from the widow of the late Alexander McDonald, who served in the Forest Department.

from voters in Waterberg, praying that the branding of cattle belonging to natives may be done by a responsible person.

against the South Africa Defence Bill.

from P. M. Sheehan, late gaoler, Jacobsdal.

praying that the East Coast Fever regulations for the dipping of cattle may not be enforced against owners of healthy cattle.

from Frances Donaldson, pensioner.

Papers relating to grants or leases of land, as follows: Undenominational Public School, Hanover; seaside resort site for W. J. Sinclair at Umtamvuna River Moutn, Bizana ; library and recreation site at Ngqeleni ; whaling station for Thesen and Co., Buffalo Bay, Knysna ; Gwili Gwili Location of Wesleyan Methodist Church and school site, King William’s Town Roman Catholic Church, parsonage and mission school, and teacher’s residence at Upington, Gordonia ; Jewish cemetery, Old Stead-street, Kimberley; Wesleyan Methodist European Church, parsonage and native school-church, Mount Ayliff; fishing sites, McDougall’s Bay, Namaqualand; Berlin Mission Society, site for a mission chapel at Windsorton, Barkly West; whaling station site on Mossel Bay foreshore, leased to Mossel Bay Whaling Co., Ltd., of Tonsberg; excess width of a thoroughfare, East London, to Amalinda Village Management Board for sale purposes ; Dutch Reformed Church, for addition to Kakamas Labour Colony of “Vaal-gras,” Kenhardt; Teachers’ Garden Lots, Idutywa, to Chairman of Transkeian Territories General Council ; school site, public undenominational, Mount Ayliff; site for native cemetery to Cemetery Board of Lady Frere, Glen Grey; site for a monument in memory of the late Rev. Ross in Toleni Location, Butterworth; extension of lease of “Sandfontein,” Uitenhage, lease by tender of “Sterkwater,” Somerset East; show ground at Somerset East to Agricultural Society ; exchange of forest land at Readsdale, Stockenstrom Division, between allotment holder and Forest Department ; reservation as racecourse, of portion of commonage, Barkly West: letting, of remainder of “Chepstowe,” Maclear, Griqualand East; new site for Undenominational Public School, Klipplaat, Jansenville ; grant at Longlands, Barkly West for Undenominational Public School; grant at Herschel, for Anglican Church site ; grant to R.C. Bridger at Nputi, Mabulawa’s Ward, Idutywa; lease of two portions of “Cradock Place” and “Deal Party,” Port Elizabeth, to W. H. Bennet and confirmation of certain former leases ; public cemetery site, Kuruman ; Evangelist’s residential lot, Bolotwa, Sipiki’s Location. Idutywa, to Wesleyan Methodist Church; church site in Zangqingqis Location, Idutywa, to United Free Church of Scotland; rescission of grant of half morgen at Mangwevu, district of Idutywa, to Wesleyan Methodist Church; mortgaging of Roman Catholic property in Somerset-road, Cape Town; lease of foreshore of “Kogel Bay,” Caledon, for whaling station, to F. Cook Company, Ltd. ; Public Undenominational School site at Cathcartvale, Stockenstrom Division ; church and school site at Bell, Peddie, to Wesleyan Methodist Church; lease, with option of purchase, of property of late, Wellington Co-operative Dairy Co., to the South African Bacon and Provision Industries, Ltd. ; amendment of grant of recreation ground on former Hardekraaltje Out-span, near Bellville, Cape Division ; lease of residence site, Prince Albert, to B. J. Lamprecht ; lease of fishing station at Hoedjes Bay, division of Malmesbury, application by James Wilsnach: disposal of unsold agricultural erven at Douglas, Herbert ; site for Undenominational Public School at Oliphant’s Hoek, Kuruman ; church and school site at Nqabane, Idutywa district, to Weslevan Methodist Church ; sale of Assistant Resident Magistrate’s house and site, Kokstad. Mount Currie ; transfer of St. George’s Church Cemetery, Cape Town, from the Church Trustees to the Diocesan Trustees ; lease to J. J. Matthews of seaside resort, at Mzilatya River (Sicengu’s Location). Elliptdale; certain fishing sites near Hoedjes Bay, Malmesbury, to J. W. Parker and five others: renewal of lease to W. H. Scholefield and Co., of sub-division 1 of the Port Elizabeth Harbour Wool Warehouse; site for church at Van Wiik’s Vlei, Carnarvon to Dutch Reformed Church; and grant of extension of Bizana Public Cemetery.

These papers were referred to the Select Committee on Waste Lands.

Papers relating to proposed leases to Zululand storekeepers of portions of the Zululand Native Reserves.

These papers were referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

Mir. Speaker,—With the indulgence of the House, I should like to make a statement in connection with the question which was put to me last week by the hon. the member for Oudtshoorn with regard to the outbreak of anthrax. I have made inquiries, and find that whilst the weekly consumption of anthrax vaccine last year was three hundred doses, my Department is now receiving one thousand doses per week, and a reserve of fifteen thousand doses arrived last week. The outbreak of anthrax in Oudtshoorn was, in the first instance, reported to the Department by a private practitioner, and the diagnosis was supported by microscopical examination in Graham’s Town. As Dr. Theiler considered the matter urgent, he made personal investigations when at Oudtshoorn recently, and confirmed the diagnosis. On his return, he reported the matter to the Chief Veterinary Surgeon. Advice as to the treatment of the outbreak was given in Oudtshoorn, and inoculation was recommended. The matter is now receiving the attention of the Chief Veterinary Surgeon. The owner of the farm on which the outbreak occurred would not at first believe the diagnosis of anthrax, and was only convinced after Dr. Theiler demonstrated to him on the 27th of last month the presence of bacillus on a bird which had died that day I regret to say that the disease seems to become more prevalent, or it is also possible that cases of anthrax are now reported to us which were not recognised as such before. The last outbreak occurred amongst the elands on the Groote Schuur Estate.

moved the adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz.: The treatment by the Department of Prisons of prisoners awaiting trial.

seconded.

called upon the members who were willing to allow the motion to be put, to rise in their places.

Upwards of twelve members having so arisen,

said that the matter which he wished to bring before the House had recently been before the Courts, and he dared say that hon. members were aware of the main facts. He wished to say, to begin with, that it would probably be necessary to discuss the acts of a certain official whose name had already been prominently before the House. This motion of his did not arise out of any personal antipathy or hostility towards this particular official. He hoped that when he had laid the facts before the House, hon. members would recognise that they were such that warranted the attention of the House being given to them, until they had a definite assurance that the facts as disclosed by the case-had definitely ceased to exist. The case referred to the treatment of a man, Mr. Whittaker, who was arrested on a charge of attempting to cause a dynamite explosion on the tramline during the recent strike in Johannesburg. He would lay the facts of the case before the House as they were disclosed in the judgment of the Transvaal Provincial Court, in which court Whittaker, after being acquitted on the charge on which he was arrested, brought an action against the Director of Prisons and the Governor of the Gaol, and was awarded damages. The Appeal Court upheld the judgment of the Court below, with certain differences. The Court below held the Governor of the Gaol liable to certain damages, but acquitted the Director of Prisons. The Appeal Court gave judgment against both the Director of Prisons and the Governor of the Gaol. The facts were briefly these. Whittaker was arrested on May 17 last on the charge he had mentioned, and he was conveyed to the Johannesburg Gaol known as the Fort. On May 29 this man asked to see his attorney. He was brought before the Magistrate, and complained that, although he was a prisoner awaiting trial, and had not yet been before the Court, he was treated as a convicted prisoner. He was being segregated from all other prisoners, and also from visitors. He was being confined in what was known as a punishment cell, and was not allowed the usual comforts and conveniences allowed to awaiting trial prisoners, and was debarred from having a reasonable amount of exercise. The solicitor et once telegraphed to the Minister of Justice complaining that this man was being punished before the trial, and was being kept in solitary confinement, and asking that he should be treated in the ordinary way made applicable to awaitingtrial prisoners. On May 17 he also wrote to the Minister of Justice making the same complaint. That was apparently left undealt with until May 30. Almost a fortnight had elapsed when, on May 30, the Secretary of Justice, Mr. Roos, who also was the Director of Prisons, wrote in reply to this man’s attorney that he had been requested by the Minister of Justice to inform him that this man was being segregated—in other words, being kept in solitary confinement—by order of the Minister of Justice, and that if his attorney wished to see his client for the purposes of defence, he must get the necessary authority from the police. That was the first stage of the matter. The attorney was also told that Whittaker was being transferred from the punishment cells, as they were called, and if his attorney wished to see him, he must apply to the police. The attorney apparently went to the police, and asked to be allowed to see his client, but he failed to get any satisfaction whatever. So on June 10 he wrote again to the Secretary of Justice, complaining that he had been to see the police officers, that when he Went there he was unable to see the chief of the Criminal Investigation Department, and that when, on a subsequent occasion, he Went there, that official declined to see him altogether, and therefore he had entirely failed to obtain the usual privileges which an attorney had to consult his client as to the defence which he brought up. On June 10 he wrote to the Secretary of Justice a letter, as follows: “We have the honour to inform you that on the 2nd inst. our Mr. McIntyre called on the Deputy Commissioner of Police to get permission to see the accused, and was informed that the permission would have to be granted by the chief of the C.I.D. Thereupon he called at the C.I.D. offices, and, as Major Mavrogordato was not there, he saw Inspector Simpson, who kindly undertook to ’phone to the Deputy-Commissioner of the C.I.D. and inform us of his decision. Nothing was heard by us on the 3rd instant from them, and on the 5th we again ’phoned to Major Mavrogordato asking permission to see the accused, and his reply was that he could not do any official business through the telephone, and further said we should see the Public Prosecutor. Thereupon Mr. McIntyre went to see Major Mavrogordato, but on arrival there was told the chief could not see him. We should thank you to inquire into the reasons for the refusal to see the accused.”

