from C. A. van Blommestein, postmaster at Piquetberg.

from inhabitants of Harrismith, in support of the petition of M. S. Raath.

from Divine, Gates and Co. and six others, baggage agents, Table Bay Docks, who have received notice that they will not be allowed to continue their business after the 31st March next, praying that the licences be continued.

from M. S. Raath, widow of J. S. Raath, in his lifetime a member of the Orange Free State Police.

asked the Minister of Lands whether he will during the recess, cause a thorough inquiry to be instituted as to the possibility of, by means of irrigation, developing the country along the Sunday River in the district of Jansenville and along the Kariega and Groot Rivers in the districts of Aberdeen, Willowmore and Steytlerville, in order to enable him to advise the farmers as to the establishment of irrigation districts, or as to the best means of promoting such development?

With the staff hitherto at the disposal of the Director of Irrigation, it has not been possible to devote that attention to the districts specified, which they deserve. It is now intended, however, to create a new irrigation circle, which will embrace this Central Karoo area, and will promote the development of irrigation therein.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs whether, in view of the large amount of traffic at Teakworth Halt, he will consider the advisability of establishing, during the present year, if possible, a post and telegraph office at that place?

A Post Office Agency was opened at Teakworth in October last year. The question of extending telegraphic facilities to that place has received attention and an amount has been provided in the 1912-13 Loan Vote Estimates for the purpose. The work will be taken in hand early next financial year.

asked the Minister of Commerce and Industries whether it is the intention of the Government to make the regulations framed under paragraphs (a) and (b), subsection (3) of section six of the Post Office Administration and Shipping Combinations Discouragement Act, 1911, apply to persons or companies giving deferred rebates on articles of commerce to the exclusion of competitive articles, such, for instance, as the Nestle Company on their milk, the Vacuum Oil Company on the Standard Oil Company’s paraffin, and other Companies on different articles of necessity ; and, if not, whether the Government is prepared to bring in a short Bill to make unlawful such practice as being in restraint of trade on the lines of like legislation in the United States, Australia. New Zealand, and other countries?

It is obviously not possible to make the regulations framed in connection with the Post Office Administration and Shipping Combinations Discouragement Act, 1911, applicable to the cases mentioned; and Government is not at present prepared to introduce legislation on the lines indicated.

asked the Minister of Education: (1) Whether it is a fact that in certain schools in the Union, principals make a practice of selling school requisites to the scholars ; and, if so, (a) whether the scholars are compelled to purchase only in the schools ; and (b) what becomes of the profits, if any, accruing from the transactions?

replied that as this matter was solely for the Provincial Council authorities, he was afraid he could not give the answer.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is prepared to accede to the request of the Divisional Council of Dordrecht and others praying that the Government should, in view of the spread of East Coast fever, prohibit cattle being moved from the Glen Grey district into the Dordrecht, Elliot, and Barkly East districts ; and if so, when?

The movements of cattle from, into, or through the district of Glen Grey, except under permit, have already been prohibited ; vide Government Notices 114 and 157.

asked the Minister of Justice whether the reorganisation of the staff of the Prisons Department and the fixing of the pay and allowances of the members of that staff have been completed, and, if not, when the questions relating to such pay and allowances will be settled so that the men employed will know what their positions and prospects really are?

The reorganisation of the subordinate or executive staff of the Prisons Department is nearing completion, and will be made known along with the re-organisation position affecting the Police Department at as early a date as possible.

asked the Minister of Mines whether all mines on the Witwatersrand have an adequate water supply to all working places ; if not, whether he will state (a) What number is not so supplied ; (b) the names of such mines and the groups to which they belong ; and (c) what steps, if any, he is taking to enforce the installation of such water supply?

The mining regulations make provision for an adequate supply of water to every dry development face and every stops which is dry and dusty. Any mine which is found not complying with these regulations in any such working places is prosecuted. I am not able to state on what mines there may be any working places not properly supplied, but if any breach of the regulations on this matter is brought to the notice of the Department by the inspectors or by the public, prosecution will at once be instituted. Every possible attention is being given by the inspectors to seeing that the regulations are being carried out and a special report on all mines was made in May last dealing exhaustively with the subject, which showed a satisfactory appreciation of the importance of an adequate water supply as the chief means of allaying dust in mines.

asked if the Minister would lay the report on the table.

said he would make inquiries about the report, which was not in his possession.

asked the Minister of Lands: (1) Whether adjoining the township of Wynberg, just outside the Johannesburg Municipal area, certain land belonging to one Papenfus has recently been surveyed as a township ; (2) whether lots in this township have been sold to Kafirs and coloured people; (3) whether the law has been infringed by such sales; and (4) whether any steps have been taken by the Government to ascertain whether the establishment of what will become a native location in this new township does not inflict injury on residents in the neighbouring townships?

replied that presumably the hon. member referred to what was known as the Alexandra township, which was surveyed in 1905, prior to the passing of the Transvaal Ordinance.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he is aware that when passenger rates were reduced recently, no reduction was made in monthly ticket rates, and that consequently these rates are disproportionately high?

replied that he knew of the passenger fare reductions, but did not propose to make any change in monthly ticket rates at present.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether it is the intention of the Government, when submitting legislation dealing with the Public Service, to include therein provision for securing to servants of the Railway Administration, who may, since 31st May, 1910, have been transferred to posts in the Civil Service, the full benefits for pension purposes of their previous service and contributions to pension funds?

The matter will receive consideration when the draft of the Public Service Bill is dealt with by the Government. Such a provision as that to which the hon. member refers should be reciprocal, and if provision is made in the Public Service Bill similar legislation will require to be introduced providing for the recognition of transfers to the Railway Administration from the Union Public Service.

asked the Prime Minister: (1) Whether in view of the fact that the English edition of the Estimates of Expenditure was laid upon the table of the House some considerable time before the Dutch edition and that many important papers have been laid upon the table only in English, it is the intention of the Government that members who are not sufficiently conversant with the English language should to their great inconvenience be denied the information contained in those papers ; (2) whether section 137 of the South Africa Act provides for absolutely equal rights, or whether it is left to Ministers and their officials to carry out that section as they think fit ; and (3) whether he is of opinion that by acting in the manner indicated they are carrying out section 137 of the South Africa Act in spirit and letter as intended by the National Convention?

I beg to inform the hon. member that the Government does everything in its power to give full effect to section 137 of the South Africa Act, and, as far as practicable, Dutch and English versions of all papers are laid on the table simultaneously. I do not think that hon. members fully realise the difficulties which are sometimes met with in doing this. The English version of the Estimates was laid on the table shortly after Parliament assembled to meet the wishes of hon. members who were anxious to scrutinise them, and although every endeavour had been made to table the Dutch version simultaneously a slight delay occurred before it could be put in, the difference being only about a week. Rather than hold the English version over for that week the Government thought there would be no reason for complaint if it were laid on the table at once and the Dutch a few days afterwards. I do not think the hon. member can have any ground for complaint about other documents laid on the table of the House, the Dutch and English versions of which have all been laid on the table simultaneously, with the exception of certain Imperial Blue-books which were not laid on the table in Dutch as the Government did not consider that the expenditure that would be involved in their translation and printing could be justified. I can assure the hon. gentleman that Government officials are doing everything in their power to carry out the terms of section 137 of the South Africa Act.

asked the Prime Minister whether any arrangement exists with the Imperial Government that the Government of the Union shall be consulted in negotiations with foreign Powers whereby any change may be made in the status of territories in Africa in which the interests of the Union may be concerned?

I beg to refer the honourable gentleman to my speech at the Imperial Conference during the discussion on the Declaration of London, where I stated the Government of the Union was of opinion “that it is in the highest interest of the Empire that the Imperial Government should not definitely bind itself by any promise or agreement with a foreign country which may affect a particular Dominion without consulting the Dominion concerned,” and also to the first resolution of the Conference which will be found on page 15 of the Blue-book referred to, copies of which have been laid on the table and distributed among honourable members.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether he is aware of the circular issued from the Department of Agriculture, dated at Pretoria, 30th ultimo, recommending that a combination be formed by the South African creameries for the purpose of raising the prices of South African butters, and suggesting a meeting to promote this object ; (2) whether he approves of this attempt on the part of a Government Department to promote the formation of a ring for increasing the price to the general public of a necessary article of food ; and (3) whether he will take steps to have the circular immediately withdrawn and the proposed meeting cancelled?

