official instructions from the Minister of Justice. Here they had a case where a man sent in a certificate that he was ill, and was not able to get 14 days’ leave. Recently in England they had had an example of the strike which paralysed nearly everything. The strikers had not derived any benefit from it, but if it was desired to avoid strikes then they must recognise these men. Everything depended upon the railway administration. The food had to be taken by means of the railways from one part of the country to the other, and if there was a strike it would occasion great misery in the country.

claimed to have intimate knowledge of railway matters in Natal and part of the Transvaal, although it was not likely that he would be called up by a committee to give evidence. (Laughter.) The hon. member for Wood stock (Dr. Hewat) had said that railway men had many grievances, and he would tell the hon. House that the general management knew what these grievances were, and that nothing had been done to remedy them. At Park Station Mr. Hoy went through these grievances. A promise had been made to the men that if they spoke the truth they would not suffer, but although they had done so, the men who had received that promise were penalised. More would be heard of that, so that he would not deal with it at that stage. So far from the men’s society being ignored, as an hon. member had said, it had been deliberately opposed. He know enough of the men to know that they were very strongly opposed to anything like a strike, but they were more strongly opposed to the conditions which might force them to strike. But for two men, one of whom had been penalised by the administration, and the other, who had suffered, he thought there would have been a strike at Park Station. It was because they allowed their better judgment to rule them that there had been no strike. The whole country turned to that debate, and great things were expected by the men from it. It was because of their confidence in the House and because they believed that hon. members would do their very best for them that the men were remaining under conditions which were tyranny of the worst kind. The hon. member went on to speak in favour of a “standard day” and a “standard rate” of pay according to grade, and very much regretted that in that Bill no provision was made for these two demands. Why should they in South Africa, he asked, be behind other countries in that respect? In other countries men’s unions were recognised by law. He alluded to what was done in the United States of America, and proceeded to give instances where railway employees had had to work for exceptionally long hours, such as signalmen, who had had to remain in their box for 19 hours without being allowed to go out even for food ; a case of an engine-driver who had been on the footplate for 25 hours, and other cases. One man who had given information that his superior officer had been taking Government stores had been disrated, and was now receiving only 7s. a day, while the superior had since been promoted. Did they wonder that there was this large amount of discontent? Men were told to refuse tips, but he had seen Mr. Hoy himself give a tip—and he thought he did quite right. (Laughter.) He hoped the system of overtime would be abolished, because it robbed the men both ways. A special train from Johannesburg to Pretoria, he went on to mention, had been put in charge of a porter who acted as guard, no proper guard being available. It was up to them to see that nothing was done to impair the safety of the public, and the country looked to them to see that things were put right as nearly as they could.

asked if any body of sensible men could expect the Parliament of any country to pass any such law as section 15, which stated that: “Any servant who is intoxicated while in charge of a locomotive or other engine, or while acting as engine driver or fireman, or a conductor, ticket examiner, or guard, or while acting officer in charge of a station, train foreman, shunter, gatekeeper, or signalman, or a telegraph or telephone operator receiving or transmitting messages in relation to the movement of trains, or as pilot, crane-driver, or person in charge of any Government craft or marine engine shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment with hard labour for a period not exceeding two years.” What injury could a ticket examiner do while in a state of intoxication? Why, he could do less injury to the railway service than the Minister himself. (Laughter.) He might not be civil to the passengers, perhaps, but should he therefore be liable to two years’ imprisonment? He thought a little more common sense might be applied. A young Magistrate looking at that section of the Act might say that Parliament had taken a serious view of the matter and might impose a very heavy penalty. In regard to section 15 (2), he might ask: What constituted a “servant” under this clause? Why should there be any liability to imprisonment at all? Again, any man becoming insolvent was to be dismissed. Now many men honestly became insolvent. He did not think that under such an Act as that they should go so far. He thought it might be made to deal with cases of culpable insolvency. Then an artisan was to be tested three years before he was declared efficient. Any foreman should know within a week whether a carpenter, for instance, was fit or not. That man, if he was found inefficient, was liable to be dismissed. Surely the Minister could not be in earnest that, after having tried a man for three years, they might 25 years afterwards find him inefficient and discharge him because of inefficiency. Why put him on a probationary period at all? Then in regard to tips, surely the Minister could not be in earnest in this matter. This Act distinctly did away with tips. (Hear, hear.)