No answer was given. No attention was paid to it at all. McIntyre, the attorney, could get no redress from the Minister, from the gaol authorities, or from the police. At length he went to the High Court, and asked for an order on the gaol authorities in regard to the matter. An order was granted by the High Court on the Governor that he should show cause on June 23 why the man should not be relieved from solitary confinement. When the case came up, there was a postponement, to allow Mr. Roos to file an affidavit. Then it came on again on June 26, and the Court granted an order, for which he (the speaker) thought it would not have been necessary to go to the High Court. That was not all. The Department appealed against this order, and on July 13 the appeal was heard and dismissed, and the rule allowed to continue in force. This was What the man had to go through to get ordinary justice. Every difficulty was put in the way of this man being treated as an innocent person, Which he was in the eyes of the law. At any rate this man was put to all this trouble to obtain treatment which was generally given an innocent person. He would first deal with the man being segregated from anybody else. That was done—and he would inform the House that he was not bringing forward disputed facts—so the Secretary of Justice said on the instructions of the Minister, and the reasons given were extraordinary. One was that it was necessary to segregate this man in order that he should not confer with another man who was also on trial for a similar offence, and in order that the man might not confer with outside people. This was a most extraordinary reason, because when the man was brought before the Magistrate the Magistrate fixed bail at £1,000. If the man had been able to put up £1,000 he would have been set at liberty—(hear, hear)—and could have gone through the length and breadth of the country if he had pleased. Because he was not able to put up £1,000 he was placed in solitary confinement. It seemed to him to be a question that demanded the serious attention of the House. He would like to read to the House what the Chief Justice had said when the matter came before the Court of Appeal. It had been said that why the man was placed in this particular cell was because the accommodation usually given to men awaiting trial was undergoing a spring cleaning. He was very glad to hear that there was a spring cleaning of these places, but he thought that that was not a sufficient reason for dealing with this man as the gaol authorities had done. The Chief Justice said: That would be a reason for not segregating the plaintiff, but it affords no reasonable excuse for not only segregating, but practically punishing him before he had been tried. As to the alleged danger of the plaintiff informing others outside the gaol as to the whereabouts of concealed dynamite, that danger would have been still greater if the plaintiff had been let out on bail, and yet the authorities were quite willing that he should be let out on bail if he could find recognisances for £1,000. It surely cannot be the policy of the law that wealth or position should give this enormous advantage to an accused person. It often acts harshly enough that a man without money or friends is kept imprisoned until he can be tried, while the man of position is free until tried, with every opportunity of preparing his defence. The harshness would become absolutely intolerable if directors of prisons or governors of gaols had it within their power to add to the misfortune of imprisonment the disgrace and torture of confinement in a small punishment cell of four feet by nine without sufficient light, with no bed to sleep upon, with insufficient means of exercise, without books to read, without the companionship of a single soul, and without even the consolation afforded by a smoke. The object of the imprisonment before trial is to obtain the appearance of the accused at the trial, and not to punish him except for offences committed against the regulations of the gaol. The plaintiff was a perfectly well-behaved prisoner; he gave no trouble of any kind. He did not even make complaints about his treatment, and yet he was punished as if he had been a hardened offender. There appears to me to have been no excuse for the handcuffing to which he was subjected. The defendants may not have been aware of it, but it is reasonably clear that if he had not been confined in the punishment cell he would have escaped this addition to his sufferings. It appeared to him to be a gross miscarriage of justice, and not an accidental miscarriage of justice, but one deliberately done on the instruction of the head of the Department. The other point was the action of the Department with regard to the man’s attorney. He had already said that the attorney had the greatest difficulty in obtaining access to the prisoner. What happened he had already told. The Secretary wrote to say that if any member of the firm desired to see the prisoner they would have to get permission from the police. He had read the attorney’s letter to show what had happened. When he wrote to the Department of Justice again he received no reply. The Chief Justice said: “Whether or not Roos made the inquiries, he never vouchsafed an answer to this letter. Knowing that the attorney for the plaintiff was being driven from pillar to post in his attempts to see his client, he left the attorney under the impression that the special leave of the police would be necessary to enable him to visit his client.” However, he mentioned that because it was made a point of in the defence in this action, in regard to this particular complaint that the Secretary for Justice never said the attorney was to go to the police ; that the ordinary course was that the attorney should go to the governor of the gaol and ask to be allowed to see his client, and the mistake was entirely the fault of the attorney himself. Well, he thought sufficient comment on that was contained in what he had read, and that even if Mr. Roos did not intend to tell this man to go to the governor of the gaol instead of the police, if he did not really intend that he should go to the police, it was his ordinary duty, not to say ordinary civility, to say he should go to the governor of the gaol. But no such thing was done. The Chief Justice goes on to say: “Upon this point Mr. Justice Wessels said: ‘There is no doubt whatever that Mr. Roos acted wrongly in instructing a solicitor who desired to see his client that he should make application to the police. The police have no authority whatever to grant a permit to a solicitor to see his client, an awaiting-trial prisoner, in the gaol. Mr. Roos should have instructed Mr. MacIntyre to proceed to the gaol and to demand to see his client as of right. Mr. Roos’ explanation is that this was done inadvertently, because he noticed in the postscript to Mr. MacIntyre’s letter of the 29th that he was informed at the prison that he would have to get special leave from the police. It seems difficult to understand how the postscript could have misled Mr. Roos. One would have thought that the unusualness of the information conveyed by that postscript would have put Mr. Roos on his guard and shown him that incorrect instructions were given to Whittaker’s attorney, and one would have thought that as Director of Prisons Mr. Roos would then and there have corrected the mistake.’” Weil, he should have thought so, too. Mr. Justice Wessels further in his judgment, it was only fair to say for Mr. Roos, said that he was unable to say that Mr. Roos’ letter should be read as a refusal, because it was not a refusal. It was an instruction to the appellant to go to a particular authority, who, as a matter of fact, had no authority to grant the petition ; and the result was a delay of some weeks before Mr. MacIntyre could get an audience. And the Chief Justice said in commenting on this: “It certainly was not an absolute refusal, but it supported the gaol officials who had informed MacIntyre that he would require special leave from the police, and Roos is responsible for the delay which occurred before the client could be communicated with.” Now, what possible justification could there be for treatment of that kind by the Department of Justice of a prisoner awaiting trial, who, as he had said, was entitled to be regarded, by assumption, as an innocent man, and who, as a matter of fact, was found to be innocent of the charge preferred against him by the Court that tried him? What possible justification could there be for the Department of Justice first of all dealing with the man for nearly a fortnight without giving any redress—when it was brought to their notice—as a convicted prisoner; and secondly, allowing his attorney to be driven from one Department to another asking to be allowed to see the prisoner? Even if they acquitted the Department of Justice of deliberately making a mistake by sending this man to the police, surely some gentleman in that largely staffed office should take an interest, beyond the mere passing of papers on from one man to another, and should have seen that this man’s chances when he stood his trial were not impaired, from the fact that the attorney was wandering around the country in order to get authority to see the prisoner before the trial. It was a matter, apart from ordinary courtesy, to stop at the earliest possible moment the error under which the attorney was labouring. But so far from attempting to put the man right when he wrote to the Department of Justice pointing out what had happened to him, how he could get no satisfaction from the police, his letter did not even receive an answer, and it was not until he went into Court and asked the High Court for an order upon the governor of the gaol to treat this man as he should be treated—it was not till then that he got something done. (Hear, hear.) Now, this particular man apparently had some pertinacity, and knew something of the law ; but what they would like to know was how many other cases were going on—(hear, hear)—in which prisoners were too ignorant to put the power of the law into motion to secure their rights? How did they know that men who did not naturally think of the courts of law as a means of redress, were not being treated as that man was treated? (Hear, hear.) It seemed to him that where a man had to go before the High Court and had to undertake the trouble and expense of going to that Court for an order that he should be treated as the law enjoined a man should be treated until he was convicted, there was a great danger, if not a serious probability, of a grave denial of justice to a man. (Hear, hear.) He thought the reasons given by the Department of Justice were of the most flimsy character. He had already pointed out that the logical conclusion of that was that a man who could raise funds had a field of appeal while the man not able to would be kept in confinement and not even allowed to see his friends or his legal adviser. It seemed to him as if the Department of Justice was proceeding on lines which were going to upset all the principles of criminal justice in this country. It seemed to him as if they were inclined to take the whole matter of deciding whether a man was guilty or not out of the hands of the proper authorities and decide it themselves. He had mentioned a case in which an Attorney-General, in a case where a man was brought before the Magistrate and remanded, took the whole case out of the Magistrate’s hands, held a little trial in his own office, and decided it. That was rather a severe shock to the principles of criminal justice. Now, in this case a man was in prison charged with a serious crime. He was regarded as a dangerous criminal, instead of being regarded in the eyes of the law as an innocent man. It seemed to him that the Department of Justice had not only entirely misunderstood the principles of justice, and was going on entirely wrong lines, but they had been guilty of gross carelessness in this case. Concluding, the hon. member said that the Court of Appeal had upheld, and increased the damages given in the Provincial Court, and had held the Secretary of Justice jointly liable. That showed that it was not a matter of prejudice they were twinging forward to the House, but a matter of serious and sober fact—(hear, hear)—and the comments of the Judges, both in the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal, were such as no Government could allow to go unnoticed. No Government, in its own interest, if it wanted to retain its influence, could do that, and it must take notice of such incidents. His action in rising was to bring these comments in a more forcible way to the notice of the House. (Hear, hear.)

said that he had been agreeably surprised that the hon. member had moved the adjournment of the House, and he had been still more agreeably surprised to see the reception which the hon. member had got. (Hear, hear.) He did not wish to say anything to detract from what had been said by the hon. member, but all the tacts which the hon. member referred to were known as long ago as December in the Court of First Instance. He wanted to point out, however, the very small amount of sympathy and assistance given to them who were instrumental in getting the funds together to enable that case to go forward to appeal—the very small amount of sympathy and assistance given either by the press or the party to which the hon. member (Mr. Duncan) belonged. The Court of First Instance had awarded the contemptuous damages of £20 to that man Whittaker, who had been so shamefully treated by the Department of Justice and the head of that Department. Yet the newspapers of that party had thought it hardly worth while to report that oase fully when it was before the Provincial Court. He wanted to point out how more gross was that treatment of a man like Whittaker, than if it had been meted out to a more wealthy man, for it was only because he had friends to assist him that he had been enabled to go to the higher court. He was glad to see that the House rose to the gravity of that case. He wished to add a few words to what the hon. member had said about the history of that case and the dealing of that man. In the first place, he wanted to point out that although the Court of Appeal had made both the governor of the gaol and the Secretary of Justice jointly liable, he thought one might express one’s own view that in a case where a superior officer was bound to have given distinct orders to a subordinate, the guilt of the superior officer was greater than that of the inferior officer who broke the law. The Secretary of Justice in that case had shown, he thought, that, seeing the greatness of the Department of which he was the principal officer, and seeing the issues which might be decided by him, there was need for great changes in that Department, and that the Minister of Justice should think whether a man, who in a Case like that could act like the Secretary of Justice had acted, was really fitted to occupy that high position. He wanted to point out what, in following the case, had struck him when it was before the Court of First Instance. At the very last instant (the Secretary) had changed his pleadings and avoided the responsibility. The allegation was that the final orders in regard to the segregation cell had been sent through the telephone ; and searching inquiries had been made as to who had given that message, but he could not find out. Well, that put the Secretary of Justice on the horns of a dilemma ; for either the Department was so inefficiently run and so badly organised that it was possible for an irresponsible person to give orders like that to the governor of the gaol, in which case it reflected very badly on the conduct of that Department ; or there was the other horn of the dilemma upon which the Secretary of Justice found himself, which, in his (Mr. Creswell’s) opinion, made him unfitted to be the head of any public department—which was, that he would find any excuse to get out of his responsibility by throwing it on an inferior officer. The Department of Justice was not likely to be run to the satisfaction of the public when the head of that Department left a subordinate officer to bear the whole blame. There was another point of the case which he would also like to deal with. Some time ago he had asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours a question with regard to the man Sherman. This man’s truthfulness was commented upon in the severest possible way by the Judge in the criminal case and in the first civil case. That man was an informer in regard to this dynamite matter. It was upon his information that these men, Whittaker and Morant, were arrested. As the Chief Justice pointed out, the Secretary of Justice and the governor of the gaol, in their pleadings in the first civil case, although this man had been acquitted on the criminal charge, pleaded in extenuation that these men were in fact guilty. In their reliance upon that, it was important for them that this man Sherman should be somewhere at hand, and in order to see that he was somewhere at hand the Secretary of Justice or some person saw that he was given a job on the railways. It was due to some backdoor influence that he was given a job in order that he should be at hand for this civil case. The Minister had told them that he was quite unaware of this man Sherman being engaged on the railways. He (Mr. Creswell) believed that, but he would point out that the Department of Railways was not for the private convenience of the Secretary of Justice or any other official to keep witnesses on hand for actions in which they may be defending themselves. He wished heartily to support every word spoken by the hon. member for Fordsburg and support the adjournment of the House in order to show up the utter callous disregard of the rights of individuals in this case, and, in his humble opinion, to show the intentions of those who commanded the Ministry of Justice for the administration of that great Department. They were none of them safe if this sort of thing was going on. (Hear, hear.) He did not say that they might all of them find themselves in Johannesburg gaol, but certainly it was quite possible that some of them on those benches might if the wishes of the right hon. the member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had any effect.

was understood to protest against this.

said that the right hon. gentleman had stated that anybody who advised men not to take work that they did not approve of should be put in gaol. He (Mr. Creswell) felt very strongly and seriously about it.

Yes, it looks like it.

The right hon. gentleman is extraordinarily ingenious at doubting the sincerity of those who may be opposed to him. He went on to say that as long as the Ministry of Justice was conducted on the lines shown in this case no subject of the State could be safe and be assured of receiving treatment according to the law of the land once he was inside the prison gates. (Hear hear.)

said he was a bit surprised at this question being made such a very urgent question when the parties concerned had already obtained their satisfaction. (Hear, hear.) One would have thought that they had nothing more to fear, and, having got everything evidently that they were entitled to, this question might at least have stood over for a day or two. The hon. member for Fordsburg evidently thought that, seeing that sensation was the order of the day—(hear, hear)—he might enhance it a little by bringing up this urgency motion. Now, let him (General Hertzog) say at once he had no objection, even under the unfavourable circumstances in which he was placed, to grant him that little satisfaction, additional satisfaction, which he might get out of this motion—(hear, hear)—likewise in regard to the hon. member for Jeppe, to whom he would return later on. Now, it was, of course, easy for any man, he assured the hon. member for Jeppe, one of the easiest things in the world, to pose as the fighter, the protagonist of the right of the workmen and those who could not or were less able to defend themselves. It was an exceedingly easy thing on an occasion of that kind to get a little applause by pointing out ex parte facts, which, when taken by themselves, were looked at through spectacles coloured for party purposes; it was exceedingly easy to strike a little spirit through a House like that. But it was a different thing when the matter was looked at, not from the point of view of a popular leader, but from the point of view of a Department and of a man who stood there to hold the balance between the workmen and the rest of society, and who had to judge things calmly and decide upon them so as to maintain order and peace in the country. Now, the hon. member for Fordeburg had said, if he understood him correctly, that he bad no complaint to make against Mr. Roos, that he had no ill-will against him. He must, however, remind the hon. member that there was always such a thing as a little backwash of previous storms—(hear, hear)—and this would come unconsciously with others. He only asked him to consider a little, in the light of what he might have to say, in how far the aftereffects of the previous storm may have been a cause of this motion. Let them look at the circumstances when these men were arrested. There was a strike in Johannesburg. Feeling ran very high.

Who made it?

said that people were in a great state of excitement and the policemen had to do their utmost to keep order. Very prominent and responsible deputations came to him, insisting that he should call in the aid of the military, which he flatly refused. (Hear, hear.) He told them he felt confident that he would be able to maintain the peace through the medium of the police, who dealt with the people in an exceedingly tactful way. Notwithstanding the pick-handles—and no one more regretted the necessity for the use of those instruments than he did—the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) would admit that it was through the tactful way in which the police carried out their duties that peace was maintained. (Hear, hear.) While this feeling was so strong, and almost a panic reigned at Johannesburg, it was found that dynamite had been laid on the tram rails. Whittaker and Morant were arrested in consequence of that, and on information which, rightly or wrongly, had been supplied. The strike was still going on, and the moment they were arrested the Commissioner of Police asked that these two men should be segregated. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) ought to know that there was a great difference between segregation and isolation. When the hon. member suggested that the Minister sanctioned complete isolation the hon. member knew that he (General Hertzog) did nothing of the kind. What was sanctioned was segregation and nothing more.

What is that?

The hon. member, who is a lawyer, ought to know that very well. The law which he so ably assisted in passing last session makes special provision for it, and from October 11 last it is the law of the Union that awaiting-trial prisoners can be segregated. (Ministerial cheers.) Then he stands aghast at the heinousness of the crime committed by the Department of Justice in segregating these two men. Proceeding, the Minister of Justice said that in Natal before Union, the police, the magistrates, and the judges could order awaiting-trial prisoners to be segregated—(hear, hear)—without any legal sanction. In England the segregation of awaiting-trial prisonres was the rigid rule. (Hear, hear.) They found the same thing in ever so many countries. It had been the practice in the Cape and was so to-day. (Ministerial cheers.) In the Transvaal it had been the constant practice. When, therefore, Whittaker and Morant applied to the Court he must say that he was taken by surprise to find that this right could be questioned. It had all along been exercised, and the police and the Department had done nothing else but follow the old practice. Segregation was the common practice in South Africa. Another complaint was made that these two men were put in an isolation cell. Well, he would explain what that meant: Every big gaol had three, four, or more cells wherein a certain class of convict was looked up during the day or night because of the gravity of the crime which had been committed, as a rule for gaol offences of a serious kind. These separate cells were put aside for administrative purposes practically for this kind of criminal, usually a dangerous kind of criminal, but generally there is nothing to distinguish this kind of cell from ordinary cells, except that it is marked “Isolation cell.” Under the circumstances prevailing at the Rand at the time the gaol was so full of waiting-trial prisoners that Morant and Whittaker could not be segregated otherwise than by being put in these cells. They were otherwise as far as possible treated as ordinary waiting-trial prisoners. When the Commissioner of Police asked for their segregation, Mr. Roos immediately submitted the matter to him (General Hertzog), and he said, “Certainly, let them be segregated.” The Commissioner wanted their segregation for police purposes, and amongst other reasons that he was afraid that these men might communicate with others, might give information which might be taken outside the gaol and be availed of.

You agreed to bail.