(1) Owing to the disproportionate prices obtained in the local markets for South African butter as compared with imported butter, the dairying division of the Department of Agriculture recently issued a circular to the South African Creameries, inviting them to send a representative to a meeting for the purpose of discussing matters. (2) The object of the circular and of the meeting is not to promote the formation of a “ring,” as suggested by the honourable member’s question. (3) The answer to this part of the question is in the negative.

asked the Minister of Justice whether he is aware of the unnecessary details and expenses in connection with the execution of writs for the attachment of fixed property in accordance with the sentences of Superior Courts; and, if so, whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to facilitate such execution arid to make it less costly, and also to grant Magistrates’ Courts the necessary jurisdiction to issue writs where the fixed property concerned is of small value?

I am aware that the cost in two of the Provinces in connection with the execution of writs for the attachment of fixed property is high. I intend dealing both with this matter and with the question of extending Magistrates’ Courts’ jurisdiction to issue writs in respect of fixed property at an early date.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether the Railway Administration is prepared to allow Natal natives and Zulus to travel to the Rand at the same fares as are now charged to natives from the Cape Province who commence their journey from Natal stations, provided similar accommodation is supplied in each case?

The rates referred to not only relate to Natal Zulus but also include some other native races, such as Hottentots. No alteration in the rates is proposed.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs whether he will consider the advisability of extending to the public in the country districts some opportunity of telegraphic and telephonis communication, by opening these offices for an hour on Sundays, especially in view of the fact that this practice is in force in some parts of the Union?

The attendance at telegraph offices within the Cape Province on Sundays has been curtailed, in view of a resolution passed by Parliament that Sunday labour should be discontinued as far as possible. There has been no serious inconvenience caused to the public by acting upon the expressed wish of the Legislature in this connection, and it is not considered that any exceptional circumstance would justify the Department in opening telegraph offices generally on Sundays. In a case of emergency, the local postmaster or his assistant can generally be found, and if the station wanted is in attendance, there would be no difficulty in transmitting an urgent telegram.

asked the Mnister of the Interior: (1) Whether it is the intention of the Government to close the. Leper Asylum at Sydenham and to remove the lepers to Pretoria ; and (2), if so, what does the Government intend to do with regard to the attendants at present employed at the asylum?

(1) Yes. It is the intention of the Government to close this Leper Asylum, as the locality and the premises are entirely unsuitable. The institution in question contains some 150 patients, and as is the case with all small places of this nature, the rate of maintenance is exceedingly high, and the patients housed there are costing the Government head for head twice as much as patients in the Pretoria Leper Asylum. The Government estimates to save over £5,000 a year by the closing of this institution. (2) It is hoped to absorb some members of the staff into other asylums, and those who are pensionable and who cannot be provided with other Government employment, will receive whatever compensation they are entitled to under the Free State laws.

asked the Minister of Defence: (1) Whether the report is correct that it is his intention to disband the band of the Cape Mounted Rifles, and if so, what are the grounds for such intention ; (2) whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction that this report is causing in the Transkei ; and (3) whether, in view of (a) the high character and efficiency of this band, (b) its long and honourable past history, ;(c) the public services it has rendered in various parts of the country, and (d) the fact that in the Defence scheme the honour is given to the Cape Mounted Rifles to form the first regiment of the South African Permanent Fighting Force, he will consider the question of retaining the services of this band in connection with the permanent fighting force?

No, sir. No such report has come to my notice, and this is the first time I have heard of this matter.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether the statement to the effect that at Bloemfontein gangs of white labourers have been working under the surveillance of native policemen is correct, and, if so, whether this practice will be discontinued?

said he would have thought that by this time the hon. member would have known the value of newspaper information in regard to railway matters. The answer to the question was in the negative. He could give his hon. friend some further information in connection with that matter, to show what was actually done, but it was not so.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours : (1) When the papers in connection with the arrest and prosecution of E. McGlade, exstaff custodian at Mooi River, Natal, will be laid upon the table of the House in compliance with a resolution adopted on the 1st instant ; and (2) what is the reason of the delay in complying with this resolution?

was understood to say that the papers would be laid on the table as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Commerce and Industries whether, in view of the uncertainty and anxiety existing in commercial and industrial circles as to expected changes in the Customs duties, he will inform the House if it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Customs Tariff Bill this session?

replied that no decision on the question had been arrived at.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to the case of two men who were unfortunately killed as a result of falling under a train at Dunswart Station, Transvaal ; (2) whether the accident was due to the tact that there is no platform provided at that station ; and (3) whether, in view of the danger to the travelling public due to the absense of platform accommodation at this junction, he will take immediate steps to have platforms erected?

The answer to (1) is, Yes. In regard to (2), the accident was not owing to that.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether, in view of the fact that the proposed railway from Zeerust to Buhrmansdrift has been laid as far as Ottoshoop, he will consider the advisability or having that section provisionally opened for general traffic so that there may be railway communication with Mafeking while the remaining section Ottoshoop-Zeerust is still under construction?

Section Buhrmansdrift to Ottoshoop is open for the conveyance of general traffic by construction trains under usual conditions, pending completion of section Ottoshoop to Zeerust.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harboure : (1) Whether he has received any petitions requesting him to raise Teakworth Halt into a station ; (2) whether he is prepared to state the amount of traffic at Teakworth Halt ; and (3) whether it is a fact that the amount of traffic at this halt is larger than that of some of the stations on the same line ; and if so, whether he will consider the advisability of raising, during The present year, if possible, the said halt into a station?

(1) No ; the Administration has no trace of any such petitions ; (2) average traffic dealt with per month for three months ended January 31, 1912. as follows: Passengers, 211 (20 first, 135 second, 56 third) ; parcels, 247 (revenue, £7 10s.): live-stock, 24 (revenue £1 13s. 10d.) ; goods, 32 tons (revenue £12 7s. 11d.) ; (3) question of establishing third-class station at Teakworth is under consideration.

said he would like to have Mr. Speaker’s ruling on the reply given to him by the Minister of Education on question No. 6. He stated it was a matter coming within the province of the Provincial Council, and therefore he could not give an answer. Was that right?

This is purely a matter in the discretion of the Minister, and I am not disposed to interfere. (Hear, hear.)

I move that the second reading be taken on Friday next.

seconded.

I presume that these are payments that have not been sanctioned.

Yes.

Has it been before the Public Accounts Committee?

This is a Bill to vote public moneys for a definite object. Surely the House has to go into Committee of Supply before the Bill is considered.

I think if the hon. member considers the matter he will see that the Cape practice is being followed.

Hear, hear.

I have not had the benefit of hearing the remarks made by the hon. members for Cape Town Central and for Port Elizabeth Central, but I should have thought that the proper course would be for the Public Accounts Committee to consider the Bill before the second reading is taken.

No, this is quite in order. Of course, it is quite competent for the House to consider a motion at the proper time.

Hear, hear.

I move.

What does the hon. member move?

I move that this be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

The hon. member must move that after the Second Reading has been taken.

Hear, hear.

Before the Second Reading!

To meet hon. members I will put the Second Reading down for this day fortnight.

But I must point out that the Committee cannot deal with the Bill until after the Second Reading.

Hear, hear.

I move this merely because it will give them a fortnight’s time in which to get together all the criticism they want.

The Committee would not have jurisdiction to consider the Bill unless it is specially referred to the Committee.

Hear, hear.

I do not object to that, but I still think that it would be within their powers once the matter is before the House to inquire.

No, except upon a special order of the House the subject matter of a Bill cannot be inquired into by any Committee until the principle is agreed to by the Second Reading, and then also only if the Bill as referred to the Committee.

Hear, hear.

I think then that under these circumstances the Second Reading had better stand over till Friday.

I wish on principle to object to the Second Reading of any Bill being taken within seventy-two hours after the First Reading. I don’t know what the practice was in the Cape or what it is in other countries, but the practice is wrong for the House to consider the Second Reading before hon. members have had an opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the Bill, which up to this moment has not yet been handed to them.

