from A. J. van Zijl, teacher.

from W. R. McArthur, late civil engineer, Table Bay Harbour Board.

from J. R. Dodd, a pensioner, Railway Department.

for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto.

for legislation prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor to natives.

Papers relating to petitions to the Postmaster General for the changing of the days of arrival and leaving of the Vrvheid—Paul pietersburg postcart.

Return showing instructions to Mr. Blenkins, Commissioner appointed, to inquire into quitrents in Bechuanaland, Griqualand and the North-west.

moved that the Bill be now read a second time.

The amount is not based on the average monthly expenditure.

admitted that this was the case, and the same thing had happened last year. The Government had to pay for heavy purchases of railway material ; that was the reason for the largeness of the amount.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time.

moved as an unopposed motion that the House go into committee on the Bill.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved the second reading of the Bill.

said that he had no objection to the second reading of the Bill, but he thought it was a convenient opportunity for the Government to state what was the exact position in regard to the Public Service Bill. That measure was promised in Governor’s Speech. The whole country knew that it was absolutely necessary. At present the Civil Service was being administered without any Act of Parliament, and without any instructions or regulations from Parliament. That had been going on for two years. It was time which parliament laid down the principles on winch the service was to be run.

mentioned orm or two matters on which he thought that the Government might give information. In regard to miners’ phthisis, a Commission was recently appointed by the Minister of Mines. What was the precise scope of the committee? What was expected of them? What guided the Minister in the constitution of the committee? Many of the members were in a position to make recommendations in the course of their ordinary vocations. “It is a little difficult,” he continued, “when addressing remarks to the House, to see that the Minister does not think it worth while to pay the least attention. I hope that he will find it convenient to do so at a later stage.” Proceeding, he said that many members of the committee were connected with the management of mines. Their instructions from their masters undoubtedly were to do what was possible to remove the causes of miners’ phthisis, but their main instruction was to see that the largest possible profit was derived from those mines. He did not think that their advice to the committee was likely to be productive of much good.

He saw the name of a representative of the miners. He asked if the Miners’ Association was asked to recommend representatives, and why a larger number of miners representatives did not appear in the list. Then he would ask the Minister if he considered that mine inspection was being carried on in a satisfactory way. He referred to a recent case where a man was fined £50 because there was an insufficient supply of water underground. It seemed that it would be better to spend a little more money on mine inspection. What were the anticipations of the Government? In the Governor’s Speech a large number of Bills were mentioned, only a few of which had been introduced up to the present. The House had been sitting for six weeks, and at the end of the month of April—the Government in its discretion and wisdom having refused to allow a recess at Faster—a tired House—a House composed of many who would want to get back to their farms before the end of May —would have to pass laws and to legislate, and undigested and ill-considered measures would be forced through by steam-roller tactics. That, of course, might be of little concern to hon. members on the Government side of the House. (Ministerial laughter.) It might be of little concern for Government members to pass laws which could be broken by their Ministers, and then vote against the adjournment of the House in order to discuss the matter. (Ministerial laughter.) If it mattered so little to them that the laws which they passed were broken by Ministers, it was a matter of little concern to them whether well-considered legislation was passed or not. (Ministerial laughter.) He was sorry that hon. members on the front Opposition benches allowed this Bill to go through without challenging the Government on the procedure it had adopted. It seemed to him that if Government were not challenged, Parliament would become a mere farce. (Ministerial laughter.) Parliament seemed to be looked upon by the Government as an institution which should carry out its wishes and desires and if they were to do their duty there should be no attempt to push the business through in this way even if it took them six months to get through what was on the paper. (Ministerial laughter.) If hon. members could not do business in a proper fashion the best thing they could do was to resign. (Ministerial laughter) It would be a good thing if the Government brought this Parliament to a close by a dissolution—(Ministerial laughter)—at an early date—(Ministerial laughter and cheers)—that was, after the Election Bill was passed—so that the country might be better represented in the future. (Ministerial laughter.) He hoped that some hon. members on the Opposition side of the House would have something to say in support of his contention. (Ministerial laughter.) The proper policy for the Government would be to allow a short recess at Easter. (Ministerial laughter.) It might be a joking matter for the Prime Minister and the acting leader of the Opposition—(Ministerial laughter)—but they on those benches did not regard it as a joke. (Ministerial laughter.) They regarded Parliamentary business as a serious matter. (Ministerial laughter.) They had been sitting there for two months with the prospect before them of sitting another three or four, and he thought it only right that the Government should make proper arrangements. There should be a short recess and then a continuance of work even if they had to sit up to the end of June or even July. He hoped that something would be done in order that Parliament might not be brought down to a mere farce.