I never agreed to bail. Proceeding, General Hertug said the Commissioner of Police made this request in order to prevent this information going outside the gaol through these prisoners, who were suspected of having made an attempt at a very serious crime, and thus cause some further very serious injury to the public if men could be put on the tracks of dynamite which the prisoners knew of. He said, “Let them be segregated,” and Mr. Roos, as head of the Department of Justice, communicated that to :Mr. Bateman, the governor of the gaol at Johannesburg. They were segregated in the isolation cells, there being no other place. Of course this was an ordinary matter of gaol administration. Surely no hon. member could have expected—certainly not his hon. friend the member for Jeppe—Mr. Roos to know what was going on that day or the day after in regard to the gaol in Johannesburg. It was done by Mr. Bateman, the governor of the gaol in Johannesburg. Later on that was brought to the attention of Mr. Roos, who showed him again what was going on. Might he there say in regard to the case, as with every other case that came into his department, he (the Minister) was rightly or wrongly responsible for what went on. Again, Mr. Roos brought the matter to his notice, pointing out what Mr. Bateman had done, and that he might get into difficulties, and immediate orders were given not to do so. That was as far as Mr. Roos was concerned with this incident.

When was that?

I don’t know. I can give the dates later. Proceeding, he said that the hon. member for East London had referred to the question of the appeal. Hon. members were so glad to have something for them to go for again. They would have acted a little more wisely if they had waited until the other judgments of that Court had been published.

What else is there?

What else! That shows how the hon. member has read his paper. He was so intent on reading what was there that he forgot there were two other judgments which the paper said would be published later on. I shall come to that later on. Perhaps the hon. member will not be so satisfied then.

You don’t know what I have read even.

said that he knew very well that Lord De Villiers raised that question, and the hon. member had got the point from his judgment. Lord De Villiers said that the fact that £1,000 bail was asked showed that really they were not in very great earnest in keeping the prisoners isolated or keeping them segregated, because if it was so necessary to keep them segregated, why have bail? In the first place, the hon. member for East London knew that it was not the Law Department that fixed bail. It was the Magistrate who fixed bail, and the hon. member ought to know very well that the Law Department never interfered.

You are quite wrong.

You make suggestions.

went on to say that even as an argument he saw a great deal that he could use against that argument, with all due respect to Lord De-Villiers, from the administrative point of view—a very great deal! But he would leave it there, because, as he had pointed out, the Law Department had nothing to do with the fixing of the bail. But there was another great point that was being made against the head of the Department, namely, the correspondence with Whitaker’s attorneys, and of the manner in which they had, as alleged, been kept from having an interview with their clients. It was perfectly correct that when they came to Mr. Roos, he told them to see the police. But, again, he submitted, that under the circumstances that was quite right, quite correct. They had not to deal here with ordinary circumstances. The police were busy doing everything to discover the perpetrators of that crime—(Ministerial cheers) —and it was therefore certainly advisable that the police should be kept aware of all who were going to see the prisoners in the gaol. When they came, Mr. Roos said to them: “Go and see the police.” What happened? Mr. MacIntyre came, and, according to the instructions, Mr. MacIntyre was told to see the police. But Mr. MacIntyre, when he first came there, did not go with the main object of seeing either Whittaker or Morant. No, he went to see other prisoners in the gaol, and merely as a matter en passant he wished to see Whittaker and Morant. And after the interview with the Commissioner of Police, he never pressed to go again, with the result that Mr. Roos did not know anything about that for some time. The second time he did ask to see them, and them alone. He (the speaker) was informed by the Commissioner of Police that he (Mr. MacIntyre) immediately got leave. That second letter was not replied to. He (the speaker) did not know what the facts were, but he could quite understand that by that time orders had been given that they were to have free access to the prisoners in the gaol. He had not got the papers. It was a quarter to one when he was informed that this urgent motion was going to be brought forward, and in the time at his disposal he tried to get what facts he could. But he would say again that in regard to the attorneys not seeing their clients, the motion was all so much moonshine. They never were refused permission to see their clients, and if they had thought it such an urgent matter, they would have pressed it immediately, and they would have immediately got the right to do so. In no single instance had anybody been refused permission to see his client. If the attorney really wished to see his client, he would have availed himself of that right, and would have asked and demanded to be allowed to see them. Why did not he ask? That was not why he got damages. That had nothing to do with it.

Of course it has.

What does the Chief Justice say?

hoped that hon. members would not put that construction on the judgment. What hon. members did was to read the judgment which had been published that morning. They read a few sensational headlines in the “Cape Times,” starting, as was usual in cases of this kind, with extracts which to a great extent distorted what was really contained in the judgment. Hon. members were so satisfied when they read these that they had no time to wait for the other judgments to be published.

rose to a point of order.

What is the point of order?

(Fordsburg) was understood to say that he had been accused of distorting the judgment.

If the hon. Minister used those words he did not say that the hon. member did so knowingly.

said he wished to say that he did not state that the hon. member had distorted the judgment. He said that the “Cape Times”—the “Cape Times”—Used extracts from the judgment which really gave a distorted view of the judgment as a whole. (Ministerial “Hear hears.”)

said he was sorry he had misunderstood the Minister.

said he had not had an opportunity of reading these judgments, but he had extracts from those judgments and he wished to read these extracts to the House that afternoon. In the first place he wished to say that Sir James Rose-Innes and Sir William Solomon gave written judgments in the appeal. Amongst other things Sir James Rose-Innes said: “Neither defendants bore any ill-will towards the plaintiffs, and they were actuated by a genuine and laudable desire to assist the police, a desire which led them to overlook the fundamental rights of the accused.”

Read on.

said that the hon. member for Liesbeek found it so unpalatable that he wanted him to go on. This was one of the points upon which the accusations had been levelled against Mr. Roos—this crime of segregating this man. These were the extracts which had come to him. His lordship went on: “I am aware that these views are in conflict with some of the provisions of the Statute which has been enacted”—that was, he took it, the conflict between the judgment and the new Act—-“when the events in question took place, but it did not become law until several months later.”

I rise to a point of order. Read on. (Cries of “Order.”)

said he had already explained that he had not seen the judgments, but these were extracts that had been handed to him while he was in the House. As he had said, he would have thought that the hon. member for Fordsburg would have acted far more wisely if instead of moving this as a motion of urgency he had kept the matter over until the next day or the following day so that he might have been in possession of the full facts. It was not his (the speaker’s) fault that the matter had been rushed, and that he was unable to produce what was not in his hands. He pointed out that on October 11 the Act which provided for segregation came into force ; it was based on the common practice of South Africa, and approved of by hon. members in that House. So that if, under the circumstances, the Department had done something which the Court eventually held to be contrary to law, he thought any hon. member would admit that Mr. Roos or the Department of Justice ought certainly not to be held liable for this old-established practice. In Sir William Solomon’s judgment he had the following: “I am not prepared to lay down the hard and fast rule that there are no other circumstances in which it may not he permissible to isolate a waiting-trial prisoner.” So they would see that it was the opinion of one of the judges of the Appeal Court that there might be circumstances when it would be perfectly legitimate to isolate a waiting trial prisoner. The learned judge continued: “… The motive which actuated the defendants was a very laudable one, but it does not justify their action.” That was quite right. “I can find no evidence that Bateman refused Mr. MacIntyre access to his client, and in justice to the defendant Roos, I should point out that throughout the whole of the conduct of the case he never attempted to repudiate his responsibility for what had been done, or to set up a defence different from that relied upon by Bateman.” He had something to say to his hon. friend the member for Jeppe in regard to this matter. It was only a few months ago that he launched the accusation against the hon. member for Victoria West, and said that the hon. member was most ingenious in never being at a loss to impute insincerity. He must say that it struck him that the hon. member for Jeppe was most ingenious in never being at a loss for imputing dishonourable motives.

To whom?

To Mr. Roos. What did he say? He said that Sherman’s appointment on the railway was due to influence by the head of the Department of Justice, or—he qualified somewhat—back door influence. Really did he think that Mr. Roos had anything to do with that man or his appointment?

Was Sherman’s appointment on the railway —

said he could only say that if the hon. member could hold that opinion about him (the Minister) then he must simply say this: I have no answer to give to him. (Ministerial cheers.)

On a point of personal explanation. I explicitly agreed that the Minister of Railways and Harbours knew nothing about it, and I thought I made it clear that the Minister of Justice knew nothing about it. But what I do want to say is that the appointment of the man Sherman upon the railways was distinctly connected with the outcome of this trial.

said he always willingly gave the hon. member a chance, because he was very glad to have the information that he misunderstood him ; but with regard to Mr. Roos, let him say this: from what he knew personally about him he could vouch for it that he had absolutely nothing to do with Sherman’s appointment on the railway. (Ministerial-cheers.) He was afraid that they were a little inclined sometimes, when things were done which they did not appreciate from their points of view, to think and suspect something more behind each action than there really was. And therefore he did not really blame his hon. friend for doing likewise. The only thing he thought was that when they came to discuss a matter like this they should be sufficiently masters of themselves to let suspicion stand aside. The hon. member had remarked very strongly about the telephone message and said a man who could send such a message as Mr. Roos did—Well, well. The direct inference of that of course was that the hon. member doubted the word of Mr. Roos. He denied sending it He would say this to the hon. member He could assure him from his information from the office that although all telephone messages are recorded and the replies were recorded, as far as this message was concerned, there was no question and no answer anywhere recorded and might it not be possible that Mr. Roos did not send that message. In fact, were they not to take the word of an honourable man when he said: “That message I never sent?” Bateman himself admits that it was not Roos who replied to him.

Then what sort of a. Department is it?

said he could inform the hon. member this, that the message was sent to the Prisons Department at Pretoria. Mr. Roos did not sit in the Prisons Department; he sat in the Department of Justice on a floor lower, and that these messages were always taken at the Prisons Department and sent down to him. Surely, in the first place, there must have been a record if the message came to the Department of Prisons, and somebody would have, and could have, brought it to him. It must have been given to somebody. But nothing of the kind. It often happened. It was just for that very reason that really important messages should not be sent over the telephone ; that so often these messages reached persons who were not responsible, and who gave replies for which they were not responsible, and which could never be traced. It was quite likely that, in this instance, this happened Therefore, again, he would say that the hon. member had not the least right, under the circumstances, to hold Mr. Roos any more responsible for that message than Mr. Bateman, or anybody else. The hon. member for Fordsburg said that he could not understand that they forced Whittaker to go to Court. Well, hon. members could very well understand why they did. It was the constant practice. The police thought it desirable that these men should be segregated. The law advisers were consulted, and, under the circumstances, he was personally of opinion that the law and the practice in the Transvaal, as everywhere in South Africa, was that the Department had the right to segregate these men. And, therefore, he said that these men, if they wanted, or if they claimed it, then they must go to the Court. He could not admit their right not to be segregated, and they had to go to the Court. They did that, with the result that, eventually, in the Court of Appeal it was laid down that there was no right, or rather that in the Transvaal the right of segregation did not exist. However, it was one of those nice points of law over which Judges themselves differed; over which the law advisers differed, and advocates differed, and he did not think that the hon. member for Fordsburg had a right to be so very greatly surprised at his (the Minister’s) not immediately sanctioning the release of these men, and putting them with other awaiting-trial prisoners when he thought that keeping them separate was in the interests of justice; and he must say again in this respect and what was obtaining all the time, he submitted that the Department not only had the right, but was in duty bound to see that these men were brought before the highest tribunal in the country, in order to have the matter settled ; because it had been really a matter of principle at the time ; and because that was so, he advised that the matter should be taken before the High Court in the Transvaal. He did not think he could add anything more to what he had said there, and he thought he had given to the House the whole position as it stood at the time and the reasons why these different acts, which to-day were so earnestly complained of, had been done ; and he submitted that, in the first place, if there was any blame, that blame was principally and primarily his ; but he went further, and submitted that, notwithstanding anything that the hon. member for Fordsburg had said, if he had been in his (General Hertzog’s) place, he would not have acted otherwise. (Ministerial cheers.)

said he thought he must say that the Minister of Justice had been singularly unfortunate in the defence he had just, put forward. He recognised that his task had been a difficult one, and, under the circumstances, it was the very best he could have done. But it seemed that the Minister laboured under the same difficulty that his subordinates laboured, when that question had first cropped up before them. He wanted to rectify one point which the Minister had made at the start. He had charged the hon. member (Mr. Duncan) with coming upon him as a surprise in that matter, and making use of “ex parte statements,” as he had called them. He wanted to draw the attention of the House to this: that his hon. friend had been particularly careful not to make use of any information or any facts whatsoever but those found in the judgment of Mr. Justice Wessels, who, in giving a resume of that case, had said that these were the undisputed facts which had led to the case. By no possible stretch of the imagination could these be called ex parte statements He believed, he proceeded, that the Minister’s description of Johannesburg at the time was correct, and that it was in a state of panic, and that they (the Department) believed that they had got hold of the most militant of these strikers, and that nothing could satisfy them but the immediate punishment of that man; and placed him into a cell which the Minister admitted was one in which only the most hardened, offensive, dangerous, and violent criminals were kept, instead of being merely segregated. The Minister justified it upon the principle that it had been the practice in the Cape and the Transvaal prior to Union, but he (Mr. Botha) did not think that there had been a single case of that in the old colonies. He would like to draw the attention of the Minister to what His Lordship the Chief Justice had said, and the fact remained that the “Cape Times” did not distort what had been said, but had given the actual words, which were: “In my opinion abuse of authority, such as has been brought home to the defendants, ought not to be treated as a venial act, to be condoned by the payment of a few pounds. By all means let the authorities use all their efforts to put criminals and suspected criminals under lock and key, but when once they have done this, let them remember that punishment should only begin when the guilt of the prisoners has been established by judgment of a court of law.” It seemed to him (added Mr. C. L. Botha) that, apart from all other considerations, these words of the Chief Justice were as condemnatory as it was possible to get from any Court of Justice. It did not do to snatch out certain paragraphs from judgments which they did not have before them, which favoured the Department of Justice. They were labouring under a state of panic at the time ; they thought they had the criminal, and proceeded against that man before he had been tried in a court of law. They got some sort of consolation from some extracts of other judgments, which, to his mind, was very poor consolation indeed, and did not speak well of the defence of the Minister of his department. The hon. member also quoted an extract from the judgment of Mr. Justice Rose-Innes, to the effect that it was manifest that the damages given to Whittaker should be considerably more than those given to Morant. Even after Whittaker had been acquitted, they (the defendants) were not prepared to accept his acquittal, but endeavoured to prove that he was guilty of the offence for which they wanted to lock him up. It seemed to him that the hon. member for Fordsburg had made out a very strong case indeed against the Department of Justice. This was a motion for an inquiry into the conduct of the Department of Justice, and, as he had said, he did not think that any member of that House for one moment laid the blame at the door of the Minister of Justice. He thought it was not only necessary for that House to have an inquiry, but it was also necessary for them to say definitely to the Minister of Justice that the country was not prepared to submit to a system of treating men as guilty before they were tried.