The motion that the Second Reading be set down for Friday was agreed to.

moved that in the opinion of this House legislation should be introduced without delay to define the duties and powers of the Railway Board. He said that this was a matter of vital importance from a business point of view. He hoped before he had finished to appeal to the intelligence of the House. As an onlooker of recent squalls, he was very surprised at the schoolmaster attitude of hon. members opposite, particularly of the Minister of Railways. He had waxed eloquent on the subject, and with his forefinger admonished hon. members on his side of the House as if he were going to chastise them. One expected at any moment he would produce a birch. In regard to the giving of good advice, he would remind hon. members opposite that it was more blessed in the giving than in the receiving. But in his fervour he told the House that he had not received any complaints from railway men regarding the circular, although last night he noticed a report of a speech, made by a Mr. Nettleton, in which that gentleman stated that he had sent the Minister a petition signed by no less than 10,000 railwaymen. There was a strange discrepancy here which he hoped the Minister would clear up. (Hear, hear,) The Minister affected not to understand him when he asked him a question re (garding a certain point. He said that if he meant by statement he would deal with the matter in debate, but if he meant by legislation his reply would be that a Bill had been prepared in regard to which no decision had been arrived at. The Minister said that the capital sunk in railways at the end of March last year was £75,488,000, and that by the end of March of this year the amount would be £79,788,000. Well, he held that the House was the trustee of that vast investment, and he thought he would show that the House was not getting its proper share of the control of that investment. (Hear, hear.) He hoped the Minister would be induced to withdraw from its seclusion that measure which he told them had been prepared, because nothing could be more unsatisfactory than that the railways of this country should be allowed to drift into political control. He knew very well that the Minister, if he decided to do so, could, by means of a party vote, refuse ; but he hoped that he would not do so. He would first deal with the regulations of the Railway Board. There was a clause in the South Africa Act which was very specific in dealing with the funds for the purpose of railways, ports, and harbours. He would pass on to section 127, which said that the railway must be run on business principles. Well, if a business principle was to earn stupendous profits then the railways were run on business principles. They were stupendous profits, because for every £1 the railway spent they made 18s. profit. He did not know of any other industry that was in that happy position. The clause went on to say that regard should be had to the agricultural and industrial development within the Union. Could it be said that the policy of the Railway Board and the Government in connection with the railway up to the present had been in the direction of developing the interior of this country? To-day was not the moment to go into the effect of railway rates on the development of the country, but he would make the sweeping statement that the policy that was being followed was absolutely strangling the internal development of the country. (Hear, hear.) It was also stated in the Act that the Governor General shall give effect to the provision prohibiting profits within the next four years. They had been under Union for over a year now, but they had not seen any steps taken to carry out that provision. (Hear, hear.) Then, again, it said “if” the earnings should be in excess of the expenditure—there, again, clearly implying that the earnings were not to be in excess of the working expenses. Truly, it said after four years ; but if they looked at the enormous profits the railway was now earning they would see that they must not wait for four years, for if they did they would find it absolutely impossible to carry out the provisions of that Act. Clause 130 said that any proposal for the construction of a railway, port, or harbour shall be considered by the Board. But the section did not lay down by whom the proposal was to be laid before the Board, and he understood that the proposals were presented only by the Government. He thought they would find that that was not wise or in the interests of the railway or the country. It seemed to him that it would be much wiser, if the Board received proposals for railway construction from any recognised local authority, considered them, and then reported to the Government on them. Then the Government could decide where to build and where not to build, and the House would have the infinite advantage of having real information on the matter, instead of having to be dependent, as it was solely at present, on the Minister for any information. The extraction of any information from him required skill ; in fact, he was like an oyster, and a strong, pointed instrument was required for the purpose. Section 2 of the Board’s regulations provided for the control and management of the railways. He saw a very important provision in clause 3, which stated that in the event of the Minister of Railways not being present at a meeting of the Board, then the chair shall be taken by the Acting Minister of Railways. Well, so far as he knew an Acting Minister had never existed. Lastly, in this connection, one of the most important was that contained in clause 4, which stated that the questions before the Board shall be decided by a majority of the members, and in case of an equality of votes, the chairman shall have a casting vote. Well, a Board constituted as this was, by three members and the chairman, who was the Minister, the Minister only had to carry one vote and he could do what he liked. That was not in the interests of the railway administration of this country. (Hear, hear.) The sixth clause provided that every member of the Board shall be obliged to record his vote upon every question. It would be very interesting to see the book in which those votes were recorded ; but he did not think the Minister would willingly lay that book upon the table. The Board was charged with many very important duties ; and it seemed to him if they wished to protect the country in regard to the use of the railway system, the Board must report to the Government in regard to the alteration of rates, and the report of the Board should be laid before the House. Otherwise, the Whole matter was under the control of the Minister. Likewise, the Board had to submit to Parliament, through the Minister of Railways, a report of the operations and the state of the funds at the end of each financial year. That statement should be a written and not a verbal one made by the Minister. He would now pass on to a set of regulations governing the officers and staff of the railway. These regulations certainly fixed the responsibility in no uncertain manner. He could only regret that they had not a similar set of regulations governing the conduct of the Railway Board in regard to communications to this House. It stood to reason that the Board constituted by one Cape official, one Transvaal official, one Natal official, and the Minister must have many divergent opinions, and that constitution gave no protection against the misuse of the powers given to the Board. Proceeding, the hon. member referred to the statement by the right hon. member for Victoria West that in one district there were thousands of bags of grain lying rotting on the ground for the reason that there were no transport facilities for removing them to the market, and said he would like to say that if they were going to build long railways in one direction because there was a large quantity of grain grown, the obligation should be judged by the Railway Board. They must remember that the Government had limited means, and further railway extension should only take place in the direction where it was most needed and where it would be most profitable. The reason for a strong Railway Board was because, in the natural order of things, railway lines passed, sometimes, in the direction where hon. members in that House had large interests. It must be so. And that there might be no improper pressure brought to bear on the engineers constructing the line—if it were found that the railway did go out of their way in districts where hon. members had interests—it would give rise to all sorts of charges being made without any foundation, no doubt, but if they had a Board which investigated these things purely from the standpoint of South Africa’s interests they would avoid that. Continuing, the hon. member alluded to the necessity for fuller information in regard to railways that were proposed to be constructed in various parts of the country ; Last year they passed a large amount of money for the construction of railways, but lit was only after that event that the responsible department came forward and handed to hon. members of that House a Blue Book containing the information which they should have had when the Bill for the money was before the House. It was only right that they should have an independent body to report upon the railways proposed to be constructed, and he thought it was a necessity that there should be some safeguard in this respect. He was wholly in favour of the development of the country by means of railways, but he said that they should proceed with that development upon proper and right lines. The House should have some safeguard that more would not be done for one section of the people than for another. It was not a right principle to come before the House towards the last days of the session and ask the House to pass a Bill which involved the expenditure of a large amount of money. If this sort of thing were done, then it was the place of the Opposition to refuse to lend support to such measures in order to register a protest that would be noted by the people of the country. Last year, when the Railway Budget was before the House, he (the speaker) said he thought lit was only fair that in districts where these railways were to be constructed, the districts should contribute something at the inception of the scheme or when the effect of such lines were felt. He had made that suggestion, and the Minister had held up his hands in holy horror. Now, if he had sinned, he had sinned in good company, and he proceeded to read a speech which had been delivered by the Minister of Finance on July 7, 1904, when that Minister made suggestions of a similar nature.

Why didn’t ou back it up?

I was not there. Continuing, the speaker referred at length to the proposed Geduld line, a matter which had come before the Transvaal Parliament in 1909. It was a stretch of something like 15 miles, and it was estimated that the work would cost £75,000. The mines which would abut on the lines were desirous of having further railway communication, for the reason that large works were being commenced. Parliament sanctioned the line, and any sensible person would think that after that had been done, there would be no more trouble. Certain mines were asked to contribute, but there was another, which was controlled by friends of the Government, which objected to making any contribution. The directors of the companies concerned protested against the action of the Government in expecting that they should contribute a sum which almost equalled the cost of the line.

How much were you expected to pay?

£15,000.

The line was to cost £75,000.

Two Modderfontein companies alone paid £15,000. Continuing, he said that the Van Ryn Company refused to pay anything towards the construction of the line. The result was that the line was taken to a certain point, and then there was a gap of 4 1/4 miles. The speaker alluded to the fact that there were a large number of men working on these mines, 1,100 white men and 6,000 coloured upon the two mines mentioned, and said that if these men desired to go into Johannesburg, they either had to walk those four miles or pay extortionate fares for cabs

More corruption and jobbery.