said he wished to draw the attention of the Minister of Higher Education to the statement in the Governor’s Speech that a measure would be introduced with regard to a university. Up to the present they had heard very little, and he hoped that the Minister would be good enough to tell the House what was being done. Perhaps he would give the House the probable date upon which the measure would be introduced.

said he would only make a little speech on that occasion. (Laughter.) His long speech he would reserve for a future occasion—(laughter)—when he would move for the reduction of the Minister’s and General Manager’s salaries. As they were dealing with a money Bill —

What about members’ salaries?

I should have the greatest pleasure in moving in that direction ; I feel I would be doing a kindness to some hon. members of this House. (Laughter.) We are dealing with a money Bill in connection with the railway—

pointed out that the House was discussing the fourth order on the paper.

As the railway is a part of the public service I—

I must point out to the hon. member that he is mistaken as to the time for his speech. The House is now dealing with the fourth order. The second order has been passed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It will be all the better for keeping, so I will keep it. (Laughter.)

said that the hon. member for Queenstown had asked a question with regard to the University Bill. He did not know whether he had anything to add to what he said on the last occasion he addressed the House on the question. Negotiations were still going on. The hon. member knew that the donor lived in England, and that it took a considerable time to get a letter there and a reply back. He had suggested to the people in England that they might answer by cable. So far he had received no cable, and until the negotiations went further he had nothing further to communicate. As regarded the hon. member for Jeppe, he had had a great deal to say with regard to the procedure of the Government and the business of the House. He pointed out that hon. members on the cross-benches wished to be represented on every Select Committee and they wished to make a speech on every subject.

Can’t you get something sensible?

said that with regard to the Commission referred to by the hon. member for Jeppe, they had been appointed after very careful consideration with the different parties interested in this matter The Chamber of Mines, of course, and the Government Mining Department carefully went into the matter, and the Miners’ Association themselves were asked to nominate two, and ultimately he consented to put three of their men on the committee. So far as the workers themselves were concerned, he thought they were very well represented there. And as it was the intention of the Government to work hand in hand with all the people interested in this matter, he could assure the hon. member there was no intention on the part of the Government to overlook any section of the people interested in it. (Hear, hear.) As regarded the Miners’ Phthisis Bill, he stated before in the House that the report was being prepared as expeditiously as possible. It was a bulky report, and the translating alone took some time. He was informed that he would have it probably early next week, and as soon as he got it he would lay it on the table of the House. And they would do all in their power to see that the Miners’ Phthisis Bill would be passed this session. (Hear, hear.)

said that perhaps the Minister of Finance would be good enough to say when he intended introducing the Budget. (Opposition cheers.) Also what arrangements had been made with the Provincial Councils for Provincial Administration.

said he was very glad to have the hon. Minister’s explanation, as he had understood that there was only one actual miner on the list. He presumed he was correct in thinking that the Minister meant he had appointed three miners on the committee.

said the matter of miners’ phthisis was a very important one, and more so than the diseases of pigs and cattle. The Minister stated that there were three actual miners on this committee, but did not condescend to tell them who they were. The only list they had was that published in the “Gazette,” and they could only recognise one who, to their knowledge, was an actual miner. It had been put to them and complained that the Miners’ Association was not consulted in this matter. It was true they were asked, to send representatives, but they contended they were not asked to send sufficient representatives. The employers were well represented, and he would contend that the people who worked in the mines and had to suffer from the disease should have a bigger representation that those who employed them. The Government was still hanging up the Bill, which in their opinion was the only way in which they could prevent miners’ phthisis: that was by throwing on the owners the onus of paying for the death of the men. An hon. member referred to the Public Service Bill. He noticed in that morning’s paper a great many complaints regarding the way the Magistrates and Civil Servants were being treated, but particularly Magistrates. Owing to the absence of a Public Service Bill the Government were doing precisely what they liked. They found certain magistrates in Johannesburg getting sums of from £700 to £1,500 a year as salary, which would be taken into account for the purpose of pension. These salaries were now being split up so that a Magistrate in one instance who was getting £1,000 a year salary is now to receive £450 salary and £550 allowance. That should not be allowed. And as it had been pointed out, if Parliament did pass Bills, Ministers broke the law. He did not wish to deal with railway matters at all, but he wished to take this opportunity of complimenting the Minister on the very slim way in which he got the second reading of his Appropriation Bill through this afternoon.