said he supported the motion on the ground that in his opinion, the liberty of every citizen in this country was assailed and in danger by such actions as had been adopted in the case under discussion. (Hear, hear.) He was particularly pleased to see the evident interest that hon. gentle men on his right were taking in this case, because it was somewhat new when members of the working-classes were in difficulties to find hon. gentlemen on that side interesting themselves very much in their particular trouble. A great alteration seemed to have come over the spirit of their dream since, for instance, the miners strike. The Minister had made mention of the tactful way in which the police handled the situation during the tramway strike in Johannesburg Last year. He (Mr. Andrews) was there at the time, and he saw the kind of tact the police used in their baton and pick-handle charges. It was alleged, and had not been disputed, that the police were ordered to be present in Johannesburg armed, in the first" place, he believed, with rifles ; later on this was modified to pick-handles, before the men had decided to come out on strike at all—(hear, hear)––proving to his mind and the minds of the public that it was the intention on the part of certain men to bring about a situation in order that they might discredit the leaders of certain movements of the working-classes. He saw these pick-handle charges. The chief sufferers were not the men on strike, but women and in some cases children. The right of public meeting was also denied the citizens of Johannesburg, and three men at least, himself among them, were summoned to appear on a charge of illegal meeting, when it was afterwards proved that the notice itself prohibiting these meetings was an illegal one. (Hear, hear.) In regard to what was said about preventing communications with Whittaker, he would point out that if men had been anxious to get dynamite there was no need to communicate with Whittaker or anybody else, because dynamite sticks were as plentiful in Johannesburg as blackberries.

said that he confessed that he rose after considerable hesitation to support this motion for the adjournment of the House, and he should not have done so but for the methods which the Minister of Justice had used in replying to the motion, methods which, he thought, could be shown to be undesirable not only in the interests of public debate in that House, lout in the interests of good government throughout the country. Because he ventured to lay down the proposition that unless Ministers were to consider themselves the trustees in the Government, not only for their own party and their own side of the House, but also for the other side of the House and for all parties in the country, then good government could not continue. (Opposition cheers.) The Minister of Justice assumed that the whole matter had been raised from purely a party point of view and that all the statements were ex parte statements—a most unjustifiable assumption and entirely at variance with what the Minister must have known to be the case, because the hon. member for Fordsburg had not in a single instance given any fact on his own authority, but in every case used facts found to be proved by the judgment of the Chief Justice. On this point the Minister of Justice had done a thing which was exceedingly undesirable, considering the position he occupied. The Minister had suggested that hon. members on the Opposition side, in relying on the judgment of the Chief Justice, had relied on a view of the case which would be considerably modified when the judgments of the other two judges were read. (Hear, hear.) That seemed to be a thing which was unworthy of the Minister, and if he had had more time to consider his speech he would not have said it. Did the Minister realise the implication such a statement involved? It was practically suggesting that the Chief Justice had taken a view of the facts which was a biassed view. (Ministerial cries of “No,” and “Nonsense.”) If the Minister did not suggest that, that was certainly the impression which he had given hon. members on the Opposition side of the House, and that would be the impression which would be given to the public which did not possess the subtle legal intellect of the Minister of Justice. Surely that was the inevitable inference to be drawn when the Minister said “Let them read the other two judgments and they will modify their view of the case.” The Minister laughed at such an implication. That only confirmed his (Mr. Long’s) view that he did not realise the responsibility which rested on him as Minister of Justice—a conclusion which might have been drawn from his record before he became Minister. The Minister had not only made the suggestion, but he had read extracts from the judgment of Mr. Justice Solomon to show that his view was correct, and when he was challenged to read the next portion he said that he had only extracts and that he had not had time to consider his case fully. The judgments of Mr. Justices Solomon and Rose-Innes, he believed, were supplied to the Press on Saturday evening, at the same time as that of the Chief Justice. They were held over for publication—obviously not for the reason given by the Minister that these two judgments modified the judgment of the Chief Justice, but for the reason that in the morning paper there was insufficient room to print two other very long judgments Could there be any excuse for a Minister who accepted personal responsibility, who assured the House that he was personally cognisant of the facts, now coming to the House with a few garbled extracts from two other judgments on which he relied for his information? He (Mr. Long) used the words “garbled extracts” deliberately. The Opposition had had lectures from hon. members opposite on the iniquity of reading garbled extracts, a lecture of which the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. H. E. S. Fremantle) approved, although he was not the member who delivered it. He (Mr. Long) proposed to show by reading extracts from the judgments that the extracts read by the Minister did not give a proper view of the judgment of Mr. Justice Solomon. However, he was not accusing the Minister of personally doing this, because the extracts had no doubt been supplied to the Minister. Those who supplied the information to the Minister for use in that House did not fully realise the seriousness of supplying extracts which supported only one view of the case. (Opposition cheers.) First of all with regard to the judgment of Sir James Rose Innes. The Minister read the following extract: “On the other hand neither defendant bore any ill-will towards the plaintiffs, and they were both actuated by a genuine and a laudable desire to assist the police—a desire which led them, however, to overlook the fundamental rights of the accused.” He (Mr. Long) had challenged the Minister to go on reading. The Minister then read: “I am aware that these views are in conflict with some of the provisions of a statute which had been enacted when the events in question took place, but which did not become law until several months later.” Between these two extracts the following occurred: “As the law stood at the time when these events took place the police had no right to interfere in the internal matters of gaol administration. And in my judgment it is not advisable that they should have that power. Their sphere of operations should be entirely separate from that of the officials entrusted with the custody of criminals or suspected criminals. The eagerness for conviction, the desire to strengthen the case for the prosecution and to break down the case for the defence, which may be natural in the officials of a detective department, are inconsistent with the strict justice and impartiality required from those in charge of unconvicted prisoners, and it seems to me that assistance in the detection of crime is dearly bought if it is obtained at the expense of unnecessary interference with the liberty of men who are only in the power of the authorities, because they cannot afford to supply the bail which the law requires.” Then came the whitewashing statement to which the Minister had referred: “I am aware that these views are in conflict with some of the provisions of a statute which had been enacted when the events in question took place, but which did not become law until several months later.” It was perfectly true that the Minister passed through the House last session a Bill which allowed the segregation of untried prisoners and that House gave its cachet to that Act. He did not think it would be delaying the House if he read the words Mr. Justice Innes used in regard to that Act: “I doubt whether it was realised that by the provision I have quoted, the Legislature was sanctioning the solitary confinement for considerable periods in gloomy cells nine feet by four feet of men who might be entirely innocent, but whose misfortune it was to be too poor to procure adequate bail. I have drawn attention to the terms of the statute because of their far-reaching effect, and in the hope that the policy mentioned in so important a matter may, on a suitable occasion, be reconsidered by the Legislature.” The passage read by the Minister was a passage to show that the House had sanctioned a similar procedure to that adopted by the Minister at the time he was acting illegally, but the Minister did not go on to read the admonition of the action of the House. The Minister quoted that passage with the deliberate intention of showing that when Roos and Bateman placed Whittaker in solitary confinement they were only doing a thing that the House approved of, and that the Court had approved of the action of the House in passing that section. It seemed to him that it would have been wiser for the Minister not to have relied on extracts given him. But there were much more serious misquotations than that. He would ask the Minister to give him his attention for a minute, because this matter was extremely important, and he did not want in any way to misrepresent him. He was going to read a quotation and ask the Minister if that was really the quotation he had used. He would be most loth to draw conclusions based on a misapprehension as to what the Minister had said. The Minister quoted Mr. Justice Solomon as saying: “I can find no evidence that Bateman refused MacIntyre, that is the attorney, access to his clients. We have no proof that the requests of the visitors to see the plaintiffs ever came to the ears of Mr. Bateman.” He (the speaker) took that sentence to be an extract from the judgment of Mr. Justice Solomon, and he believed that most hon. members on his side took that to be the case. (Opposition cheers.)

I am very sorry. I did not see the words “Justice Wessels.” It was under the seam.

said that of course he accepted the Minister’s explanation, and he would only say again to him that it showed the danger of reading extracts, when a copy of the judgment was to be obtained. It had been supplied to the Press; surely it should be available to the Minister He knew that it was not done deliberately. But the Minister gave the House the impression that Mr. Justice Solomon had said that. What Mr. Justice Solomon said was: “Nor can I agree with the Court below in the view that Roos is not responsible for the fact that the plaintiffs’ legal adviser and friends were not permitted for three weeks to see them.” Here Mr. Justice Wessels says: “I can find no evidence,” and so on. Mr. Justice Solomon went on: “But it is clear that the difficulties that MacIntyre and the friends of the plaintiffs found in obtaining access to them were the direct result of the order given by Roos to Bateman that visitors applying to see the prisoners were to be referred to the police.” As the Minister had read the portions of the judgment, hon. members thought—and would still have thought if he (the speaker) had not risen—that Mr. Justice Solomon went out of his way to express his complete and absolute agreement with the remarks of Mr. Justice Wessels. (Opposition cheers.) Then there was another important matter. The Minister read the following from the judgment of Mr. Justice Solomon: “In justice to the defendant Roos I should point out that throughout the whole of the conduct of the case he never attempted to repudiate his responsibility for what had been done or to set up a defence different from that relied on by Bateman.” Isolating these remarks from the context the Minister naturally gave the impression that the judge was discussing the whole responsibility of Mr. Roos in regard to that case. That was not the point at all, as would be seen when he read the context. The point was whether through his instructions given to Bateman Roos was involved in the responsibility, and the point the judge was then discussing was whether Roos had tried to escape responsibility in that way, and he did him the justice to say that he had not tried to escape responsibility. The judge was not saying that Roos was not responsible in any way. He said that Roos had not tried to evade the responsibility in which Bateman was involved. He quite agreed with the Minister that it was the right thing for the head of the Department to do. But it was a very different thing to quote a passage from that judgment out of the context, and in a way to make it seem that the judge absolved Roos from all responsibility. It showed that he did not try to escape co-equal responsibility. Mr. Justice Solomon said: “When, therefore, the order strictly to isolate the prisoners was given by Roos to Bateman it was left to the discretion of the latter to arrange how the order was to be carried into effect, and Roos knew quite well that in the exercise of such discretion Bateman might place them in the punishment cells. In these circumstances I am of opinion that he is just as liable in law for their being placed there as if he had given a direct order to that effect. In my opinion, therefore, it is impossible to draw any distinction as regards their liability between the two defendants.” It was then he went on to say “And in justice to the defendant Roos I should point out that throughout the whole of the conduct of the case he never attempted to repudiate his responsibility for what had been done, or to set up a defence different from that relied upon by Bateman.” These were cases in which he thought that the House would admit that the defence set up by the Minister was largely founded on the judgment of Mr. Justice Solomon. It was a defence that could not be supported when the judgment was read as a whole, and not merely from extracts supplied to the Minister. Another point was that the Minister of Justice rather led the House to believe that after all this was not such an important matter, that these men had been segregated, and that they had not very much to complain about. That was the impression given. He would read what Mr. Justice Solomon said about the imprisonment of Whittaker and Morant. The whole term of their detention might be conveniently divided into two periods, the first extending from May 18 to May 30 and May 30 to June 8 in the case of Morant, and May 30 to June 26 in the case of Whittaker. So it would be seen that Morant and Whittaker were both in prison from May 18 to May 30. During the first period the plaintiffs were isolated in punishment cells. The Ordinance (section 26) and the regulations framed thereunder were exclusively provided for the confinement of convicts or for the carrying out of sentences of solitary confinement. At the end of May an application was made to the Court and granted—an application which by the way, was resisted by the Department of Justice. Now one might have thought that after having resisted that application the Department would have treated the prisoner as an ordinary person waiting trial. What were the facts? Mr. Justice Solomon said: “As regards the second period of their imprisonment, it appears that on May 30, after a complaint had been sent to the Minister of Justice by their attorney they were moved from the punishment cells into others in the awaiting-trial section of the gaol. Here they were again isolated, spending twenty-three hours out of the twenty-four in their cells, with one hour only set apart for exercise.” This was after the Minister had been warned. His Lordship then went on “That such confinement differed materially from that usually accorded to awaiting-trial prisoners is clear seeing that in the ordinary course of prison management, though there are no express regulations on the subject, such prisoners are allowed access to the yard in that section during the greater part of the day, and are permitted to freely converse with one another. Now, in my opinion, any differential treatment of an awaiting trial prisoner under which he is subjected to harsher or more severe treatment than the rest savours of punishment, and is prima facie illegal. When such exceptional treatment is specially provided for by any gaol regulation, or is required for the purpose of preserving good order and discipline in the gaol, it is of course justifiable; but in the present case it is not suggested that it can be explained on either of these grounds. Now, I am not prepared to lay down a hard and fast rule that there are no other circumstances in which it may not be permitted to isolate an awaiting-trial prisoner. A perusal of the gaol regulations, however, satisfies me that such isolation is contrary to the spirit of those regulations, and where it is resorted to the onus in my opinion lies upon the gaol authorities to justify their action.” The Minister gave the House the impression that segregation was merely a minor matter. When he was doing this he was completely ignoring this passage which he had read in the judgment of Mr. Justice Solomon of the serious nature of the treatment of Whittaker not only before but after the application had been granted. Did not that invalidate the whole of the defence of the Minister? The extracts which the Minister had read put an entirely different aspect on the judgments. Here in the judgment was the strongest condemnation of the Department. This was the way Mr. Justice Solomon described the treatment to which Whittaker was subjected: “For twelve days they were confined in cells specially marked and set apart for the purposes of punishment. They were kept in solitary confinement in these cells for twenty-two hours out of the twenty-four, the other two hours being set apart for solitary exercise in a narrow passage. The cells themselves are only nine feet by four in size, with no window, and with so little light that Mr. Bateman himself says that the light during day is dim and that though it was possible to read in them it was not comfortable. To be kept in solitary confinement in such cells for twelve days and for twenty-two hours out of the twenty-four in each day is, to my mind, a very severe punishment. During that time they were subjected to the humiliation on three occasions of being handcuffed and marched from One part of the gaol to another; they were deprived of the privilege which is acceded to awaiting-trial prisoners of smoking ; they were prevented from wearing boots in the cell ; and they were tormented by the sound of lashes inflicted upon prisoners in the immediate neighbourhood of their cells. After May 30, it is true, they were removed to larger cells in the awaiting trial section, but the rigour of solitary confinement continued. The discomfort of body and pain of mind which they endured must have been considerable. In the case of Whittaker, he is clearly entitled to higher damages than Morant, for three reasons.” Now if that description had been brought forward by one of the hon. members on that side of the House it would have been derided as sensational and absurd. Yet the Minister had the effrontery to come down to that House and say that the punishment was mild. There was one more point, This was the point to which the Minister had not allucied to. When Whittaker, in the Provincial Division of the Transvaal Court, brought an action against Roos and Bateman, after Whittaker and Morant had been cleared of the charges, Roos and Bateman had the almost inconceivable audacity to put in their plea the allegation that these men were guilty of the charge. It was a curious thing that the Minister had not made the slightest allusion to the matter in defending his case. Mr. Justice Solomon had said that Whittaker was entitled to higher damages for three reasons: “In the first place, in spite of the fact that he had been acquitted on trial before a jury of the offence on which he was arrested, the defendants in their plea deliberately repeat the charge upon which he was tried and acquitted, and have failed to substantiate this charge. In the second place, he was isolated for 18 days longer than the plaintiff Morant. And in the third place ne was put to considerable expense in vindicating his rights by application to the Court.” Sir James Rose-Innes also referred to this charge. He said: “It is manifest that the damages awarded to Whittaker should be considerably more than those given to Morant. Not only was he isolated for a longer period, but in his case the defendants placed on record a plea to the effect that he was guilty of the charge against him. This was done after his acquittal by a jury, and the defendants having entirely failed to substantiate their accusation, the Court is bound to regard that plea as an aggravation of their conduct towards Whittaker.” All he could say was that when a charge of such gravity was put by an hon. member of the House, not on assumption, but on the considered and written judgment of three judges of the highest Court in the land, it was, in his opinion, and he believed the opinion of hon. members on either side of the House, and the opinion of the country, almost inconceivable that the Minister should reply by reading extracts which did not convey the meaning of one of these judgments, or treating the matter as a party matter. It was incumbent on the Minister to realise that in this matter the responsibility rested on him, and he should try to rise above the narrow party view with which he seemed to be permanently and incurably afflicted.