Did I speak of corruption or jobbery? I have said nothing of the sort. Continuing, he said that he wished to point out that the Government had desired to treat the mining companies differently from other people. It all tended to show that there was need of proper administration. What they required was a Board of Administration, that would have the confidence of the country. He proceeded to refer to the report of the General Manager of Railways, who, he said, was a most efficient, zealous, and painstaking official. He thought he had shown that they did not act up to the declared policy of fostering the development of the country. But he would go further into this matter at the proper time. The General Manager said in his report: “It was not possible at the date of Union to unify the classifications and rates in force within the several Provinces for the conveyance of goods and minerals,” and later on he made this startling statement: “Complete assimilation has, however, been deferred until a fitting opportunity presents itself and one common classification can be adopted without materially disturbing trade relationships. If they were to wait for that they would have to wait till the end of time. If they were going to make a radical change in regard to tariffs it must to some extent mean a change in the trade of the country. On the subject of depreciation he would do the Minister the justice to say that last year he admitted that insufficient depreciation was allowed. The General Manager’s report on this point read: “The question of providing for arrears of depreciation is an important one, and will require careful consideration. As already pointed out, provision for depreciation was not made by any of the late railway administrations until 1905, and then only by the Central South African Railways, so that the amount still to be provided in respect of assets to be renewed or replaced during the next few years is considerable.” What the House required to know was what amount of depreciation was needed to make up leeway. He thought that the House would have the more confidence in any reports on this subject if the Railway Board had an independent inquiry into the value of our railway assets. (Cheers.) They could not be too careful on this subject. They did not want their balance sheets to show assets that did not exist, or else they should write down the capital value. The right hon. member for Victoria West had suggested the utilisation of surpluses for new lines. That would be an excellent thing if they had a private concern. But one thing they must do first, namely, make sure that their assets represented their nominal value. They must remember, too, that the lines were a possession for all time.

When the mines are exhausted you will have the railways.

The mines are not going to be exhausted within the memory of anyone in this House. Proceeding, he said that the second point was if the mines ceased to exist unless development was pushed on on a very different scale to that in vogue at present we would not want our railway lines at all. He would not object to the use of a certain amount of the surplus to build railway extensions, but they must not use all the surplus, because posterity should not be benefited by burdens borne exclusively by taxpayers of to-day.

It is contrary to the Act of Union. The Minister is prepared to break the Act of Union!

The Act of Union is a most convenient instrument. Continuing, he said that when a thing was contrary to the Act of Union, and it was for the protection of their great railway system, and its withdrawal from the sphere of politics, no one would find fault with an amendment of the Constitution. He thought something could be done unless the Minister regarded the Act as a law of the Medes and Persians.

He says No.

said that there were other ways of dealing with the matter The Minister could get the Railway Board to make a report to himself and he could then place that report before the Government and afterwards before the House. As things stood at present, they might as well abolish the Board. It was merely the plaything of the Minister. He could use it as a shield. He now came to the General Manager’s report in regard to the maintenance of the permanent way. The General Manager told them that there had been a great increase in traffic, and as a natural result the engines and rolling stock were being overworked, and could not be spared from traffic for sufficiently long and at sufficiently frequent intervals to admit of their being kept up to the ideal standard he (the General Manager) should like. None knew what that signified. Did it mean that the rolling stock was not being properly kept up? If that was so they would leave a legacy of mismanagement the country would have reason to regret. That was another reason for having a report on a subject of that kind not from the General Manager alone but from the Railway Board. The next matter was on the subject of catering. He was surprised, because the Minister was such a great supporter of local industries, to see that more was charged on the railway for Colonial than for imported beer. He thought that there was also imported sugar on the tables.

And labels printed in Holland. Terrible! Terrible!

said he would next deal with the very important matter of the staff. He observed that 20,000 white and 24,000 coloured men were employed. He thought that they should hear a little more about these people than they did at present. The first paragraph of the report dealt with preferential treatment. The General Manager then went on to discuss the very important question of white labour. That was a subject upon which they ought to have a policy. The report was an absolute negation of business principles.

Yes.

said that the General Manager told them that he employed 3,000 white men on the line, and they had cost the country £45,000 more than if he had done the work in the ordinary way.

Do you want to do it in the ordinary way?

went on to say that the General Manager reported that the white labourers were most successful when they worked away from the large centres. On this matter they would like to have the opinion of the Board as well as of the General Manager. He thought he had shown the object the Convention had in view. Whether they adhered to the letter of the Act of Union or not they had to abide by the spirit, which was that the railway must be rescued from political influence. That was being frustrated altogether at present, and would be unless hon. members opposite were ready to see an Act brought in amending the South Africa Act or defining the powers of the Board to prevent it from deliberately dragging the railway system of this country into the political arena. The Board at present was a failure, not through any fault of its own, but because it was dominated and prevented from performing the services contemplated in the South Africa Act. Its functions were to all intents and purposesusurped. And as far as policy went, they had not a word. The Minister made a happy speech on his budget, but there was nothing about the policy. The only policy that he could see they followed was to squeeze as much as they could out of their best customers and, he presumed, to ingratiate their friends. He had brought the matter forward, not in a party spirit, but as affecting the most vital business concern in South Africa. It was a national question of the greatest possible importance. He hoped that the Minister would not be satisfied with evading the question, or with merely indulging in pleasant platitudes, when he came to reply, but that he would appreciate that either he (the speaker) was wrong in the view he took, or that it was a case that called for the most serious consideration. (Cheers.)

in seconding the motion, desired to offer a few observations in regard to the Railway Board. They had no reference whatever to the personnel of the Board. It had been his pleasant duty to be associated with the Commissioners for many years past, and it would ill become him to say anything which might reflect on them. He would be loth also to pass any reflection on the Minister of Railways, who was chairman of the Board, and who, being a member of the Government, could, according to accepted theory, “do no wrong.” He did not intend to go into details, as the hon. member for Yeoville had done, but to make a few general observations on the principles underlying the formation of the Railway Board. He might say, when this subject was brought to notice by the publication of the Draft Act, they in Natal sent forward for the consideration of the Convention, at its second session in Bloemfontein, some suggestions with reference to the Draft Act, and especially with reference to the sections relating to the management of railways. These suggestions, although sent forward for consideration to the Convention, did not receive that attention which they thought they would have received.

The Act of Union set forth that the railway? and harbours should be administered on business principles. That was fine, specious phrase, which might be interpreted according to the will of the person who interpreted it. There was no particular definition which would fix down the principles upon which the railways were to be conducted. With reference to the actions of the Board itself, one missed almost at once on coming into this House the functions which it was supposed that the Board would fulfil when it came into active operation. Last year a motion was made for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the grievances which existed in the railway service. He, in his simplicity, asked the question as to what these grievances were, because there had been no grievances mentioned in the House so far as he knew, and he asked further, had any of them been brought before the Railway Board which, apparently, was the body to which they should have been represented? It was understood, as he found on both sides of the House, that a Commission was to be appointed to inquire into the alleged grievances and, although he did not know of that, he simply concurred in the suggestion that the Commission should be appointed. But the other day the hon. member for Jeppe introduced a motion which dealt with discontent amongst the railway officials, and it struck him (Sir David) very forcibly, that not a single word was said during the debate upon the Railway Board or its relations to the people who had these grievances. (Hear, hear.) There were, he believed, speaking in round numbers, about 40,000 people employed in the railways and harbours.

Over 52,000.

At any rate, it is sufficient for my purposes to take 40,000 or 45,000 These people had grievances, and the relations of these people to the Board should surely be capable of some definition. (Hear, hear.) But no one seems to know whether the Board interfered in the relations of this large body of employees, or whether this body has any power of representation to the Board which had been appointed by law. Proceeding, Sir David remarked that the question of rates, as the hon. member for Yeoville had said, had a very important bearing on the welfare of the country. There was the question of the rates on mealies and fertilisers, which represented two very important industries. Surely there was a large body of other traffic conveyed on the railways which should have been considered, so that some advantage might have been given to the public by the reduction of rates, instead of going on storing up large sums of money which had been set aside and which were shown available for these purposes.