It makes them illegal.

What is illegal is not always immoral. I have very little doubt that, if the Minister himself were travelling, in spite of this Act, a tip would be forthcoming. The only thing is that the penalty should be upon the Minister for giving the tip and not upon the man for receiving it. I hope the Minister is not going to put that clause in. Proceeding. Mr. Brown said that, in reference to the provision as to 25 years, he hoped the committee would not bring in an Act that made the period more than 15 years at the outside. The Minister might not be aware that there was an amount of discontent in the railway service existing at the present time that never existed before It might be unnecessary discontent, but they had had the assurance of the Minister that his sympathies would be on the side of the men, that assurance had been accepted by them, but the general feeling amongst them to-day was that, with the multifarious duties that the Minister had to discharge, he had not got the time to go into the various cases that were submitted to him. Now they were doing away with the power of appeal to Parliament. There would be only an appeal to the superior officer. Surely it was not impossible to form a board of men where appeals could be heard away from official influence—(hear, hear)—and where only humanity should prevail. He would urge upon the committee not to allow this Bill to become law unless it contained a clause protecting the rights of the men by a court of appeal. Some board should be established representative of the Government and representative of the men, to which appeals could be directed.

said he was glad to hear the Minister say that the various men would have an opportunity of representing their views before the Select Committee. There were one or two points which he hoped the Minister would take care were brought before that committee for consideration. The first was as to the provision in regard to pensions. The provision laid down in the Bill was rather different from the provision made under the old Cape system. It was different in two respects. In the old. Cape Act, a man was paid on his average pay for the last three years in the service. He was now to receive a pension calculated upon the basis of the average emoluments for the whole of his service. There was another point which, he thought, would affect the position of the fund. The Department was to make itself responsible for an interest of four per cent. upon the monthly balance of the fund. He would point out to the Minister that four per cent. was more than would be earned by the balance in hand. So that, in addition to the equivalent payment, there was to be the interest paid, which was more than the Department would be earning. He wanted to be sure that the payments had been taken into consideration in laying the foundations of this fund. They wanted this fund to be solvent, and to stand on its own footing. He should like to know whether these calculations had been before actuaries, whether they had been properly considered, and whether upon this basis the fund would keep afloat without assistance. He noticed that the Minister proposed that the new Railway Department of the Union should take over the old pension funds. Those funds, unfortunately, were not solvent. There were not assets enough to meet the liabilities of the funds, and the Minister proposed that the deficit on those funds should be met from the general revenue ; that was, that the Treasurer should pay for a certain number of years whatever sum was found to be short. He did not know whether that sum had been arrived at, but he would submit to the committee whether the Railway Department should not make good that deficit. He saw that it was proposed to continue widows’ pensions on the footing of the old Cape Act. Nothing had been more unsatisfactory ; nothing could be more unsatisfactory. What happened now, was that a widow could only get a very small sum from the pension fund, quite inadequate for the support of a woman and young children. What happened in the Cape service? Men died without making provision for their widows. Petitions came from these people from time to time. They might, or they might not, receive consideration. He thought that in the temper of the House since Union, the House was not inclined to give them consideration. They had seen cases refused ; one or two were refused only last year, so that if the House was not prepared to make that provision by gratuity, it should see that provision is made in an Act of this kind.

Make it compulsory!