The hon. member is not justified in making such an observation. He must withdraw that remark.

Sir, I used the word “slim”—

The hon. member must withdrawn that.

I withdraw that word and substitute the word “clever.” He did not wish to insinuate that the Minister had done something which he should not do at all. He thought the time had come when the Government should give some expression of its policy, for they had not had such yet.

asked the Minister of Native Affairs for some information with regard to the Native Squatters Bilk Meetings had, he said, been held in Natal, and the people had opposed that Bill. They were much upset, and wanted to know where they stood in that matter. The Minister had not attempted to bring that Bill forward, although he had introduced a Registration Bill, which might well have stood over for another session. He wanted an intimation what the Minister’s intentions were with regard to the Native Squatters’ Bill, and whether tie was going to leave it over, and it was going to be added to the slaughtered innocents. The hon. member was also understood to complain that the Native Council in Natal had been ignored by the Minister.

in reply to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) said that hon. members might not be aware that the Civil Service Bill would not only deal with the status of Civil Servants, but with such a complicated question as pensions and gratuities; and the Treasury had been working for many, many months on that question. He gave hon. members the assurance that both his Department and the Treasury were pushing that matter on as fast as possible, and he had every hope that they would pass the Bill that session. It was the Government’s intention to push it through that session, but there were some initial delays. The Bill was now nearing completion, and would have to be translated.

said that, in reply to the question put to him by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), so far as he could see at present, he would introduce the Budget some time next week or the week after, and on that occasion he would also deal with the other questions put by the hon. member, and explain to the House the tentative proposals of the Government to the Provincial Executives as to the financial relations which should exist between the Union and the Provinces. He might also tell his hon. friend that, with regard to the Provincial Estimates for the expenditure for next year, these were being printed by the Provinces, and as soon as they were supplied to him, he would lay them on the table.

We are waiting for the reply of the Minister of Native Affairs.

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

Committee stage?

moved as an unopposed motion that the committee stage be taken now.

Any objection?

I object. The hon. member, however, withdrew his, objection, but said that, as they were dealing with a Money Bill, he should like an answer from the Minister of Native Affairs with regard to the Squatters’ Bill. In Natal they had not been consulted with regard to native matters, and in that House they were ignored by the Minister. He should like to ask the Minister, if he had the courtesy, to inform them when he would introduce the Squatters’ Bill, or whether he intended introducing it?

said that perhaps if the hon. member had asked his question in a less offensive manner, he would have received the courtesy which he asked should be extended to him. (Ministerial cheers.) He wished to tell him that he was not in a position to say at all when the Government intended introducing that Bill, which had been published for general information, and had not yet been brought in If the hon. member was in a hurry, he might communicate with him (Mr. Burton).

said that the reply of the Minister to the hon. member for Natal—(laughter)—was unwarranted. The hon. member (Mr. Meyler) had put his question in a courteous way, and had been ignored ; if anybody was to blame, it was the Minister of Native Affairs. Either he had not been attending, which he (the hon. member) thought had been the case, or he had been determined not to answer that question which had been put to him in the House. If the Minister had not been attending, he owed an apology to the hon. member.

said that so far from hon. members from Natal having been ignored by the Government, they had been consulted. In no sense whatever could it be said that the Minister had ignored hon. members from Natal.

said that it was not on the general question that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton) had spoken The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Meyler) had asked a question, to which the Minister did not give a reply, and he thought that the hon. member was perfectly justified in being annoyed. The hon. member had every reason for it, and in addressing the House in somewhat harsher terms than he would otherwise have done.