The hon. member went on to quote from the treatise which was issued on the eve of Union in so far as it referred to the question of railways, and drew attention to the way in which the importance of divorcing the railways from political control was emphasised. He drew attention particularly to the remark that “so long as the working of the railways is vested in the ordinary Executive Government they can-not fail to be used in one way or another for political purposes, with disastrous results to the common welfare.” Further on, he went on to say, the same authority said that the railways should be divorced from political control. That was the one point on which the attention of the House should be concentrated. The error was not in the gentlemen who filled the honourable positions of members of the Board, through whom, but not by whom, the administration of the railways was carried on under the Act of Union. Universally one heard on every side grievous disappointment as to the working of this Board, and if he quoted an expression in the mouths of many people which one frequently heard, it was that “The Railway Board is an absolute farce.” (Hear, hear.) Sir David Hunter went on to refer to the practice of the Australian colonies in regard to the control of railways and to the detached position occupied by the judges and the Auditor-General of the Union in relation to the Government. He wished, he observed, to emphasise that the Minister in dealing with this matter should take a broad view and deal with it on a good, sound principle, adopting the experience of other countries, and he was sure then that the railways would be worked on far better lines. There was no more valuable line in the Convention, to his way of thinking, than that contained in clause 152, which said that “Parliament may by law repeal or alter any of the provisions of this Act.” He would earnestly suggest to the Minister, in the true interests, as he believed, of the country, and speaking as one who had had a good deal of experience in the administration of railways, that he should take a long view of this matter, and rearrange the whole question upon the basis of an independent Board, who should originate action, and who should deal with the staff, and who would thus save the Government a vast amount of interference which otherwise they would be subject to in connection with railway matters. He earnestly appealed to the Minister, if he accepted this motion, that he should deal with it in the way he (Sir David) suggested, and that he should take a leaf out of the books of other countries and frame new measures for the establishment of a competent Board, which would have the confidence of the country and the confidence of that House. (Opposition cheers.)

said he believed it was absolutely in the interests of the country that the functions and powers of the Board should be specified in more detail. At the present time the only definition of the powers of the Board was in clause 126 of the Act of Union and in clauses 128, 129, 130, and 151. To his mind, clause 150 was most important of all. It constituted the Board and gave them their being and so forth. But further than that, all the powers of the Board were simply defined by regulation. He presumed these regulations had received the sanction of the Government, but that, to his mind, was not at all satisfactory. He did not think they had been sanctioned by formal vote of that House. Certain of those powers depended entirely upon regulations which had received the sanction of the Government. He did not think that that was for one moment the intention of the Act of Union. He did not think it was in the interests of the country that this body should be to a large extent, as they were to-day, the creatures of the Government. Their powers could be curtailed or increased simply at the whim of the Government of the day. The matter of fixing the rates and fares came under the Board. But it was never the intention of the Board that those matters should be left to regulations entirely. Then there was nothing said in the regulations regarding appointments except as regarded one paragraph in which it was stated that all rates and scales of remuneration and gratuities must be brought before the Board. That was the only reference made to it. Then nothing was said in these regulations regarding a possible difference between the Board and the Minister. (Hear, hear.) He would have thought that it would have been the policy of this House that, in case of a difference of opinion between the Board and the Minister, a report should be presented to the House, from which they could judge the rights and wrongs of the matter. It was laid down that the Board should hold office for five years, and could not be displaced by any Government. It was a strong body, and it was originated, to a very large extent, to take the railways out of politics and to protect the North. It really originated from the delegates, largely from the Transvaal, for the special purpose of protecting the Northern people. So far as they could judge, that purpose was not being carried out. Everyone knew that they did not give the Board sufficient power, and it was certainly the intention to endeavour to lift the railways out of politics. They had before them the example of Australia, where similar Boards had been constituted for similar purposes. They originated, in the first place, in New Zealand, and in Australia they were constituted for three reasons. The first was to enable the Railway Department to resist the outside pressure, both Parliamentary and political, for the construction of railways which could not be justified. The Minister and the Government knew what enormous pressure was brought to bear to have railways built. The next object was to resist concessions. They all knew of the pressure brought to bear in that direction. Take Graaff-Reinet. They only had three trains a week, but pressure was brought to bear on the Government, and they got one a day. He did not know whether the daily train was still running, but, from a railway point of view, it was not justified. Another reason was to resist the pressure brought by the staff through their Parliamentary representatives, and so on. Everybody must have seen the enormous pressure that could be brought to bear by a staff through its Parliamentary representatives. The Australians wanted to lift their railways above these things. He believed those reasons had been in existence ; but, as far back as 1907, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thos. Smartt) appointed a Commission for the purpose of going into the matter as to the desirability of appointing a Railway Board. Their report agreed with the necessity for a Board, not to control and manage the railways, but a Board with extensive advisory powers as to rates and so on. But there should be no question as to what was in the minds of the Convention when the Board was created. The Northern delegates said they had been milked very severely for the benefit of the other parts of the country in the past, and considered it unjust. They had provided in section 141 that no concession might be given by the Railway Department at the request of this House for which provision was not made by the House. In that connection, he would like to mention that in connection with the employment of white labour it cost £45,000. He was not against that, but he ventured to think that it was not in accordance with the contents of the South Africa Act, which stated that the railways should be run so as to pay their way without earning big profits. That £45,000 was not strictly in accordance with the Act of Union. He thought that the situation, at the present moment, was extremely unsatisfactory, so far as the Board was concerned. They had certain powers in regard to new lines, concessions, and also financial arrangements, but in all other matters, such as the treatment of the staff, appointments, and the like, they had no control. Such matters were completely in the hands of the Minister. Take the New South Wales Act (No. 6 of 1910). It even went into the details of the duties of the Board. It gave it powers regarding free passes, and specified to whom free passes should be given ; also bye-laws, appointments, promotions, and resignations as regarded service. In fact, so far as they could see, every possible contingency was provided for. The Board knew exactly what it could do, and that Act could only be amended by another Act of Parliament. It could not, as with our regulations, be altered at will by the Minister or the Government. But it had been the policy of the Minister of Railways to minimise the powers of the Board. Take the railway programme of last session. They had no really full report by the Board, and had no figures and details except a small report of three pages and the verbal statement by the Minister. He thought that policy was entirely contrary to the intention, in any case, of the Act of Union. The railways in this country were an enormous concern, owning, to-day, over 7,000 miles of line. There were few railway concerns in the world which controlled so great a mileage of line. Furthermore, not only had they the railways, to control, but they had to control four large harbours, which brought the total capital invested cup to something like 90 millions. Hon. members must see the extreme importance of that. Not only that, but the Minister controlled 52,500 employees, and naturally a lot of those people had voting powers. Now the control of that immense concern was subject to pressure from all parts of the Union. First of all there was the pressure for new lines ; there was the pressure for lower rates of carriage, and pressure for concessions of some shape or another. On the other hand the Minister must always keep in view the interests of the taxpayers of this country, who were, after all was said and done, the shareholders, and who, if there was any deficit, would have to make it up. It was more than any one man could stand, to bear the pressure brought to bear on the head of that concern, and more so—he was not speaking disparagingly—when that man was a politician (Hear, hear.) How could he stand the pressure for new lines, lower rates, concessions, and so on, and then the pressure brought to bear on him by the employees as well? (Hear, hear.) Hon. members would see that it was the intention of the Act of Union to provide a strong Board to resist that pressure and any influences like that that might be brought to bear upon the Minister. He thought that the Minister ought to have brought in a Bill which clearly defined the powers of the Board, and, considering the enormous interests which were in charge of the Railway Department, no time ought to have been lost at all in creating the Board and defining its powers exactly, so that they would know where they stood. That would be a charter of their powers, and that could not be altered except by Act of Parliament, and that could only be done by agreeing to the motion of the hon. member for Yeoville.

said that things were not as they should be, Tor the report of the Railway Board which had been presented last year had been signed by two members of the Board and had been addressed to the Minister as chairman of the Board, which he submitted was wrong in principle, because he took it from that that the gentlemen who comprised the Board were apparently under the impression that they were servants of the Minister, whereas, as a matter of fact, they were nothing of the kind, and were responsible to this House. In four instances one found in their report only the bald recommendation that the lines should be constructed, but no further information had been given ; and at the end of the report there was the mildest protest from the Board that there had not been sufficient time: given them to consider some of the proposals which had been put before them. The point remained that they, as representatives of the people, were entitled to have the fullest information placed before them in the House, before they voted for the two and a half millions required last year under the Bill, and he had not voted for the proposals of the previous year, not because he was not in favour of more railways being constructed if there was a prospect of their paying interest on capital, etc., but because the information had not been placed before them which should have. He asked whether there was going to be a repetition this year of what happened last year, and he said that they were not treated by the Minister in the way in which they ought to be treated. The Minister should treat them seriously, as they were entitled to be treated by the Minister. (Laughter.) He must give them the information which they asked for, not as a matter of courtesy, but because the House was entitled to it. He thought that the Minister should have given the House the fullest details last year when he had introduced the Bill, but he had not done so. There had been grave objections to the way in which the Railway Bill had been introduced last year, and if any similar Bill were introduced this year he hoped that the House would be provided with the fullest information, with the plans, specifications, and the like. He would support the motion of the hon. member.