Make it compulsory. It could be made compulsory in this way, or by compulsory insurance. At any rate, they should see that widows and children were not liable to be left practically destitute. (Cheers.) Under this Act they were as open to either destitution or public charity as they ever were in the Cape Province. The country or somebody had to provide for these destitute women and children. (Hear, hear.) Instead of making them a charge on charity, provision should be made for them in the Act, and he hoped that before the Bill left the committee the Minister would consider that question. Another point he raised was in regard to the pay of certain railway servants. He knew of a man doing responsible work, more or less clerical work, a married man with a family, living in a town like Port Elizabeth, whose work was twelve hours a day for six days in the week, and consisted of checking goods, etc., who received only 6s. a day—practically 6d. an hour. He could not live on that. Somebody had to make up the deficit. There was no true economy in this. If any private person paid his employees at this rate, something disagreeable would happen, so strong would public opinion become. The payment of such a low wage brought down the wages throughout the Department. (Cross-bench “Hear, hear.”) He did not know whether that was the intention or not. Continuing, he said there was no use blinking the fact that right through the Railway Department was seething with discontent. They found it everywhere. He did not believe that there was a single member, unless he was a Minister, who did not receive complaints of this kind. It was due not only to what had happened, but to uncertainty as to the future. Railway servants felt that there was, so to speak, a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. He observed the Minister smiling. Well, it was all very well to smile when one had a comfortable position—(A VOICE: “And three thousand a year!”) —but–––

I was not smiling.

If the Minister was in the position of these unhappy servants, not knowing when he was going to be reduced or dismissed, he would take a different view. He repudiated the accusation of the hon. member for Uitenhage that hon. members on his side were making political capital out of this. There was no advantage to be gained. But there was this to be gained if the matter was remedied. The Railway Department would be more efficiently worked with a contented service. They knew that the men were entitled to receive this consideration from Parliament and the Government. (Opposition cheers.)

feared that the House was taking the matter a little too lightly. There seemed to be a general disposition to say this matter is being referred to a Select Committee, and it will be all right. He reminded the House of what happened last year. Was the House going to devolve the whole responsibility on the Select Committee? There were many serious points ; for instance, an extremely important legal point, made by the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, that the definitions of officers and employees were not mutually exclusive, though they were supposed to be so. The only way in which the point had been discussed from the Government side was in an extremely abusive speech by the hon. member for Uitenhage, who thought it sufficient to reply to a legal point by accusing the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, of talking to his constituents. They appreciated the difficulty of the position in which the hon. member for Uitenhage found himself ; he had to reconcile his support of the Government with the retention of the affection and support of his constituents. They realised that that was an extremely difficult task. (Opposition laughter.) Proceeding, he touched on a few minor details which required the Minister’s attention. The first was in regard to section 11. He thought that the principle laid down of not dismissing a man on full or half pay should be extended to include a man on leave without pay. The next point was in regard to section 15, sub-section 1. Of course, one knew quite well it was impossible for the General Manager to listen to all complaints against officers in the railway, but what he would say was that the officer who was delegated by the head of the department to hear the complaint should not be the immediate superior of the complainant. He had been told that sometimes the head of the department delegated as the officer to hear the complaint the foreman against whom the party was complaining. That was an undesirable principle, and he hoped it would be possible in the Select Committee to have put in a provision that the officer hearing the complaint should not be the immediate superior of the man against whom the complaint was made. There was another point in regard to clause 44, which consisted of three sub-sections in which there was serious distinction made between officers and employees with regard to the allowance made to them on retiring. It had been put to him that the special consideration which officers were to get as compared with the ordinary employees constituted rather an invidious distinction, and might well be omitted. With regard to clause 58, it said that the accounts of the fund were to be properly kept, and of course that was all right ; but he would like to ask the Commissioner of Railways if he could tell the House why there had been no balance-sheet submitted of the old fund. Under the Cape Act of 1909 he was informed that a similar clause was included ; but no balance-sheet had ever been submitted. He felt sure the explanation would give a great deal of satisfaction to those who were contributors to the fund. The Commissioner of Rail ways, in introducing the second reading, seemed to leave the House—he did not think intentionally—to understand that this Bill was, excepting a few details, practically the same Bill which emerged last session from the Select Committee.

No, I didn’t say that.

I am not going to say that the hon. Minister said that.

I said there were some material alterations.