said he agreed that this question was too grave to be considered from the party point of view. The allegation had been made on the authority of the Chief Justice that these two men had been put in gaol and that they had been prevented from access to their attorneys in order to prepare their defence. A more serious allegation against the Government of the country he could hardly conceive. When he read the judgment that morning, he was extremely disturbed. While he agreed with the hon. member that it was an extremely grave matter, he did not think the hon. member had taken the wisest course that could have been pursued in a matter of this kind.

What would you have done?

I will explain. Continuing, he said that if it had not been for the seriousness of the matter, and the danger of grave misunderstanding, he would have ventured to rise and ask if this motion was of urgent public importance within the meaning of the rule. In view of past rulings, he thought this extremely questionable. He wished to represent to the hon. member for Fordsburg that this was a most unfortunate way of raising the question. He did not wish to make any party capital from his point of view, but wished simply, with a single eye, to consider whether the motion before the House was calculated to be in the interests of the country, in view of the serious allegations made.

He wished to point out m regard to the seriousness of the allegation, he had listened carefully to the speech by the Minister of Justice, and it appeared to him that there were three most grave allegations which had not been satisfactorily disposed of, and which, personally, he desired, very much to have explained. The first point was the ill-treatment of prisoners consequent upon the segregation of prisoners awaiting trial. It had been shown that the segregation of prisoners was now lawful, it having been legalised by the Act of last session. It also appeared to him, after reading the judgment, that it was a very difficult point of law as to whether it was lawful at the time or not, and it would be quite unfair to attach any great amount of blame to anybody for mistaking and therefore breaking the law at the time. But that did not decrease the seriousness of the matter. On the contrary it increased it. Segregation was now legal. Did that mean that men awaiting their trial were to be liable to be treated as criminals? (Hear, hear.) That was a matter of great importance, and the Minister and the House ought to have an opportunity of carefully considering it. And it was most unfortunate to bring up a discussion on a grave question of this kind, where it was most desirable that all party feeling should be eliminated, with only an hour given to the Minister to prepare for it. Many members like himself had no knowledge of it at all until they came into the House. The second matter which seemed to be outstanding, and which seemed to be of even greater importance was that, as far as he could understand from the considered judgment of the Chief Justice, a prisoner was interfered with in his desire to see his attorney in order to prepare his defence. That struck at the very root of society, and if that was so, then no man in this country was safe, for officials with bureaucratic tendencies would be able to throw a man into prison without giving him the opportunity of preparing his defence, and that was a matter which he did not think he or any man fit to be a member of the House would ever judge in a party spirit. He trusted a full explanation would be given on that matter. That was one point which he thought had not been dealt with sufficiently. What they wanted was an assurance that this principle was not laid down ; that this principle was not accepted by any of the authorities in this country; that if any claim had been made, or should be made, to act on those lines, it would be immediately repudiated by those in charge of the administration of affairs in this country. (Hear, hear.) The third point was the reiteration of the plea by the officials of the department that these men were guilty after they had been found innocent; and he must say that Seemed to show gross bias on the part of the officials, and tended to show what often existed in the official mind, a bias in favour of the police and an indifference to human liberty–– a thing which certainly demanded the attention of the House. When they were brought face to face with a state of affairs not remote from martial law, hon. members on that side of the House were bound to make it clear that they voted with a single eye to the question of right and wrong, and members on the other side of the House to show that they had no party bias. It was in this spirit that he came to this question, and had endeavoured to show that this was a matter that demanded the serious attention of the House and the country. He now addressed himself to the question whether the hon. member for Fordsburg had succeeded in taking the proper course in order to secure the unbiassed opinion of the House. He wished to call attention to the speech made by the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Long), or rather to those parts of his speech where he called attention to the mistakes made by the Minister in quoting the judgments of Sir James Innes and Sir William Solomon. That sounded almost like a trick. A question of this kind was brought before the House, and the Minister was informed at a quarter to one that this matter was coming forward. He was sorry that the Minister did not say it was impossible to deal with such a question at such short notice. It seemed to him that the hon. members were quite unfair in attempting to trounce the Minister because he had not mentioned judgments not yet published. The Minister had very frankly told the House that he had not seen the judgments and that he was quoting extracts supplied to him. Yet the hon. member compared that to an experience they had had not long ago, when a garbled account was given of a judgment when the hon. member had four years in which to ascertain the facts, whereas his hon. friend (General Hertzog) had not had half as many hours ; yet the comparison had been set up. He, for one, was not prepared to take a party view, and he thought that the Minister had made a mistake in consenting to discuss such a matter at such short notice. On the other hand, the tone of some of the speeches had made an impression on his mind that there was more than a desire for justice in the minds of some hon. members opposite, and more than a little party prejudice. (Ministerial cheers.) Hon. members opposite had dilated on the character of the Minister of Justice, but that question was not one of urgent public importance. Why pretend that that was a question of urgent public importance?

How raise it otherwise?

It ought to be raised on motion, and in view of the seriousness of the case he should have hoped with confidence that the Government would have granted a day for discussing it without delay. That seems to me to be the right course to pursue on this occasion Proceeding, he said that he should like to call the attention of the House to this: they were now engaged in discussing, not general policy, but a proposal to adjourn in order to discuss a question urgent public importance. What was the urgency? The men were not now being maltreated. The men were not in gaol.

How do you know?

Are hon. members so blind in their prejudice as to say that Whittaker and Morant are in gaol at the present moment? I suppose the urgency is that you suppose that men are being treated in this way at the present time? (Cries of “No.”) Proceeding, he said that he thought that the hon. member would be well advised, in his anxiety to raise the question in a judicial spirit before that House and the country, to withdraw that motion, and if the points he had referred to were not satisfactorily cleared up, to give notice of a considered motion. His attitude towards such a motion would depend on its character. If the mortion was one for condemning the Government for laying down principles which had not been laid down, he could not vote for it, but in view of the importance of the judgment, if a motion was brought before the House laying down that principles of that kind should be repudiated and not brought into practice in the future he trusted that the House would vote for it.

said!he could not hope to follow the extraordinary contortions of the mind of the hon. member for Uitenhage. The hon. member said: Why bring it up in this form? The hon. member would have been the first, if they had put a motion on the paper, to have said: “Here is another motion of no confidence in the Government.”

I suggested a motion.

The House knows the hon. member perfectly well. Proceeding, Col. Crewe said the abject of the hon. member for Fordsburg in bringing this motion forward at this stage was to obtain an assurance from the Minister that this course of procedure was not going to be followed and that it was against the policy of his Department, as he himself would have it. But they obtained no such assurance. (Hear, hear.) What they got was a justification of the policy of the Minister of Justice, and it was because of that that they were by no means satisfied that the conditions which had prevailed in the North did not still prevail and may not prevail again to-morrow. As to urgency, there was no question as to the urgent character of the case. The urgency arose out of a case of manifest importance to the whole country, where the liberty of the subject was at stake. He was sure that no member of that House, except the Minister of Justice, could justify the action of the Department in that case. The Minister had preferred to read extracts from the other judgments prepared for him in his department, and for that reason he (Col. Crewe) thought the House had every cause to be alarmed when not only the Minister himself, in his perhaps natural endeavour to defend the bead of his Department, but the head of his Department also apparently justified the course of procedure which had taken place. For that reason, he thought the hon. member for Fordsburg had been perfectly right in bringing to the notice of this House a grave public scandal. His hon. friend spoke about “allegations.” There had been no allegations in this case. There had been a deliberate finding on the part of the highest Court in the land on all the facts that were presented in the case. The hon. member knew that if they had put a notice on the paper they would not have got a discussion on non-party lines.

said it must be a serious matter which would take a whole afternoon to debate, and he doubted whether the matter brought before them justified the time which was being devoted to it. The Estimates would presently be introduced, and then such matters as that now before them would again be brought forward. In case a motion was brought forward having as its object the protection of someone’s life or property, he would be the first to admit its right to the urgent attention of the House. The motion before them, however, dealt with an old matter, which had appeared in the newspapers, but nothing happened until judgment had been delivered. Why did not the mover apply to the Government immediately the facts were known to him? Neither he (the speaker) nor the Minister of Justice had heard anything from the Opposition members in connection with it.

Because the case was still before the Court.

He was always ready to protect life and property in Johannesburg, but could not understand why the motion had not been brought forward as soon as the House met. The facte were as well known then as now. It had been said that they should first await the judgment of the Court, but in that case why did they not wait longer, until they had all the judgments of the Court? So far as he was concerned, he did not know what those other judgments were, except the fragments which had been read to them. If the Department of Justice had made an error, then the error was made in connection with the protection of life and property. At the time of the strike the action of the Department was generally approved by the inhabitants and newspapers of Johannesburg. It appeared to him that the motion was simply one to obtain party advantage. He had thought that the hon. member for Fordsburg was not such a strong party man, and that he was too serious to lend himself to such matters. The hon. member for Bloemfontein had stated that he (the speaker) would regard the motion as one of no confidence, and he would reply to that that they were not alarmed at motions of no confidence, as witness the fate of those which had already been dealt with. There appeared to be now a keen desire to protect persons against unjust treatment, but there had been times in the Transvaal in which they did not so earnestly regard the rights of the public. He would, for example, just quote the case of Durant, who wanted to establish a Republic during the Crown Colony Government. He was arrested, and only persons were admitted to him for the purpose of obtaining sworn declarations against the speaker and his friends, while to the speaker himself access to Durant was refused. Durant was segregated absolutely, and it appeared therefore that the principle of isolation was not new.

But if they acted wrongly then, must you also do so now?

Notwithstanding the full amnesty given in the treaty of Vereeniging, a number of the inhabitants of Middelburg were arrested for an offence committed during the time of the war, and notwithstanding the speaker’s request, the people were taken prisoners, but, owing to the treaty of peace, they were afterwards discharged by the Court. The hon. member for Liesbeek had tried to give the impression that isolation had never taken place before, and it was now desired to have a Government under which such action could not be taken, and to that he (the speaker) agreed, that they should do to others as they wished to be treated by others. He desired, however, to give the assurance that if the Department of Justice had made an error, that error was bona fide, and was made in the effort to protect life and property, and for no other reason whatever. He could quote other cases from the Transvaal from a time when there existed a sort of Parliament there, when nobody stood up for the rights of persons who had suffered. Van Aswegen, of Heidelberg, was summoned before the Military Court, and the speaker and others begged for a postponement of the case for the purpose of summoning witnesses, but without hearing those witnesses the case was decided and the man was shot. That was a grievous case of injustice. The case brought forward was not urgent, nobody suffered from the delay, the man in question had been set free, and he had obtained compensation. There was, therefore, no urgency in connection with the motion, and he regretted that the very people in Johannesburg who formerly called on the Government for protection, were now reflecting on the character of that protection. The hon. member for Fordsburg knew in his inmost mind that the action taken by the Minister of Justice had been bona fide (Cheers.)

said it would not be necessary to go over the facts, for they had already been given to the House He only rose to deplore the extreme character of the speech made by his right hon. friend who was supposed to be the leader of the House. A more unfortunate speech it would be impossible for anybody holding the exalted and responsible position the Prime Minister held–––

“Why?”