said that he distinctly remembered, when the draft South Africa Act had been before the public, that it had been stated that clause 125 and the following clauses were the Magna Charta of the interior. He had fondly hoped that the Board would be a real live one, and protect the large interests of the Union and the hinterland as well. Seeing what wise men had presided over the destinies of the country in putting together the Constitution, he had thought that he was justified, in common with the rest of South Africa, in thinking that they had brought forward what was best for the interests of South Africa and for protecting the interests of the country, but he must candidly confess that up to the present time one hardly knew of the existence of the Board, and the only thing that they had hitherto done was, it seemed, to veto one or two small lines of railway. They in the interior had suffered under the heavy railway rates, and up to the present they had not got anything. Returns had been asked for in the House, and these up to the present had not been made ; but the Minister had stated that there had been a total reduction in the rates of £465,000, of which Natal had benefited to the extent of £25,000, and the old C.S.A.R. system to the extent of £75,000, that was the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, the rest going to the Cape. The hon. member went on to refer to the report of the Industries Commission to show how high railway rates militated against the progress of the interior, and to the coal rate, which, he said, was only ½d. in the Cape, but 94d. in the Transvaal, and that although for 180 miles and upwards there it was 65d., in the Cape it was ½d. per mile for one mile upwards. They in the country did say that they ought to have some advantage from the railway system of the country which belonged to the country, and that the railways should be carried on in accordance with the specific clause in the Act of Union. They had looked to the Board to redress grievances and carry out the pious sentiment which was in the Act of Union, and he must say that as far as he was concerned he was sincerely disappointed. He hoped that something would be done to make this board a real live board. Whether that could be done by legislation he was not aware: it was certain that it could not be done by regulation. If it was only a dummy board then the sooner they did away with it the better He considered that it should be made a live body which would hear their complaints and redress their grievances. There were inequalities in railway rates that should be adjusted.

said that the hon. member for Yeoville had dealt with a lot of things that had happened prior to Union, and had made an attack upon gentlemen from the Transvaal who were at present members of the Government. He (the Minister) had nothing to do with the question of defining powers, and he rather thought that the time of the House was being wasted. His hon. friend had referred to election speeches and politics being introduced in regard to the railways. He did not pretend to be any better than his predecessors or, perhaps, his successors in office, but when he thought of some of the speeches that had been made then he was astonished. He had only to refer to what the hon. member said the other day with regard to grievances, and now his hon. friend with a solemn face and his tongue in his cheek talked of the danger of introducing politics into railway matters. His hon. friend had said that he was anxious to see the minutes and votes of the Railway Board. He (the Minister) had no objection. They would not show that he (the Minister) had practised a policy of concealment. There was nothing in those minutes in which his public shareholders could find fault with him. Continuing, the hon. member went on to refer to the question of the Messina railway, and said he was not aware of what had been stated. He might have to make provisional arrangements, but these would eventually be submitted to Parliament. He was old enough to know that it was not within his power to alter an Act of Parliament. How the Minister or the Board was able to alter an Act of Parliament he could: not say. He was surprised—as he had been several times that session—by the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. There was that question of poor whites. There was a good deal of sympathy expressed with these people, and what he might call crocodile tears had been shed. The hon. member had said that they were breaking the Act of Union in that they had employed poor whites.

Oh, no.

Oh, yes.

That is not fair. Continuing, the hon. member was understood to say that there should be a vote of the House.

said his hon. friend knew very well that if he was to come to that House with such a vote it would not be passed. The popular idea was that these people were employed on the railways for the sake of charity. He pointed out that they did quite as much work as any other people would do for the same money. One day he was told that the wages he was paying were too high: another day he was told that he was paying men 3s. 4d. a day, and that this was not a proper wage to pay workers. That was the sort of argument that was advanced. The hon. member for Durban, who always took a sensible view of things, had said that the point that struck him was that the word “Board” was not used during the debate which took place the other day with regard to railway grievances. If the hon. member had not been connected all his life with a purely business concern, and had spent more of his time in Parliament, he would have understood the reason. The reason was that it was not a case of the grievances of the men, but a case of getting at the Minister. It was a purely party attack, with the idea of condemning the Minister. That was the reason why The Commission which was inquiring into the grievances was appointed by the Board. It was actually appointed by the Board, and the first report which he had received the other day he had not had time to look into. He trembled to look at it now, after all that had been said in that House. (Laughter.) Nothing was said about that. Not a word was said. But it was the Minister that was at fault, and an attack was made with the very object which they were told to avoid as the devil did holy water. Not a word was said about this Commission having been appointed by the Board. If anything wrong was done, then it was the Minister who was at fault. If occasionally they stumbled over something right, then it was the Board. He did not think that there was anybody more anxious to keep politics out of the management of the railways than he was, and he wished that other people would practise what they preached. (Laughter.) His hon. friends knew that perfectly well.

After all, you are the only one that had the chance.

What had they done in Australia? First, he would reply to a remark made by the hon. member for Potchefstroom. The hon. member regretted that the provisions in the South Africa Act, so far as rates were concerned, were not given effect to. He shared that view. But he (the speaker) maintained that whether they had a Board constituted as they wished or not, exactly the same result would have come about. A Board would not have held to that, however strong it was, because the South Africa Act stated that for four years the Government could take any surplus, after certain services bad been provided for to meet any deficiency. So, however strong a Board they had, if they had the strongest men in the House—and hon. members knew how strong they would be—(laughter)—it would not make any difference.

Perhaps weaker men!

repeated that nothing would have made any difference. He was one of those who thought that the provisions of the South Africa Act must be carried out. If for four years the surplus were so applied, nobody could say that the Act was violated. He hoped that even before four years—if he could express a personal opinion—the Treasury would cease to require any assistance from the railway revenue, and that effect could then be given to the South Africa Act. The point did not show the necessity for a strong Board, because, however strong they might have been, the Government would still have done what they did, and they had acted not only in conformity with the letter, but with the spirit of the Act. (Ministerial cheers.) He did not think that there was really much difference of opinion on the matter. Formerly in the Cape Colony the Government for the time being had the management and the control of the railways, subject, of course, to what Parliament said. He would not say that then there never had been any political influence at work.

When the hon. member for Cape Town spoke that afternoon about the necessity for guarding the Minister and the need for not having political influence brought to bear, he could not forget that he had been almost a constant member attending deputations urging the Minister to do something or other. These were the people who, most conscious how bad this was, were most vocal on the subject. Some Ministers gave more and some less. They then proceeded with the Union Convention. They followed very largely what was done in the Transvaal. In regard to the powers of the existing Board given by the South Africa Act, they were not as large as the powers given to the Board that existed in the Transvaal, and which governed railway matters in the Free State and Transvaal.

But they were Ministers.

They were not all Ministers.

Most of them were.

They were not all Ministers, so why this interjection? Proceeding, he said that that Board had the right to control the railways, but there was this important distinction in the South Africa Act, “subject to the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council.” That might mean a very great deal. (Hear, hear.) It meant this at least, that whenever the Government thought it necessary in the public interest to disregard the advice of the Board, they could do so within the provisions of the South Africa Act. The regulations drawn up by the Board were very similar to those enforced by the Transvaal Board. When they came to the larger question of the exact position the Board should occupy, it was very difficult. Last session there was an idea that the Board and Minister were continually—he might almost say continuously—at loggerheads. That was regarded with satisfaction, in some quarters almost with glee. It was wrong, like so many other rumours. The other members of the Board and himself had worked most harmoniously together, and it was very seldom they differed, and when they did they went on the principle of give and take.

Yes ; you give, and they take.

said they had transacted the business of the railways in the best interests of the State. He had listened to the speeches with great interest and attention, so much so, as to keep him awake. (A Ministerial laugh.) He had heard a general statement, but not a single specific case where the interests of the country had been neglected, where they had been over-ruled by political feeling, or where they had built lines that should not have been built. He did not say that they were beyond reproach—(hear, hear)—but the Board had discharged its duties to the best of its ability Some hon. members thought that the powers of the Board were not sufficient, and that presently they must ask for more.

Who asks?

The hon. member for Cape Town ; he admits it. He would not say that there was any harm in that, but he wished to state the fact. The amount of work the Board got through was very large indeed. Since the Board met, the number of minutes dealt with by them was 2,400, and these involved a number of questions, which were dealt with, and as far as he could see, the Board did their work as well as possible. Now he came to the real question, the need for keeping the Board outside party influence. Of course, what the hon. member really meant was that the Board should be kept outside the power or influence of Parliament. (Mr. FREMANTLE: Hear, hear.)

No.

He did not say that was bad ; but let them get to the facts. They might give the Board all the powers they wished, but that if they were subject to the wishes, he might say the whims and fancies of the House, its powers would be lost. And if they wished the Board not to be subject to political influence they must go so far as to make it independent of the views and wishes of Parliament.

No.