The motion was agreed to.

brought up the first report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts (pages 366-7, “Votes and Proceedings”).

The report was set down for consideration on Friday next.

said he thought it would be best to take the clauses seriatim, and then they would know where they were. He would move to that effect.

said he was going to propose a certain amendment, and if the motion of the right hon. gentleman were carried, his amendment, he thought, would not fit in.

The motion was agreed to.

moved in line 37, after “rainfall,” to insert “and not being such as are under the control of local authorities for purposes other than irrigation.” He said he desired to insert a safeguard against any interference with municipal waterworks under this Bill. The powers given under the Bill were so wide that the Irrigation Department might start to interfere with municipal waterworks. This was another instance of those general powers being put into an Act which might lie dormant for many years and then some member of the Department may discover that they had very wide powers and start to exercise them. He strongly objected to that, and he thought it should be made clear that municipal waterworks were not included.

objected to the amendment, and considered it would seriously interfere with the vested interests of riparian owners.

said the question had been before most of the municipalities of the Union, and they had all agreed that it was most desirable that there should be no interference with their own works under their own organisation. He would ask the committee not to go against the expressed wish of these authorities. Where it was a question of irrigation works under their control he thought they should say that it was not the intention of Parliament to interfere with them. Perhaps the Right Hon. the Minister would tell them actually what he wanted to do.

said he was not going to interfere with municipalities, but he was not going to give them power to override the law of the country. (Ministerial cheers.) He would give them the assurance that the rights of municipalities were not intended to be interfered with in any way. If municipalities took more rights than they were entitled to, then they would have to get the sanction of Parliament. Municipalities were not going to have any more rights than riparian owners, unless they came to Parliament for them.

said he could not follow the Right Hon. the Minister at all. What was wanted was that local authorities should either go to Parliament for special powers or go to the Water Court. Municipal irrigation works should not be under local authorities but under the Irrigation Department.

said the Minister admitted that he did not wish to interfere with the ordinary work of the local authorities. The amendment would not have the effect which the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Schoeman) thought it would, but it would not allow the local authority to override the ordinary law at all. Surely the hon. member did not wish a Government engineer to have the power to say that existing waterworks were not properly constructed. For the purposes of the Bill “irrigation works” included reservoirs, and the Minister could inspect them. For instance, a Government engineer would be able to go to Cape Town Municipality, and say that he did not think the reservoirs were large enough, and order an additional one to be built. That was not the Minister’s intention, but that was what the Bill would empower. Every municipality would be at the mercy of the Irrigation Department. The amendment was a reasonable one, and would not override any existing law.

said that supposing a municipality bought water it could only acquire the same rights that the seller had. (Hear, hear.) Did the Minister wish to have the right to interfere?

If it is a danger to the lower riparian proprietor’s, certainly.

That is a most unwarrantable interference with the rights of local authorities. (Hear, hear.) What right has the Minister to say to a local authority, “Your works are a danger”? I happen to know what the intention of the Bill is, and the way in which it is to be carried out. I knew there was something at the back of it Continuing, Sir Henry said no municipality could be above the law. If the waterworks were a danger there was the ordinary remedy for a lower proprietor to take. Did the Minister mean that he could say to a farmer, “Your dam is not safe ; take it down and rebuild it”? Did hon. members understand that? He was sure hon. members never dreamed that the Minister was taking upon himself the right to go upon a man’s private Land and say that his dam was not a proper one. If a lower proprietor were in danger he had his remedy in the Courts. The Minister might very well accept the amendment, which simply excluded the interference of Government with regard to local works.

said that the question was fully discussed before the Irrigation Commission that met at Bloemfontein, and there was a good deal of feeling amongst landowners against unnecessary interference. But everyone recognised that for the public safety it was necessary that something of this sort should be introduced. He quite understood that in the case of a municipality so admirably conducted as that of Cape Town the Government would be going out of their way to interfere with works constructed under the highest engineering authority. There had been accidents in this country in which there was loss of life. He did not think that it was the intention that the Irrigation Department should irritably and unnecessarily interfere. He had felt that some such provision was necessary in the Act of 1896, but it was impossible to get it in owing to the enormous amount of nervousness, especially on the part of the farmers, as to State control. He referred to the disasters that had occurred in America as the result of dams bursting.