Exactly ; I would submit to this House that there is scarcely a material alteration made by the Select Committee which operates in favour of the employees against the railway—that there is hardly a single alteration of that nature in the old Bill which is included in this. Proceeding, he said the hon. Minister shook his head, but he had taken considerable trouble to go right through the Bill and compare it with the alterations made in the old Bill, and if the Minister could show him any important alterations made against the Administration and in favour of the employees which had been left in, he would be much gratified, and he felt it would be appreciated in the service, because the impression was bound to get round that the Government had gone back on the concessions they had made last year. For instance, in section 5 of the new Bill and the old Bill there was the concession made last year, which said that both officers and employees and artisans should serve for the same period before they became permanent employees. The Minister told the House quite rightly that that concession had now been cut out, and new provisions inserted. But he had not mentioned an alteration which had been made in section 7 ; a very important alteration, and all the more so because it was not cutting out something that was put in by the Select Committee, but was leaving something out in the new Bill which was actually in the old Bill. He might be quite wrong ; but he would like to draw the attention of the House to section 7, sub-sections 6 and 7. The House would see at once that those two sub-sections were of great importance. Sub-section 6 provided that no servant on the permanent establishment shall, on the grounds of inefficiency, be dismissed except under certain conditions. Sub-section 7 provided that all charges or complaints against employees should be dealt with by an officer of high rank. He was dealing with the old Bill. These sub-sections, which were guarantees for the men against arbitrary treatment, had now been left out of the new Bill. When he came to this omission he concluded that he would find these sub-sections put in under some other clause, but he had searched the new Bill pretty thoroughly and had been unable to find them. That was rather an important alteration. Then there were sections 8 and 9 of the new Bill. If hon. members had those sections of the old Bill and compared them with the new Bill, they would find, that though there might have been no material alterations in the meaning of these clauses, there had been enormous alterations in the form in which they had been drafted. They would see, with regard to the granting of gratuities, there were enormous differences, at any rate in the drafting, between the old and the new Bills. Then clause 20, which alluded to disputes, had already been dealt with by Mr. Madeley, and it had been pointed out by him that the clause had been altered so that the Governor-General was not to carry out the provisions and appoint the Commission unless requested to do so by one-fifth of the grade concerned ; and also that the word “shall” in the old Bill had now been altered to “may.” Of course, it might be a misprint. (Laughter.) Then, regarding section 27, there were serious alterations. He would draw the attention of the House and the hon. Minister to them. There were alterations in sub-section 5, to which, again, the hon. Minister alluded, which said that a member of the old Administration who might have joined one of the pension or superannuation funds, but neglected to do so, was now not allowed to join the fund. That was altered by the Select Committee to allow such men to join ; but it had now been altered back. He was glad to hear the hon. Minister say he was sympathetically inclined towards those men and would see what he could do for them. Then, again, there was the alteration to which the hon. Minister drew attention in section 46, which said that a man who was dismissed should forfeit his contributions. An alteration was made in that by the Select Committee, and left out of the new Bill. There was one other serious alteration, and that was in section 82. In the old Bill a new section 82 was inserted, which made special provisions with regard to the admission to the pension fund of persons who had been engaged in the harbour services of the Union. That, again, had been cut out. These were important alterations, and to most of them the hon. Minister drew attention in his speech, but he did not explain why the Administration or Minister should have thought it necessary to go back on these points which were definitely conceded by the Select Committee last session, so that practically, in considering this Bill, it would be necessary to urge upon the Government that the concessions made last session should be put into this Bill. Leaving them out tended to make the men feel that there was a certain reluctance on the part of the Administration to grant them the concessions made by the Committee. He also wanted to point out that not only on important matters of this kind, but on many less important matters, there were left out of the new Bill a number of small concessions which were made by the Committee. That seemed to be a sheer policy of pin-pricks. They were concessions which did not materially affect the Administration, but did affect individuals among the men very materially, and he could not imagine why those small points were left out of the new Bill. Let him first deal with clause 6. In the old Bill there was a subsection which was withdrawn from the Bill. This dealt with the case of an appeal to the Minister. In clause 12 (e) there was an old sub-section, cut out by the Select Committee, which referred to the case of a servant who assigned his estate or against whom a writ of civil imprisonment was granted. This had been added again. Then there was section 14 of the original old Bill dealing with the question of the fine, and here again the Minister had erred in the course he had adopted. In clause 30 there had been special exemption in the case of engine drivers, telegraphists, and firemen, which enabled these men, at the age of 25 years, to pay an additional contribution, so as to get a larger pension. That provision, inserted by the Select Committee, had been dropped. In clause 34 there was a sub-section 3 inserted by the Select Committee to provide that when the salary or wages of a man were reduced it should not debar him contributing at the old rate to the pension fund. The House would agree that that was a wise provision ; but it had been cut out. Section 41 of the old Bill stated that if a man retired from the service voluntarily, and not in order to avoid dismissal or on account of fraud, dishonesty or misconduct, he should be entitled, on resigning, to have returned the-whole of his contributions to the fund, without interest. The words “or misconduct” had been cut out of the Bill by the Committee which took the trouble to distinguish between fraud or dishonesty and misconduct. Then in clause 42 the words “on application” had been re-inserted. It was hard to give the reason, for the deletion of the words was an act of justice that was performed by the Committee that had charge of the measure. The hon. member went on to say that he thought he had been able to show that not only in important matters, but in minor cases, there had been an unfortunate tendency—he would not say that it was a deliberate intention—on the part of the Administration to keep out little concessions that were made by the Select Committee that had considered the measure during the last session-of Parliament. While the House could not refuse reading the Bill a second time, he hoped that hon. members had seen that it was not a measure that should be passed over lightly. If he had been able to convince the House of this fact he would not have wasted the time of hon. members. (Hear, hear.)