I say, Yes. The hon. member said he had read what they had done in New South Wales and in Victoria. New South Wales first appointed three commissioners. The Minister was not on the Board. That was done expressly with the view that the Board should carry on its business without reference to Parliament at all. They had to report to the Minister quarterly, and to Parliament annually. There was one important difference between that and our Board. In one respect, we gave the Board much larger powers than Victoria and New South Wales, namely, in regard to new constructions. All that the Board had to do there was to report on the cost and the estimated revenue. Here the Board could practically negative any proposal for the construction of railways, in a roundabout way, it was true. Then the deficiency would have to be voted out of the general revenue. So when he heard the hon. member for Cape Town and the hon. member for Yeoville talk—this hon. member was averse to building railways except they ran from one large centre to another—he was rather surprised that they said that the Board had not enough powers. He would go back to New South Wales. Their first Act was passed in 1888. Then they had the Act of 1901, in which they made some not very vital alterations, and then in the Act of 1906 they abolished the three commissioners, and substituted one chief commissioner, and he had an assistant commissioner of railways and an assistant commissioner of tramways. The Minister was quite an outsider, except that they reported to him, and he had nothing whatever to say in the management of the railways. It was exactly the same with Victoria, except that there they modified the first Act, which gave three commissioners. Then they altered that, and gave him a Board of Advice. It was intended that they should manage the railways without reference to the Minister or Parliament. Hon. members might say that that was right, but if they wanted to withdraw all political influence they must withdraw the Minister from the Board and must prevent Parliament from in any way interfering with the management of the railways. In both New South Wales and Victoria, they gave the Boards the very largest possible powers in regard to rates and water powers, which would shock his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman), who was an upholder of private rights. He (Mr. Sauer) doubted very much whether the Union Parliament would give to one commissioner, assisted by two or three railway officials, powers of that kind. Unless that were done they would not to any very large extent eliminate political influence. As to the definition of the powers of the Board, he had no objection to that. Last year he prepared a Bill, but it was not a very easy thing to deal with, and he would not introduce the measure in the same shape again. He had had more experience since then, and he would frankly say that the Board understood one another better, and he would considerably modify the Bill which was drafted last year. It was better that the Board, the Minister, and Parliament should exactly know the position of the Board. But when they came to the question of what the Board’s powers were to be they came against a very difficult question. If they handed the Union Railways over to people for five or seven years, during that time this huge concern would be managed by persons who would not be responsible to Government to Parliament, or to public opinion. He would not favour having no Board, because the amount of work in connection with the railways was very great indeed, and one Minister could not do the work without the assistance of a Board. The other principle was that by which they retained the power of the Minister and the final control of Parliament. These were the two principles, and it was for Parliament to decide. He did not think that Parliament would be prepared to go as far as they had in Australia. It would certainly be a new experience to the South African public that members could not ask railway questions or ventilate railway grievances. There were some people of influence who would like the Victorian principle of having a single Commissioner with an Advisory Board composed of railway officials Many people thought that the Board here should stand in the same relation to the Minister as these officials did to the Commissioner. There was a great deal to be said for that. He thought a Minister who knew his business, if he were well advised, was likely to conduct that business very satisfactorily. It depended very much on the people appointed, because no matter what powers were given the Board, personality would always count for a great deal. He doubted very much whether he could introduce a Bill in the present session.

Why?

Because it requires a great deal of consideration, and it would give rise to considerable discussion. On that account I cannot accept the motion, and I hope the hon. member will withdraw it. The matter will have my most serious consideration, and if we are all here when we meet again, some proposal will be submitted to Parliament, but I cannot say what its exact nature will be. I am very conscious that with a huge concern like the railways, the less political influence you have the better, and unless the railways are managed very economically we may find ourselves in difficulties. Proceeding, Mr. Sauer said he was in accord with the hon. gentleman who spoke of the necessity of reducing the railway rates to the North. The Act had not been violated, because for four years they could take the railway surpluses. He hoped that time had come to an end, or was coming, and nobody would be more ready than he to give effect to that provision. It was almost impossible satisfactorily to carry on farming and other operations in the interior unless they had low railway rates. (Cheers.) But it was not his fault, or that of the Board, that they had not been able to reduce the rates. Very soon, however, they would be able to give effect—and he hoped to a very full extent—to the provisions of the Act, which said that the rates to the interior should be reduced. (Cheers.)

hoped his hon. friend would not withdraw the motion, for a more unsatisfactory speech than that of the Minister he had not listened to for a long time. Every argument in favour of the procedure suggested by his hon. friend had been put by the Minister, and yet the answer was, that nothing was to be done this year, and that the power was to remain absolute and arbitrary in the hands that they did not know. A more unfair presentment of a case he had seldom listened to. When they were trying to discuss a matter of business, it was prejudiced by the Minister turning round to the back benches and suggesting that what the Opposition wanted was a committee of men not responsible to Parliament, who would take away the farmers’ water rights. That was done deliberately to prejudice the issue.

Rubbish.

Rubbish is the right word for it. "Proceeding, Sir Percy said the Minister had given a most improper representation of what was arranged at the National Convention. The Minister had said that if the Board should not agree to a new line that would be a roundabout way of preventing its being built. All that was to happen, as it was intended in the Convention, was that the Board would report that the proposed line was not a business proposition, and that it would require the special sanction of Parliament to build it, but the Minister prejudged the case by saying that Parliament would not authorise the building of the railway. As to the casting vote of the Minister at Board meetings there was another misrepresentation of facts. There was no provision in the Act of Union for a casting vote, and what was more, it was deliberately left out. Let them compare the treatment of this matter in regard to the Executive Committee of the Provincial Councils and of the Railway Board. Members of the Convention would remember the long debate they had on the casting vote, and in order to make it quite clear that in the Provincial Councils’ Executive Committees, what was intended, the Convention provided for four members of the Executive, so that the Chairman, by this casting vote, should not be able to turn the vote against the majority by the aid of one man.

They left it out in the railways because they wanted to have the power of the majority exercised properly. The Minister said he exercised the casting vote by virtue of the Act of Union. That was not so. There was no such right. He gave the casting vote against the majority of the Board.

dissented.

Well, my ears must have deceived me. It must be an echo, then. (Laughter.) He went on to say that the Minister of the Interior was not in the House when the hon. member for Klerksdorp reminded them of his reference to the Magna Charta of the interior. He did not suppose he would succeed in getting the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Interior, or the Minister of Finance to get up and speak on this subject, because it would greatly embarrass their colleague.

Try it.

said that those of them who came from the inland States, when they proposed this Railway Board in the Convention, had a perfectly clear policy before them. It was laid down in the Act of Union to promote the development of the inland portions of the Union by railway rates. The intention of it was abundantly clear. It was not inland versus coast, it was development versus stagnation. The reason why it was not inland against coast they knew. It would be an unsound position for any country to be in with all the development on the fringe of the coast line, a vulnerable position and an insecure position. He was sorry to hear the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) say when advocating that new lines should be built out of profits, which was contrary to the Convention agreement, that the Act of Union was not as the Laws of the Medes and Persians. He hoped the right hon. gentleman was not going to start tinkering with it. It was said by many that it would be a good thing to build new lines out of profits. He would appeal to hon. members, out of whose pockets were these profits to come and into whose pockets were they going? If they built a local line they benefited a small section, and yet they were going to tax all the people who used the railways to do it. If they were going to build local lines, let them get the authority of Parliament, and let the cost be a charge on the country in general. All these appeals that the Minister made when he turned right round to a certain section were appeals in order to mislead them. They would have to pay. The people who were consumers up-country, the farmers and the consumers, were the people who were going to be taxed for this. If there was to be a system of taxation in this country let it be a fair one, one thought out by Parliament. This taxation was said to have been made by the Railway Committee ; they on that side said it was by the Minister of Railways. They had the return before them showing the effect of rates and traffic, and these results ranged from a dead loss up to £10,979 per mile, profits on the Germiston-Witbank line.

How long is that line?

It is long enough to give £878,000 of profits per year.

That is not my question.

It is 80 miles, and the profit on that small section is nearly equal to that of the whole Cape system. That is an extreme case. The yield on the Transvaal section is £2,900,000. There is the table of the Chamber of Commerce for comparison.