I will tell hon. members why. Because my right hon. friend is the Prime Minister of this country, and the leader of this House, and a point has been raised by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) whether, in the administration of justice, pure justice has, or has not, been carried out. That is the point before the House, and the speech of the Minister has been in no way a reply to that Continuing, he said that he was not going into the question of who these people were. That was not the question. The question was that certain people, not convicted, and who had since been proved to be innocent, had been subjected to treatment of an illegal character, and as that treatment had been meted out to these people, it might be meted out to any hon. member in that House, or to anyone in the country. In the whole course of his remarks, the Prime Minister never said that a travesty of justice of this sort should never be allowed. His right hon. friend, when he recognised the position he held in that House, would regret that he had not replied to that portion of the charge. He had delivered a speech which had a tendency to raise the strongest feelings in the House. Surely, the Prime Minister knew that he or any other hon. member, so long as the condition of affairs that the hon. member for Fordsburg brought to their notice existed, could be subjected to the same treatment. Surely that House was the first place in which to bring forward the liberty of the subject, no matter what the character of that subject might be, and surely the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister were the first that should welcome a motion of that sort, and assure the House and the country that in the future, as far as they were concerned, no matter what the consequences, an injustice of this kind would never be perpetrated in the name of justice. (Opposition cheers.)

supported the hon. member for Fordsburg. The importance of the matter justified its discussion in that House. At first he had wondered whether the time was opportune, and hon. members would notice that he had given notice of a question on the matter. He took it, however, on the showing of the hon. member for Liesbeek, that the Minister was in possession of the full text of the judgments, and consequently the Minister might have shown the question a little more consideration than he had. In giving his personal opinions—they were nothing else—the Minister expressed no regret for what had happened. (Opposition cheers.) He rather led the House to believe that he still felt that these men were guilty. He took it that if the Minister desired to see the discussion stopped he would have expressed regret at what had happened, and would have assured the House that he would take steps to prevent a recurrence. He thought the Minister had a hard task in trying to cover up the state of his Department, not only the present state, but what had existed for many years. This was not the first time that he had brought up cases of the persecution of men belonging to an association of workmen. The Minister of the interior had admitted that it was at the instance of the officers of the Minister of Justice that men were prevented from going on board a ship at Cape Town to warn strikebreakers of the conditions of trade in the country. During the miners’ strike in Johannesburg an explosion had taken place at a certain hotel. Immediately the police arrested trades union officials, and what happened in that case was even worse than in the present one. They were confined for over five months, and their solicitor was not able to see them. The Transvaal Legislature had expressed its opinion that these men should be compensated, but they got nothing. He submitted that until the Minister of Justice made some inquiry into his Department, and especially the Transvaal section, and assured himself that justice was administered with impartiality, the people would mistrust his Department. He thought that, at the same time, the Minister might try to find out the reason for this petty persecution of men attached to industrial organisations. He had cited two instances of this nature, and could cite many more.

said he did not desire to meddle with the decision of the Court, but would say that during the time of the strike he was a member of the Johannesburg Town Council, and the public had approved of the measures which had been taken by the Department of Justice. If those measures had not been taken, Johannesburg would now present a very different appearance to what it did. The strike appeared to be quite unnecessary, and 130 people had lost their work. Now to-day there was another opportunity to squeal about “Hertzogism.” The strikers had been municipal officials, who were well treated, but had lost their heads owing to the action of a few wirepullers. Strikes should not be permitted in South Africa, as there was no reason for them here. He could not understand why the hon. member for Fordsburg had brought the matter forward.

said that many lawyers had put forward the legal aspects of the case, but he deferred to the opinion of the highest lawyers, the Judges who constituted the Appeal Court. What had induced him to speak was his disappointment at the manner in which this matter had been treated by hon. members opposite, especially by the Prime Minister. The right hon. gentleman had begun with the old story, that a hare had been started. He went on to say that the matter was known of for four months, whereas in fact the judgment was only given on Saturday and came as something quite new to many hon. members who had not followed the case. But when the highest tribunal in the land had expressed strong disapprobation at the administration of justice he thought it a most important matter. The Minister had referred to newspaper reports. Well, he (the speaker) had turned to a Ministerial organ to see how it dealt with this affair. He found the judgment squeezed into a little corner. No wonder hon. members opposite were in ignorance of the facts. The Prime Minister went on to drag up cases from ancient history, and he put them forward as some sort of justification of the illegalities and abuse of the law to-day. He (the speaker) was grieved to hear that. Surely the Prime Minister wanted purity of justice in this country. The right hon. gentleman complained about the unfair administration of justice in times past. How could he bring that forward as a defence for the maladministration of justice to-day? He believed that there would be a feeling of disappointment throughout the country at the way the Prime Minister had taken up this matter, treating it in the first place as one of no great importance, and then saying that if the Minister of Justice had done wrong so had Ministers of Justice in days past.

I never said that!

said that the right hon. gentleman had quoted specific cases of maladministration. He had been reading not an hysterical article in the newspapers but a calm, clear and considered judgment of the highest Judge of the highest Court in the land. And his mind went back to the days of the Star Chamber, and he wondered whether they were back in the Middle Ages. He was disappointed that the Prime Minister had not taken up the matter more seriously. Then the Prime Minister told them the old tale of the time of the session going by and no work being done. Surely the protection of the liberty of the subject was the most important matter they could consider. When he got to that House the Prime Minister rose and said that he had a most important statement to make, and he (the speaker) thought it must be a statement concerning this gross miscarriage of justice, which everybody was discussing. But no, it was a statement regarding anthrax, a more important matter in the minds of some hon. gentlemen of that House than the proper administration of justice. All the arguments in defence, all the extenuation, all the explanations went as for nothing with him compared with the judgments of those most competent to deal with a matter of this sort. This judgment was not given from the narrow party point of view, but was a calm and clearly considered statement of the case by the highest Judge in the land. He thought they would at least get some statement of policy from the Right Hon. the Prime Minister.

said it was with the feeling of the greatest surprise that he noticed that the debate had taken the turn of what might be called racialism. Nothing was further from the minds of hon. gentlemen on that side of the House than that there was any possibility that this unfortunate turn should be given to a matter of that kind. He thought that very few of them had any sympathy with the movement out of which this case arose. He himself had no sympathy with violent strikes or those who promoted violence. To an extent the action which the Minister of Justice had taken was with the idea of protecting life and property. He wished it would be possible for hon. members to detach in their minds, to separate that particular case from the principle which it involved. It was the application of the principle; it was a sincere protest here based upon the judgment of the Court of Appeal ; a protest against the arbitrary and illegal interference with people’s rights. He did not want to go into the matter in detail, but he must say that a greater disappointment than any was the character of the speech of the Prime Minister. He made allusion to what took place during the war.

No, after the war.

Do you mean the (Military Courts and the refusal of evidence, or the case of Durant?

That was after peace.

said he had misunderstood the. Prime Minister. He thought he referred to something that took place during the war. What was done in the Durant case was done under the authority of Sir Richard Solomon. It was done because that man, in inciting and organising rebellion, claimed to represent the leaders in the late war and because those in authority did not believe they had any part in it whatever and took action then and there to expose this man. That was done by authority they could not disparage. The man who did it was Sir Richard Solomon, who was not antagonistic to the party opposite. But if the plea was put up that if justice was hard to get in those days and there was no House to which to appeal, he could give another instance when there was a Parliament, but one in which they had no representation or right to representation. There were not many of them in that House who were subjected to solitary confinement in gaol, in fact he felt perfectly sure he was the only one who had had that experience. He had experienced it in the condemned cell, and the only person allowed to visit him was a man who did so to tempt him with the offer of liberty if he would give up the documents and evidence which would in fact betray their friends.

Without trial?

Without trial, and solely on evidence supplied by us, ourselves, in good faith. Yes, sir, the pressure was solitary confinement, and the price of liberty was to be the betrayal of comrades. He mentioned that as a warning to the Prime Minister against raking up the past. For another reason he would like to put this point to the Minister of Justice. Out of the, past it had often been said they might get some good, and he could tell them that there was nothing more cruel, more difficult to bear, more heartbreaking, than that same system of solitary confinement. They required a good cause and a good heart to go through with it, and it was a mighty hard thing to submit a poor man to it, when he had a wife and children outside for whom there was no provision, and with whom he could not even communicate, and he had hot been proved guilty of anything. He did not want to labour it, but he did wish that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice would take this to heart. What they did want really was an absolute assurance that whilst that which had been done was done in good faith, nothing of the sort would be possible in the future, because the defence supplied to them was a justification all through and not an acknowledgment that it was an illegal thing done for a good purpose. (Opposition cheers.)

said that the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) referred to the motion, and said that some months had been allowed for this matter to be in abeyance without any member of the Opposition taking any action on it. The first information he had at all was contained in a city newspaper issued on Saturday night. When that matter was revealed to them some gentlemen who were members of that party met and resolved immediately, without hesitation, that it was a matter to be brought to the notice of the House. They further discussed the matter that morning, when a larger number of members was present, and without any hesitation it was agreed that the matter was one that deserved the most serious consideration not only of the House but of the whole country. (Hear, hear.) The only other point he wished to make was that surely the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister must admit that there had been very serious mistakes in this matter. If he did not go so far as to say there had been miscarriages of justice, surely the Minister must admit that very serious blunders had been made. And all he had to do in this case was to give some assurance from the hon. member who controlled and led the House that he would take care that no member of his Cabinet would give cause for these charges again being made, and one could only be sorry that this debate was coming to a close without any assurance by the Prime Minister that steps would be taken to prevent any recurrence of this matter. (Hear, hear.) They did not ask the Minister to put on a white sheet and run around making a fool of himself—(laughter)—but they did ask that steps would be taken to prevent any such things as this recurring. (Opposition cheers.)

said he would like first of all, in replying to the debate, to deal with the point made by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) that his was the wrong way in which to bring this question before the House. He (Mr. Fremantle) in the course of his speech, began by disclaiming any intention of making this a party question, and insinuated very serious motives to the Opposition—that they were dealing with it from a party point of view—and ended up with remarks that could not but have tended to make it a party question. (Opposition cheers and laughter.) He would like to put it to the hon. member, in what other manner did he think that this question could be brought? (Hear, hear.) It was all very well for the hon. member to say that he ought to have put down a motion. He would have had good reason to put down a motion if he thought there was any chance of it coming before the House and getting some time allotted to it for consideration; but in view of the state of the paper, and knowing that, the Government was taking up all the time of the House they could, he had no possible reason to think that if he had put down a motion of this kind there would have been any chance of having it discussed. (Opposition cheers.) The Prime Minister said: “Why not wait until the Estimates come on?” Well, it was because they had no assurance from any Minister in the House that this practice of dealing with awaiting-trial prisoners had been dealt with.

The Minister of Justice gave quite a different idea. He began by twitting him (Mr. Duncan) with not knowing what the law as to segregation meant. He very much doubted whether the House when they passed that section knew what they were doing He had looked at the Votes and Proceedings, and he found that this was a section moved by the Minister in committee. He very much doubted whether if the committee had known, or had had any idea that segregation meant the treatment these men were subjected to, they would have let the section go through. (Hear, hear.) Now he brought two charges against the Department. One was that for* the first 12 or 14 days these men had been treated in the way in which the worst criminal was treated, and then, after the Department had realised what they were doing, their treatment was not such as awaiting-trial prisoners ought to be subjected to. The House had already heard what that treatment was. They were isolated. They spent 25 hours out of 24 in the cells, and had one hour for exercise. He (Mr. Duncan) said that, if that were what segregation meant for awaiting-trial prisoners, whether it were law or not, it ought not to be put into practice. If that were the law steps should be taken at once to amend that section. (Hear, hear.) The Prime Minister said that they were not acting in good: faith in this matter, because, if they were, why did not they come to he Government before with representations ; why didn’t he or someone else come to the Government with representations? He frankly confessed that he was not alive to the facts of the case until they were disclosed at the trial before the Transvaal Provincial Division. He thought that was in December last. In June these men petitioned the High Court to be treated in the manner in which awaiting-trial prisoners ought to be treated, and it was not until the High Court had so ordered that this was done. The fact that that motion had to be made ought to have called the attention of the Government to what was being done. In regard to what had been said on the cross-benches, he wanted to make it perfectly clear that, as far as he was concerned, he did not take the view that the Minister of Justice was not right in what he did to preserve order in Johannesburg. There was, as he said, a state of panic in Johannesburg; violence was rife.

When?

I cannot tell exactly at what moment of the clock the trouble began. Proceeding, he said that the Minister of Justice and the Courts of Law and the Department of Justice were there to secure for men who came into their hands fair and cool treatment, not such treatment as would be given to a man in the height of a fight, but, when the Minister defended the way in which these men were treated on the ground that feeling was running very high, he was giving his case away. He (Mr. Duncan) wanted the law to be administered by a Department which was not going to lose its head when there was a panic. His view was that these had been and apparently still were the prison regulations by which awaiting prisoners were liable to be treated. He had not heard a word said by the Minister of Justice or by the Prime Minister that awaiting trial prisoners who may be ordered segregation may not still be treated like this. If he had heard such an assurance he would have been pleased to withdraw his motion, because he would have been satisfied that the attention of the House had been sufficiently drawn to the matter, but he had had no such assurance, and he must press the motion.

then put the question, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

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

moved for leave to introduce the Bill.

seconded.

said be did not wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, but he simply rose to make a protest against the attitude adopted by his hon. friend as a member of the Government, firstly, in proposing to introduce a Bill which—if it were founded on the measure published in the “Gazette”—one could characterise as one introduced entirely in party interest, and, as he had beard it described by an hon. member, as being introduced for the purpose of keeping the existing members of the Government permanently seated on Treasury benches. In the second place, he wished to protest, because they had had it from the Minister of Railways, and from—he thought—the Prime Minister, as an excuse for not introducing two very important measures—one dealing with the Railway Board and the other dealing with the public service—that the Bills already on the paper might make it impossible for the Government to deal with these matters during the present session. Was the Prime Minister fulfilling his promise when the Minister of Native Affairs introduced a Bill of a most contentious character, and drawn up in the party spirit to which he (Sir Thomas) had referred? There were other important measures waiting, one being the Police Bill, introduced last session. He appealed to the Prime Minister if he bad time for extra legislation above that already provided for, would he not consent to withdraw this measure and introduce a Public Service Bill, which was urgently required, and would the Minister of Railways introduce a Bill dealing with the Railway Board? (Opposition cheers.)

said he regretted, after the passionate speech of his hon. friend, that he had no intention of withdrawing the Bill. He was sorry, although he was not surprised, that the hon. member was beginning o cry at this very early stage. There would be lots of weeping later on. (Ministerial laughter.) Although there was a large amount of business before the House, the Government took the view that the present Bill was important and that it was highly necessary that the election law should be placed on such a footing that the rights of the public should be preserved, and that elections should be conducted on such a basis as to ensure that the rights of the people should be safeguarded.

The motion was carried, and the Bill was read a first time.

moved that the Bill be put down for second reading next Monday.

seconded.

was saying that that would give very little time for hon. members to consider the Bill, when Business was suspended at 6.2 p.m.

When the House adjourned I was requesting my hon. friend —

The hon. member has already spoken.

I was speaking when you, Sir, moved the adjournment of the House at six o’clock. And with all deference to you I submit that I am within my right in going on again.