said that he felt somewhat chastened after all that had been said. With regard to what had been said by his hon. friend the member for Port Elizabeth (Sir Edgar Walton) in regard to the four per cent. basis of the fund he (Mr. Sauer) would like to remark that the basis of the fund was examined by one of* the greatest actuaries in England—Mr. King—and he was perfectly satisfied. With regard to widows’ pensions, he would say that it was a very good thing that provision should be made for widows and orphans. In that Province they had come across many distressing cases, and heard of women and children being left without provision. He must tell the House that the men themselves objected to anything of the sort. He (Mr. Sauer) pressed this point when the Bill was before the Select Committee last session, but he must say that the men showed an inadequate sense of their responsibilities. He would only point out that it was the men who objected to the proposal. While it was compulsory at the Cape he pointed out that such was not the case in the other Provinces. If he were to carry out the proposal he believed that there would arise another grievance against the Administration. (Laughter.) The hon. member for Port Elizabeth also made a long speech which dealt with the low wages paid, and he drew quite a moving picture of what was happening. It was durions that men were only level when the Public Treasury was concerned. He had been told by his hon. friend that since he came into office he had reduced the rate of wages ; as a matter of fact, any changes that had been made had been for the better. They might argue that the wages that were paid were not sufficient, but that was a question that would come up for discussion at another time. When he heard his hon. friend, too, he could not help thinking of a certain paper, published in Port Elizabeth, that preached about extravagance. Economy was preached in the House, and the same editors outside attacked the Government. He did not pretend that he was a greater friend to man or to railway men than he was, but ever since he had been connected with the Administration he had endeavoured to meet the reasonable grievances of the men, and when he had altered the rate of pay it had not been diminished. After all, he had a duty to perform to the State. He did not want to see one class of the community monopolise all the work, neither did he want to see the railways managed in a way where extravagant salaries were paid and in advance of any salaries paid in other businesses. When they came to this question of grievances he found that they had a deal to say. He quite agreed with the appointment of this Commission, and when the Commission brought up their report, and he hoped they would have it before long, he would lay it on the table of the House. He was well aware that there were grievances, but whether people were seething with discontent he was not so sure, and he could assure his hon. friend (Sir Edgar Walton) that he had just as much information on that point as anyone else. He was well aware that there was discontent and he was aware of the reasons, and he hoped that some of the cases would be relieved, but he believed that a service where everyone was contented was not possible. Notwithstanding all this discontent, he was besieged with applications for admission into the railways. He wanted people to understand that when people talked here as representing certain constituencies, they must take that talk with a considerable grain of salt. (Laughter.) Let him say this about this seething with discontent. He did not think it was the best way to promote public interests or the interests of the men themselves to talk like this. Members of Parliament had not only responsibilities to their constituents, but also to the public. He would like to see a contented service, and he would do his best under the lights he possessed, and in accordance with the office he held to realise that desire, but he would never be able to quite go so far as some of his hon. friends desired. Let him say at once that in the first place, no single existing right which the men possessed was taken away by this Bill.