A reduction of railway rates has been given precisely where the lines are not paying, and no relief has been given where the traffic is enormous and the profit still greater. What does this mean? It is taxation of the people who are inland trying to develop this country, and it is going to affect every man in this country, whether he lives inland or at the coast. It is no good talking about the prosperity of the country, if you are going to have a fringe of development along the coast here and an unsound position inland. Proceeding, Sir Percy said that the powers that were reposed in the Railway Board were, he would admit, very sketchy ; it was by the Act of Union an outline, because in this, as in many other things, they thought they thoroughly understood each other, and they thought the same ideas would prevail. That was the value of the spirit of the Convention, because there were the same people there, who it was certain would be in the first Government. They knew all about it. He knew that a large majority of the people who were there were strongly in favour of this. He knew exactly why they could not get up and say so. It was the caucus. The Minister did not put the case fairly in another connection. He said that no Board could have made any difference. If it had been ever so strong, it would have had to deal with the Act of Union, because this must Last for four years. The Act of Union did not say that. The Act said that within four years this change must be made. There was nothing to prevent the Government from making this change at once, if they could afford to do it. He did not say they could afford to do it. There was no necessity to put a Board over the Minister, over the Government, or over Parliament. They did not ask for that. There was no earthly possibility of doing that, because Parliament was supreme and would remain supreme. Well, they did not suggest that anything should be tried in that direction; what they did want was that the Board should be so constituted and so endowed with powers that they could act within their sphere perfectly independently. The Board should be free and uncontrolled in its operations within its own sphere. The Board should report to the Government and it should also report to this House. It had never reported to this House. They did not know to-day how the scrap iron came to be sold at £1 a ton when it could be sold at 35s. easily. They did not know whether the Board were dealing in this business at all. They did not know whether they existed in fact or only in name. So far as they knew the railway was run arbitrarily by the Minister of Railways. No one else had power ; no one else had responsibility. They had been told that they would be taught their Parliamentary manners. The Minister had said that he talked to them as a schoolmaster talked to children, because they were political children and he (Sir Percy) took leave to say that he had carried out his theory, because an address on business principles more suited to absolute children he had never heard in his life. (Laughter.) They had been trying to find out what the Board might do and what it might not do. They had heard that a new fertiliser rate had been introduced, but it was applicable to places over 300 miles from the coast. In Natal, where over 80 per cent of the fertilisers used in South Africa were consumed, they could not get the benefit of the rate, because they were not over 300 miles. What a brilliant stroke of policy that was. He almost said it would be good business to carry fertilisers for nothing, because for every ton that was carried 10 tons were produced, but why introduce the 300 miles limit? They did not know who had done it. They had at present an expenditure of five millions, 75 per cent, of which, if not the whole of it, went into white wages, and the ordinary increment was at the rate of £200,000 per annum to white men ; and at the same time they had got grievances. Why were there any, and had they been dealt with? He entirely admitted that a member of Parliament was not the best judge of the men’s grievances, but that these ought to come before the House, but he was not in favour of keeping from anyone the right of appeal to Parliament, and what he wanted was that the grievances should not exist, so that there would be no need to appeal to Parliament. What power had the Railway Board got: did they know of these grievances? It was an eminently serious question, and hon. members from the country districts were absolutely bamboozled, and all that talk was so much dust thrown into their eyes. It was a most serious business matter, in which we deal with a capital of 80 millions and a revenue of over 12 millions—almost as great as the whole Union revenue—and yet it was managed without any business precaution, by no one knows whom—an arbitrary Minister and a powerless Board. They should see that they got a proper competent Board and that that Board should receive suggestions or applications for railway lines from anybody, and not only from the Government. If the suggestion was a trumpery one it could be dismissed in a few seconds, but if anybody had a suggestion for a line to make, let him have access to the Board, let it sort it out, let the Government take the responsibility, and let the report come to Parliament, so that Parliament might know what was being done, and have the power and the information to decide in the end, as it should do. (Hear, hear.)

said that that was the fifth case of a vote of no confidence in the Government—

You accepted one.

You had to withdraw to save yourselves from defeat. Continuing, he said that he entirely agreed with the hon. member in favour of the reduction of the rates to the north. They were all in favour of that. But did the hon. member suppose that he was going to get it done by placing more powers in the hands of the Board? It was his experience, and he thought it was that of all parts of the country, that if they put railway officers in power they tried to make as much money as possible out of the railways. The hon. member had also said that they on that side of the House were not allowed to speak because of the caucus, that their mouths were closed, if he did not say that their lips were sealed. Well, that threw a lurid light on the caucus of the Opposition ; but that was not the case on that side of the House. He hoped he might be allowed to let out one little secret on the subject, and that was that it had not come up in caucus at all. (Laughter.) What he viewed with the utmost alarm, however, was to give increased power to bodies not responsible to that House. Their experience in these matters had been that when Civil Servants who represented one kind of thought and had by any chance been in immediate contact with the country population had the effrontery to make their way to the front rank they were assailed with venom, as they had seen the previous week. (Opposition dissent.) The precedent set up by the hon. member opposite he would be the first to repudiate if it were not a case of that kind.

asked if the hon. member was in order.

The hon. member is perfectly in order. (Ministerial cheers.)

said that he believed that the Railway Board would be less in touch with the people than a Minister selected from the ranks of hon. members opposite—who would be responsible to Parliament and compelled to give an ear to the voice of the people.

If there were grounds for dissatisfaction on that side of the House, there were grave grounds for dissatisfaction on the part of the hon. members on his side in regard to the running of country railway lines. It was only with the utmost difficulty that the meanest provisions could be obtained for the necessities of the country districts. And he thought it was not fair of hon. members opposite to suggest that all the grievances, or anything like all, were on one side. He believed that changes were necessary in policy, but he thought those changes would be carried out if the people could get to the House, and if they had a Minister with clear responsibilties, and unable to screen himself behind an irresponsible Board. The point they were discussing was not the policy of the railway at all. None of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Yeoville, and the hon. member for Pretoria East, with regard to the running of the railways, were germane to the motion. It was simply whether they should have a Railway Board, or rather whether the existing Board would be given increased powers. If the motion were carried, he took it Mr. Speaker would-appoint a committee, taking the matter out of the hands of the Minister, and putting it into those of the hon. member for Yeoville. They had no reason to doubt the assurances of the hon. Minister, and if they accepted them, he was sure that both for that reason and for the reason that the people of the country had reason to doubt those irresponsible Boards, the motion was not needed. (Ministerial “Hear, hear.”)

said he had never listened to anything more wide of the point than the speech just concluded by the hon. member for Uitenhage. Every member would agree with the hon. Minister when he said that he had left the ingenrousness and innocence of his childhood far behind him, because if they wanted to get anything from him, it was only possible to succeed by the utmost ingenuity. The Minister said that no specific cases had been put before the House. As one of the outside public, what they distinctly thought was that, under the Act of Union, naturally the actual responsibility for the railway policy and railway administration would still rest with the Minister and his colleagues in the Cabinet. Yet between them and their decisions they should have the great advantage of having the independent advice of an independent Board upon a proposal. He did not agree altogether with the idea that the railways should be run on purely business principles, but what they did want to know, in any proposals, was what were the bearings of those proposals as considered by business men, simply looking at them from a purely railway point of view. Having that information before them, it was always possible for the House to see that, apart from those railway considerations, there were great political ends to be secured by any railway policy that amply justified their departing from the strict lines of railway policy. That was what the country wanted, and what the country did not get. He was not one of those who wanted to see too ready a tendency to alter the Act of Union before it has been given a fair trial, but it was only right to remedy any defects when they found them. He thought the cardinal fault lay in the joining of the Minister to the Railway Board, because he was always the Minister. Continuing, the hon. member referred to the Bill for railway construction placed before the House at the eleventh hour last session, without any guidance from the Railway Board to show whether these were based on railway or other considerations. Proceeding, he said that everyone was given to understand last year that the surplus would be diminished gradually year by year, so that no great shock would be felt in one year. The Minister of Finance, in one of his Budget speeches last year, told them that he was taking £1,400,000 from his hon. friend the Minister of Railways, and that in each of the next four years, each surplus would be diminished by £350,000. It was apparent to everyone that that policy was not being pursued, and that great changes would have to be made in the railway rates that were charged at the present time. That policy was not being carried out, and if any big change were made they would be without the advice of an entirely independent board to advise hon. members as to the effect of these changes. They were told that at the end of the 1911-12 financial year there was a possibility of reducing rates, and so reducing the surplus below the point at which the estimate stood last year. If the Minister of Finance was going to depend upon the railway surplus, he foresaw at the end of three or four years a proposal to alter the Act of Union so as to continue this inadvisable and illegitimate method of taxing the people through the railways. In every case where the House had control over the Minister it was entitled to have before it a report on the effect of alterations, from the purely railway point of view. He supported the motion.

moved the adjournment of the debate until March 6th.

Agreed to.

moved that leave of absence for this session be granted to Mr. J. W. Quinn, member for Troyeville.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.