Yes.

said that when the House rose he was appealing to his hon. friend to put off an important measure of this sort for a little longer than a week. If the Bill was as published in the Government Gazette, very important privileges that had existed for a long time had been taken away. Under the circumstances he was justified in asking the Minister to postpone the second reading for fourteen days, so that hon. members might have an opportunity of reading the measure, and so that they might draw the attention of their constituencies to it. He moved accordingly.

seconded the amendment.

sincerely hoped that the Minister would not delay the Bill, and pointed out that last year the Opposition had brought forward a motion pointing out the urgency for such a measure. The new Bill would make the provision they asked.

And much more!

said that the Bill had been published for over a fortnight. However, the Government was reasonable, and they hoped that when the Bill came up hon. members opposite would also be reasonable. He accepted the amendment that the Bill be read that day fortnight.

The amendment was agreed to.

moved for leave to introduce the Bill.

seconded.

wished to ascertain from the Government when they proposed to fulfil the pledges given to the House last session and to bring forward a Bill to deal with the scourge of miners’ phthisis on the Rand. They had it from the Minister of Mines that the report of the Miners’ Phthisis Commission had been in the hands of the Government for some weeks.

He asked why the proposals for dealing with this matter were not before the House, and when the Government proposed to introduce a Bill dealing with it. With every desire not to shelve this question they recollected the experience of last year and they did hope—in fact demanded—that it should be dealt with thoroughly and effectively this year. The Government had had plenty of time to introduce such a measure.

did not know whether he could add anything to what he had already said. The report was in his hands. By the following day the proofs of the English copy would be despatched to Pretoria to be read. The Dutch copy would be read the day after, and early next week the report would be ready. He did not propose to deal with the Bill until the country had had an opportunity of reading the report.

Will you pass it this session?

The hon. member has spoken.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a first time, and set down for second reading to-morrow.

said that at a later stage he would move that the Bill be referred to the Public Accounts Committee.

The Bill was read a first time, and set down for second reading on Wednesday.

said he hoped that the Minister, not with-standing his refusal to have anything to do with the amendments that had been proposed, would, when administering the law, remember the terms of the amendments that had been rejected.

The Bill was read a third time.

said that he would repeat what he had said when the Bill was read a second time—that this was a very drastic clause. It seemed unfair that the Government should call upon the local authorities to pay for the stamping out of disease. And it must be admitted that a disease such as plague was not only disastrous to a town like Durban, but would spread all over the Colony if not stamped out, and, that being so, it was in the interests of the country that it should be stamped out at once, and paid for by the Treasury. He would like to point out, that in a suburb where there were seven thousand white people, the Government would stamp out any epidemic at their own expense, and, therefore, it was not fair that a Town should pay its moiety. According to a Cape Act, quoted by an hon. member, the Government might pay four-fifths of stamping out a disease, but in the event of it being brought by ship or by rail, the Government paid the whole cost. That appeared to him to be a fair and just way of dealing with it, and he hoped the Minister would see that the clause was amended to meet it. The Minister must admit that all towns should be put on the same basis. Sub-section 5 stated that no committee shall be formed in the case of the Governor-General being satisfied that the town had sufficient machinery to cope with an outbreak. Absolutely at the option of the Governor-General. Take Durban. There was nothing in that subsection to prevent the Minister persuading the Governor-General to say that they had sufficient machinery to cope with disease. Surely the Minister must know that that would cause friction. He felt sure that it the Minister would only read the clause carefully, the would move an amendment to define the case of any epidemic coming to any municipality, and saying that it shall be stamped out by the Government, and paid for out of the Treasury. (Hear, hear.)

said that the Johannesburg Municipality at least had health regulations, and a department certainly as good as any other town in the Union. He knew perfectly well in clause 2 the Minister had the right to appoint a committee ; but from his knowledge or the permanent medical authority, he did not think he would ever strive to do that so far as Johannesburg was concerned. Suppose they had an epidemic there, they would have to bear the whole of the expense. Ho wanted to put it to the Minister that they had quite enough burdens to bear already in Johannesburg, and when coping with disease as they did with the first outbreak of plague—their methods were the admiration of the whole country. They were quite qualified in Johannesburg to deal with their own affairs, and, therefore, they were not going to be saddled with half the expense of keeping the rest of South Africa clean. He thought the kindest thing to do was to make the central authority bear the expense of stamping out any epidemic of disease.

said that in Bloemfontein, which had a debt of £800,000, £500,000 had been spent on the sanitation of the town. At any time an epidemic might be brought from elsewhere, and under that clause half the costs of clearing that epidemic would fall upon the ratepayers of that town ; and he submitted that in a case like that, where the people had spent so much money in keeping their place clean, and where disease was brought in through no fault of their own, it was surely unfair that they must bear that additional expense If the Minister had started with an epidemic being the business of the Government and not of the local authority, he would not have had the anomaly which that Bill brought him into. Although the Minister might refer him to sub-section 2 and sub-section 5, it did seem to him that they did contradict each other.

said that, as it appeared to him, in the municipality which was carrying out its public health duties well, where the sanitation was good, the danger of epidemics must obviously be the least ; and a municipality which was looking after its health badly would have to suffer considerable expenditure in paying half the costs of stamping out the disease which might break out. Broadly speaking, that was the way in which the Minister’s proposals appealed to him, and there did not seem to be any fallacy underlying it.

said that he thought that large municipalities, such as Johannesburg, Pretoria, Bloemfontein, Cape Town, and Port Elizabeth, had been well treated in that House, but what he did find was very serious neglect of the small municipalities. In the case of most of these large municipalities they could be made to cope with the expenditure in connection with the stamping out of any disease ; but they had in the Union many small municipalities which had a very small revenue, and which could not at all cope with an outbreak of disease because they did not possess the money; and if they did have such an outbreak it would be à danger to the rest of the country. (Hear, hear.) It was essentially necessary that provision should be made in the Bill that, whenever they were dealing with an epidemic disease of a communicable nature, the costs incurred should be defrayed by the Government. He would move that sub-section 4 of clause 13 be deleted for the purpose of inserting a new sub-section, which was to the effect: “Provided that in any case of the incidence or the threatened outbreak in the Union, within or outside the area of the jurisdiction of a local authority, of any epidemic disease … the expenditure incurred shall be defrayed from the public revenue funds.”

was understood to ask whether the amendment was in order.

The amendment out of order.

said he did not think the hon. member for Jeppe was correct in suggesting that the large municipalities had nothing to fear. It all depended upon the whim of the Minister. (Hear, hear.) It seemed to him that the Minister in framing clause 13 had lost sight of the existing distinction drawn in the Public Health Act. Under this clause the Minister was judge and jury as to whether a municipality was doing its duty. Large municipalities in seaport towns had more to fear than any others because so many of these diseases were brought from oversea. It was entirely in the discretion of the Minister to say, “I am not satisfied with Municipality A” or “I am satisfied with Municipality B.” He could select particular municipalities and say, “I am going to have an epidemic committee appointed.” Another thing that struck him as very peculiar was that he was going to lump together a number of municipalities. He might appoint an epidemic committee for the whole of the Cape Peninsula. It did not matter if there were different municipalities. The Minister might appoint an epidemic committee for the municipalities of Cape Town, Wynberg, and Simon’s Town, and he might settle the proportion which each had to pay. Surely it was not fair to leave such enormous powers in the hands of the Minister.

said the Committee of the Whole House was hardly the best atmosphere in which to draw up a Public Health Bill—(hear, hear)—particularly when they had three Acts running already which would run concurrently with this one in part. He did hope that, whatever the minister did with this Bill, he would not strike at the root of local government—(hear, hear)—and one of the great privileges of local government was that it had to bear a share of the expense. But then it had also a voice in the management of affairs, too. He trusted that they would not part with that. The hon. member for Langlaagte seemed to propose that they should slip these localities out of all responsibility, and throw it on the Central Government—in other words, that they should allow a local authority to neglect its plain duties, and then, when the inevitable result took place, the general Government should pay, which meant every taxpayer in this country. It was a wholly wrong principle. But, then, they had to encounter in this Bill the very great difficulty that local authorities were unfortunately partial in the Union. (Hear, hear.) They had local authorities in the Cape, they had them in parts of the Transvaal, in parts of Natal and in parts of the Free State, but there were large areas not touched by them. Was it not possible even at this hour to meet that difficulty? Seeing that all the main centres of infection, the main places where the Government would have to encounter difficulty with the Act, were places that were covered by local authorities now all over the Union—such as Johannesburg, Pretoria, Maritzburg, and Durban—he moved: In line 56, after “authority,” to insert “or in the absence of any local authority by the Provincial Council in such proportion as may be determined by the Governor-General.” That would have the advantage of sharpening the zeal of Provincial Councils to see that they did get local authorities, if they were charged with some of this expenditure. Of course, they could charge the Provincial Councils with this duty.

said that even at this late hour the Bill should be referred back, to give an opportunity to the Minister of consulting the people concerned. Sleeping sickness, typhoid, cholera, and other diseases were introduced into South Africa from outside places. Supposing sleeping sickness broke out at Pietpotgietersrust? (Laughter.) There were agencies, however, far more destructive than those mentioned, and the task of grappling with them should not be left to the local authorities. These diseases were playing havoc in this country. One was tuberculosis, which was causing a big death-rate at Victoria West.

As healthy a little place as you can find in South Africa.

Either it is not so healthy as the right hon. member thinks, or the statistics compiled when he was Prime Minister are still more unhealthy. Laughter.) Dr. Macaulay then suggested that the word “epidemic,” in line 30, be omitted.

expressed fear that the Bill did not make provision for uniform treatment. Reference had been made to the payment of half the costs by local bodies. But they must not forget that there were large areas in the Union without local government. In that case where was the money to come from—out of the general revenue? He hoped the Minister would carefully consider the matter.

said that under the clause the position arose that if an epidemic occurred in a locality outside the municipality, the Government could bear the whole cost, but if it broke out within a municipality, the Government would only pay half the cost. He wished to know whether a Health Board was a local authority within the meaning of this Bill? There were many thickly-populated areas not within a municipality; some of them had a Health Board, while others had not. It would be extremely unfair if one set had to pay half, while the others were let off. He recognised the objection of hon. members opposite that if local authorities were freed from any contribution, there would be no inducement to them to keep their house in order. He did not like the idea of a contribution to be paid by the Provincial Council in such proportions as the Governor-General-in-Council might determine. That would give the Minister of the day too much say. He thought the amount should be left to the Provincial Council to determine.

said his hon. friend had spoken with great force. His idea, however, was that if the onus were thrown on the Provincial Council it had the power to enact an Ordinance to enable it to set up a local authority at once in places where an epidemic occurred, or to levy taxation within a certain area within their control.

said that when they agreed to the second reading of the Bill they accepted the principle that this was an emergency matter. He mentioned that because certain hon. members wished the Minister to withdraw the Bill in favour of a more comprehensive measure. Two facts must be borne in mind if they wished to deal with an epidemic ; first, that it should not originate by the default of the local authority, and secondly, the epidemic must not be spread by the dilatoriness or procrastination of the local authority. To illustrate this point he described how an epidemic of malarial fever had spread on the Vaal River along the Grange River. It was said to have originated in Pretoria. He pointed out that neglect on the part of a local authority meant endangering the lives of people in other localities, and he contended that they could only get the required co-operation and assistance of local people if they were made to pay. He came into contact with an epidemic in a small village. People from the farms came into the place, caught the disease, returned to their farms, and fell ill, and the result was that four villages were ultimately affected. That was entirely due to the neglect of one local body. That body should have been made to pay, for it would have been taught how necessary it was to keep their house in order. Some responsibility in a pecuniary sense should fall on the local body. If they did that they would get the co-operation of the local body, and the people would do their best to help the central authority, firstly, to discover a disease of an epidemic nature, and secondly, to assist the central authority to deal effectually with it, primarily, for the safety of the local people, and secondarily, for the safety of their neighbours. He found fault with the proposition of the hon. member for Victoria West, because it placed another body between the central authority and the local authority, and that would necessarily mean loss of time. Two things were necessary if they were to successfully cope with an epidemic—first, there must be no delay in tackling the matter; and, second, the machinery of the Department must be such as it could deal swiftly and effectually with the matter that had arisen. If they had another body between the two it would lead to procrastination, which would mean Spreading the disease round the country. He thought there was a certain amount of justice in discriminating, as to the amount to be exacted from the locality of the epidemic, between a place where there was no local authority and a place that had an authority that had been neglectful of the sanitation of the area under its control. It was necessary for the proper working of the Act that the local people should be made to pay to a certain extent for not keeping their house in order. That was essentially their duty.

said that the Minister had tried to deal with the situation to which the hon. member for Paarl had drawn attention. He pointed out that an epidemic might be introduced from outside by railway or sea or might be due to neglect on the part of the local authority. But there was no differentiation between the epidemic introduced from outside and the epidemic that started in a place. He did think that there should be some contribution from the local authority. He moved an amendment to the effect that if an epidemic was introduced by rail or sea the central government should pay four-fifths and the local authority one-fifth. If, however, the epidemic was due to pure neglect on the part of the local authority then the central government would pay two-thirds and the local authority one-third.

hoped the Minister would not accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman). The right hon. member’s suggestion was that directly any serious trouble arose—any epidemic arose, the Provincial Councils should be made responsible. It would be a most unjust thing and a very great hardship if put into operation. He associated himself with those members who pointed out the hardships that would accrue to the ports in the event of any outside disease developing. A point he wanted to draw the attention of the Minister to was the case of email local authorities—places just struggling into existence. They could not bear half the cost of stamping out an epidemic. (Hear, hear.)

said the suggestion which had emanated from his side of the House that the whole cost should be borne by the consolidated revenue fund, he thought was made simply because it seemed to be the only solution of the difficult situation that had arisen. He did not think any of them regarded it as a solution that was defensible in all its points ; and he must say he thought there were considerable qualms as to how it was going to work in practice. Their endeavour was to find some means by which all in South Africa would be treated alike in the case of an epidemic. It was not fair in the case of certain localities, where they had local authorities, to say in this Bill they would saddle them with half the cost, where in other Provinces they said that the central authority was going to bear the whole. There were other anomalies also. The Bill was going, to penalise up-to-date municipalities with proper health departments on the outbreak of an epidemic. Under it, Durban, for example, if an epidemic committee were not appointed, would get nothing to support the cost of tackling an epidemic. Johannesburg would get nothing also. So far as the Cape Town Municipality was concerned, they were protected to this extent, that the 1897 Public Health Amendment Act still stood, so that they could come down on the Minister for four-fifths of the cost of the suppression of disease and the whole of the cost if it was brought by ship or rail ; and, therefore, they would be in a better position than Natal or Transvaal municipalities. Was it fair that certain municipalities should be treated preferentially? It must be put to the Minister as an essential that they must try to get a scheme whereby all parts of South Africa would be treated alike. The clause as it stood was not going to do it. What was wanted was a Bill to consolidate the whole of the Public Health Acts in South Africa. If the Minister was well advised, even at this eleventh hour, he would withdraw the Bill. He was never going to succeed with it unless he amplified it considerably. (Hear, hear.)

said that the Town Council at Middelburg had had great difficulty in getting in the rates, and it would not do to burden them with the expense connected with infectious diseases. Owing to poverty in Sekukuniland and Roos-Senekal, the people were not able to pay for infectious diseases, and he thought it better that the whole country should pay a small tax for dealing with infectious sicknesses.

said that the Minister might as well withdraw the Bill, and introduce a comprehensive measure later.

hoped the Minister would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. Most of the local bodies would be able to pay a fifth of the costs. He regretted that mention was made in the Bill of “typhus,” which was usually confused with typhoid fever. He would like to see enteric fever and malaria included in the Bill, but not yellow fever, which did not occur in South Africa any more than typhus. Those words had simply been taken from the old Bill. He was in favour of charging local bodies with one-fifth of the cost of fighting epidemics.

said that places like Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, and Durban were the gateways of the Union.