What about the artisan?

That is not intended, and: there is no clause in this Bill which says that any existing rights shall be taken away. I am showing an anxiety to do well—

It is a new disease with you. (Laughter.)

said the hon. member (Mr. Robinson) had drawn attention to the provision about desertion, and he said it was monstrous. But it was the law in the Transvaal and Orange Free State, and the Commission had approved of it. If the House had listened to the hon. member they would have thought that he (Mr. Sauer) had come down to do injury to labour. But it was the law. He would not discuss the question whether the punishment was too severe or not, but if a man deserted his post, no one could tell to what it might lead, in fact it might lead to the lose of many lives. The hon. member for the Harbour Division (Sir H. Juta) has made a great to-do about the Governor-General having the right to appoint or dismiss a man, but that was the law today. Here they had a gentleman learned in the law coining down and addressing simple persons like himself—(laughter)—and asking them for information about the Jaw. (Renewed laughter.) “Don ’t pin your faith to the lawyer,” he would advise them. Then the hon. member (Sir H. Juta) had told them to look at the definition. He had said “employee” was one thing, and “artisan” another. If he had read the definition he would have seen what artisan meant. (An HON. MEMBER: What does it mean?) The amusing part was this, that the part to which exception was taken was exactly the same as in Act 41 of 1909, and the curious part about the matter was that this definition was put in for the purpose of meeting such objections as those raised by the hon. member. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) had introduced the question of strikes in England. That was not quite relevant, but with regard to that he wished to say this, he did not hold that men suffering wrong and injustice, should not resort to such a remedy. He did not say that there were no times, when it was necessary to get redress, that they should not strike. He saw nothing immoral m it. Certain circumstances might arise where a strike was justifiable. It did not occur to him that “may” ought to be substituted for “shall.” He could not conceive that if the machinery for and the principle were recognised, that whether the word was “may” or “shall,” all would depend upon the advice of the Governor-General. Personally, he had no objection to the alteration. The reason why he was sending the Bill to a Select Committee was because he was really anxious to consult the people concerned, and give them an opportunity to be heard on the changes which were proposed. He had no doubt that when they were heard, and if they made out a good case, the committee would consider them with sympathy and give effect thereto When men had had any complaints or grievances, and they were brought before him, he had always gone into them, and he hoped he always would—(hear, hear)—and he had never sent a complaint away which came from a railwayman without personally going into it, and he would continue to do so. But for a Minister to try, even with the best of intentions, to meet all cases, or even to know of all cases, was impossible ; but he had endeavoured to redress grievances as far as he could ; and he said that the best way to meet complaints or grievances was to have some permanent body which would deal with them, with which he hoped they would be able to maintain discipline—because in the railway service they must have discipline and efficiency—and at the same time meet the reasonable requirements of a large body of men who were performing a public service. (Hear, hear.)

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

moved that the Bill be referrd to a Select Committee.

seconded.

This was agreed to.

moved that a Select Committee on Public Accounts be appointed ; the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, and to consist of nine members.

seconded.

moved that the committee consist of ten members.

seconded.

In reply to Sir T. W. SMARTT (Fort Beaufort).

said that he had no objection to the committee consisting of ten, and a member from the Labour Party being added. But he would object to the committee consisting of eleven.

said that the (the Labour Party) considered they had as much right to be represented on the committee as any of the two great parties.

Mr. Madeley’s amendment was negatived.

A division was called for, but was withdrawn.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the committee consist of Messrs. Duncan, Jagger, Fichardt. Fremantle, Merriman, Orr, Robinson, Sir Edgar Walton, and the mover.

seconded.

Agreed to.