And who makes the profit?

The farmers do, by selling their produce in the large centres. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said that they were going to make the persons who were most liable to these diseases, through no fault of their own, pay. There was not one of the up-to-date towns in South Africa which did not have a complete sanitary department. They were doing their best to cope with disease. Some of them had had diphtheria, perhaps, in their families, although they took every care to prevent disease breaking out. It had been said that municipalities would be careless, but they would be extremely careful, if only for the sake of their trade. If an epidemic broke out, visitors would not come. In self-protection these towns were bound to take up that position, or the trade would not come. He would also like the Minister to remember that in the event of an outbreak of disease, they would not only pay half, as citizens of the municipalities, but they would also have to pay their share as citizens of the Union. The Minister should think of that; that it would be a double tax they were paying. No one liked to pay taxes, but as it was the whole of the Union which benefited, he thought that the suggestion of the hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Du Toit) was a very good one. If the whole of the Union were taxed for that purpose, it would not be felt very much. It was the Union that was being saved; and he who got the blessing should pay for the blessing. Suppose disease broke out amongst cattle, mho paid for it?

Farmers.

We all pay for it. Let us take the broad principle: whether a person belongs to the town or to the country, he belongs to the Union, and it is the Union that should look after the public health. I do feel that the suggestion of the hon. member (Mr. Du Toit), so far as I was able to follow him, was the best suggestion thrown out.

said that his hon. friend had talked about cattle diseases, but he seemed to forget that the farmer had to bear four-fifths of the loss and the State had only to bear one-fifth.

said he quite understood the position. When he spoke he was not referring to the losses that people had to sustain from diseases, but he was speaking of the expense that was caused to the particular department that had to contend with the outbreak, and he still said that the farmer did not contribute anything towards that expense.

said that they ought to be clear on this point. What they wanted to point out was that, when it was a question of preventing disease amongst cattle, the whole expense was borne by the State as it ought to be. He thought the House was getting somewhat mixed with regard to this matter. (Hear, hear.)

said he was sorry that so many difficulties were raised in regard to clause 13 and that they made so little progress. He would appeal to the committee that they should make some progress with the Bill. The position was really very serious. Here they were in one large town in South Africa with bubonic plague and with practically no law. He had framed a number of regulations on older laws which were still in existence with the idea of coping under these regulations with the outbreak. He was now in the Law Courts to have all these regulations declared invalid and, if that succeeded, he did not know what to do. The law of 1901 gave them no machinery for dealing with a situation such as existed at Durban now, and if the law of 1901 were re-enacted the result would be simply this, that the Government would have to look after its own area, the Corporation, quite separately and under its own Act, would have to look after its own area, and beyond the area of the Corporation again they would have a number of suburbs where nothing could be done at all. Now he came with this Bill. Hon. members, especially of the medical profession, were rather hard upon him because they thought that this Bill represented his ideas. They seemed to think that he was the author of this Bill, and that he was trying to impose in some autocratic manner a public health policy on the statute. He had had very little to do with the Bill. The Bill had been drafted by the public health officers of the Union all over South Africa. (Hear, hear.) They were responsible for this Bill. They said that the only way, experience had shown in South Africa, of coping with an outbreak was as the committee suggested here. The idea of an epidemic committee was one that had worked well in South Africa before, and it was now suggested by the health officers of the Union as a solution of the difficulty that they were faced with. Hon. members asked, if the Government were going to appoint an epidemic committee like that, what about the local authority? Were they going to ride roughshod over the local authority? Hon. members would see that sub-section 5 was introduced for the purpose of interfering as little as possible with a local authority, which was in a position to cope with the disease. There should be some fair authority to decide the matter. If hon. members said sub-section 5 should go he was quite prepared to let it go. (Hear, hear.) He had put it in because many municipalities thought they could cope very well with outbreaks. There had been smallpox at Johannesburg for months, but the municipality had perfectly been able to cope with it. Why interfere in such a case? The hon. and gallant member for Durban (Major Silburn) had asked why should municipalities bear part of the expense. If the Bill did not go through, however, Durban would have to pay every penny in connection with the outbreak of plague at that place. The present burden was too onerous, and it was fair that Government should pay a substantial share, but do not let them go to the extent of saying that all the expense should be taken away from the municipalities.

The spurious difficulty had been raised that we had not municipalities all over the Union. (Hear, hear.) That really was an argument which should not weigh too heavily. It was an argument that told very seriously against a public health measure. Before a comprehensive health measure was brought in people would say, “First have local authorities all over the country to take their share of the burden.” In providing for public health they could not wait until South Africa had local authorities, which it was not for Parliament to constitute, that being the duty of the Provincial Councils. It was not a fair position to say, “We are not going to deal with public health until the Provincial Councils in the interior have covered those Provinces with local authorities.” He did not think that was a fair argument. This was an emergency Bill, and it would serve until they could introduce a more comprehensive measure. However, he thought it was quite fair to ask that when an epidemic committee was constituted the local authorities should be represented on it, and he would move that in each case where there were local authorities that should an epidemic committee be appointed, half the members should be nominated by the local authorities and the other half by Government.

Sub-section 4 dealt with the question of expense. He did think that half the amount specified was rather too much for local authorities to bear. Especially in the event of large plagues like bubonic and cholera, the State should go further than that. On sub-section 4 he was prepared to move an amendment, namely, that the Government should, finance the epidemic committee. All the money would in the first instance go out of the public revenues, but the Governor-General would have the right to ask for a contribution from the local authority if there was any local authority included in the area, to ask them for an amount which was fair and reasonable, provided that in no case would the local authority bear more than one-third of the expense. Some local authorities which were poorly circumstanced, would not be able to bear so Large a proportion as others. But if they did this they would have under section 13 machinery that would work.

How about areas not under local authorities?

There the State will have to bear the whole burden.

And the Provincial Council?

I have come to that. Proceeding, he said that his right hon. friend the member for Victoria West had proposed that in respect of those areas which were not covered by a local authority they should call upon the Provincial Council to contribute. He was most loth to do that. He did not think, that that was the proper way or the proper place to deal with the matter. If they wanted the Provincial Council to contribute towards the public revenue in any way they should pass an Act for that purpose. Such an Act the Government proposed to pass this session. It would settle for some years to come the financial relations between the Union and the Provinces. (Cheers.) But he did not think that in a Bill like this they Should saddle the Provincial Council with financial responsibilities. It violated his idea of what was constitutionally proper. They should not lay burdens on the Provincial Councils in this rather slap-dash manner in a Bill of this character. He admitted much of the argument that had been raised, but hon. members would see that they could not arrive at a solution of the difficulty that night. Years hence, when the position was different, that might come. That night they had to deal with an urgent situation, and he would appeal to hon. members to help him to get this Bill through. The most important, most necessary, and most essential part of the measure was clause 13, and he earnestly appealed to the members of the committee to pass it. To cope with the outbreak of disease or any other outbreak that might occur in the future, it was necessary that this clause should form part of the Bill. He did not say that there had been any obstruction ; he realised that there were hon. members of that House who were as serious as he on this matter. The subject was most difficult ; the more one turned the matter over in one’s mind, the more one realised the enormous difficulties that had to be faced. He hoped that the passage of that Bill would act as a warning to future Ministers when they brought in measures dealing with the public health of the country. The position was that they must do something without delay. He did not think they could do less than what was contained in the Bill that was being considered by the committee. He appealed to hon. members, even if they did not agree with everything that he proposed, to help him get this Bill through. There was a question which had been raised by the hon. member for Germiston as to the position of the Health Boards in the Transvaal. He rather thought that these Boards rested on a statutory basis. They would fall under the term local authority in the Bill. His hon. friend the hon. member for Denver had suggested that the word “epidemic” might be dropped, in order to enable the Government to deal with all big outbreaks. Well, he rather thought that the Government had all the power it required under the provisions of that Bill.

said he had framed a new clause 13, which he thought would get the Minister out of his difficulty.

(continuing) said if they had no local authority in a case such as Woodstock or Mowbray, what was going to happen?

You have the Rural Council.

No, no ; that won’t help.

Why not?

It has no jurisdiction.

I think my right hon. friend would find that this Rural Council would not have the authority to cope with an outbreak like that.

It says under this Bill: local authority.

Yes; but unless we give them authority they would not have the authority to deal with this matter. Proceeding, he said they would have one municipality doing its duty and another not doing its duty, and very soon they would have in Cape Town such a state of affairs as had never been the case before. This committee was intended to meet a case of that kind. Therefore, he hoped hon. members would help them to get that clause through.

said the Minister had gone a little way, but not far enough. One reason for the opposition was that where they had a local authority in one place and none in another the whole burden was on the place with the local authority. The Minister spoke of extending the principle of local self-government throughout the country, but would he extend that if they made local authorities pay and the Government bore the expense themselves of the places without local authorities? It was only when they got some serious epidemic that the Government would have to interfere. It would not always be interfering, so that there would not be any very heavy burden on the Government. He thought the Minister would find that the opposition to the Bill would be relieved if he did what they did in the Cape. They made the Government bear the charge when it took over control.

said he hoped the Minister would not pay the whole thing out of the revenue. It would be fatal to do that, because they had local authorities always indifferent and not doing anything at all. They must pay something. Under the Cape Act the Government paid four-fifths and the local authority one-fifth. He did not care how much it was, but the principle must be laid down. His hon. friend used the term “slap-dash,” but of all the slap-dash methods to first spend the money by the Government and then recover it from the local authorities was the biggest. It was open to the objection that they would always have a screw put upon them by the municipalities. But the principle must be laid down that the local authorities must pay some share. He thought it would be a great pity if he did not do it in that way. He did not want to force his views upon the Government ; he only wanted to give them advice, and if they would not take it, he was sorry. But it must be a cardinal principle that the local authorities must take their share of the expense, and it should not be a question of contribution, when they would not get anything at all.

to sub-section 5, he did not think that any said that the hon. gentleman had done something to avoid the difficulty, but could have done something more if he had put his amendment on the paper. With regard one was going to quarrel with the principle, and the question of details need not be gone into; but they were still in the difficulty that they were going to find when that clause was passed that the larger towns were going to pay, while the smaller towns escaped. He was very glad to hear the Minister say that he would let clause 11 go. One of the hon. gentleman’s difficulties in that clause had been the fact that he was dealing with other diseases than plague, and if he were dealing with plague alone he would have less difficulty. There were difficulties over small-pox and other diseases not experienced with plague. As to what the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had said, he was inclined to agree with him that if they left the municipalities alone they would not contribute, and he firmly believed that there should be a moderate contribution from municipalities.

said that all the Minister had to do in Natal was to re-enact Act 44 of 1901. In Natal they had dealt with the whole of the plague under that Act. It was not necessary to bring in that Bill to deal with the outbreak of plague in Natal. He would suggest to the Minister that, in framing a new clause, he should, instead of taking two-thirds and one-third, make it four-fifths by the State and one-fifth by the municipality.

urged that the burden of taxation should be distributed equally throughout the Union. He could hardly conceive that the Minister would wish to impose a burden which would operate unequally in different parts of the Union. He should not be able to vote for the clause unless the suggestion of the right hon. the member for Victoria West were adopted for making the burden equal throughout the Union. He hoped that the Minister would redraft the clause, so as to meet these suggestions, and he accordingly moved that clause 13 stand over.

said that when the Minister drafted the new clause, he should remember subsection 5. An up-to-date municipality would probably not have an Epidemic Committee, but no powers were taken to pay such municipalities anything in the event of an outbreak of an epidemic.

said he wished to associate himself with the remarks of the hon. member for Worcester. There was an impression—rightly or wrongly—that the incidence of taxation was pressing more hardly on the taxpayers in the Cape Province than anywhere else in the Union. (Hear, hear.) People were urging that the incidence of taxation should be equalised. (Hear, hear.) The section should be so amended that only urban areas should be dealt with. (An HON. MEMBER. “Oh.”) That would apply to the whole of the Union. They would have the whole of the Union dealt with then on identically the same, lines. That would be a solution of the difficulty, but if that could not be done, then he must associate himself with the amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman).

stated that the Minister had misunderstood him. What he (the speaker) had intended to convey was that the Minister had power to discriminate between one municipality and the other. They were concerned only with the powers given under the Bill, and not with how these powers might be used. He did not think that the Minister could have carefully gone through the Natal Act of 1901, because that Act gave full and drastic powers to deal with any epidemic in Natal. He would refer to a few clauses in the Act to show that it gave them ample power. The expression “infectious diseases” in the Natal Act included a Large number of epidemic diseases. Under section 25, it gave most drastic power to deal with an epidemic, not only power to make regulations, but to give any orders he liked throughout the Colony. The Minister was not correct in saying that Durban would have to pay the whole cost. Its share was limited under the Act to one-eighth of the municipal revenues for the preceding year.

rose to a point of order.

ruled that the member must confine himself to the amendment that the clause stand over.

said he considered the whole-amendment should be withdrawn.

said he thought the Minister would realise that it would be advisable to withdraw the Bill.

said the hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

said that a small Bill might be introduced to deal with the Durban outbreak.

The motion that the clause stand over was negatived.

Progress was reported, and leave granted to sit again on Wednesday next.