said it seemed to him that they were discussing this question in the wrong place. It was sought to introduce into the definition a safeguard in respect of municipalities. It should come later on in defining the duties of the irrigation engineer as regards municipal work. He thought that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort was a little exuberant in his account of the case. What had accidents that had occurred in America to do with the matter? Those dams were built on the highest engineering advice. He might as well say that because there had been bridge disasters we must not build bridges. The Sheffield reservoir was also the result of the highest engineering advice. The mere fact of having engineers pottering about a dam did not make it safe. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had been eloquent on the subject of the State looking after life and limb, but that was not the object of the clause. The Minister had frankly stated in a lengthy and somewhat confused disquisition that he intended to look after the riparian rights of the lower proprietors. The Irrigation Engineer was an admirable official as regards engineering, but as regards law he was a child, and if they were going to allow him to go round the country and say what were the riparian rights of lower proprietors they would have trouble. This was an engineer’s Bill, drawn up by an engineer, and the poor Minister had to explain it as best he could. (Laughter.) The Public Health Bill was drawn up by doctors, and his poor friend the Minister of the Interior had tried to explain the doctors’ ideas to this House. (Laughter.) They had a Defence Bill drawn up by the military, and that was now being explained to a committee. This was an engineer’s Bill, and the less engineers bothered themselves about riparian rights the better.

said that in Natal they had impounded some five million gallons of water some forty-five miles from the town as a standby in case of drought, and if the riparian owners below that were to be provided for it would be a serious thing for the Municipality.

mentioned that the Bill had been before a Select Committee, and had been approved by a majority. If the definition were accepted, the rights of municipalities would not be affected. It did not mean that the engineer would have? the power to condemn dams and other works.

said he would confess at first sight the amendment interested him. It seemed to be reasonable, and he thought at first that it might be accepted. After listening to the discussion and looking at the Bill he found that there was a very good reason for the refusal of the amendment. In the first place the existing rights of the Municipalities were safeguarded. What rights they had would continue. Clause 6 (g) made provision for the inspection of constructive work carried on by the Municipalities. He supposed the legal result of the hon. member’s amendment would be that this clause also would have to go.

You don’t have it now.

You must cut out clause 6 (g) as well. Continuing, he said he was pointing out how dangerous this might become in the future. He added that this was no new provision, and said that he was led to understand that it appeared in existing Transvaal legislation on the subject. He understood that the definition was the same, and that it did not exclude local authorities. He started from the basis that so far as those rights were concerned they were safeguarded. Supposing some municipality, in the interests of the inhabitants, sought to acquire water rights in some public stream outside its limits. They proceeded to acquire these rights. They could acquire no more than the rights of the person who sold from a public stream in which other upper and lower proprietors were interested. If at any time there was to be a division made of that water of the public stream the Municipality could say to the Water Court, “Thank you, you have no jurisdiction over us.” That was the one danger of the exclusion of Municipalities from the scope of this Bill. He referred to the case of the Wemmer Hoek scheme, and pointed out the advisability of super vision by experts in a matter in which so much was involved.

Why?

was understood to remark that they had to look after the other people.

Let them look after their own interests.

said that perhaps he might re-convert the Minister. He pointed out that the definition had nothing whatever to do with the distribution or division of water. The distribution of water did not affect the question. It was simply a definition dealing with works, and the objection raised was that the Minister should not control the works. It did not touch the distribution of water at all. It was only, a question of interfering with dams, etc. He would again point out that section 136 did not affect dams or reservoirs. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member would see that section 136 only referred to rights which they might possess or acquire in relation to the taking Or use of watery from a public stream.

said he represented a Municipality which had constructed very large Waterworks. He did not see how anybody could object to an examination of municipal waterworks by a Government engineer. He could not give any unreasonable order. He thought it was in the interests of municipalities to have such an examination. It gave an additional security that their waterworks were being properly run. He, honestly, could not see any point in the amendment.

said he hoped the Minister would not accept the amendment.

said he also hoped the Minister would not accept the amendment. (Hear, hear.) The point made by the hon. members for Castle and Gardens was that the municipalities might be interfered with. In the large municipalities, they had got very expensive waterworks. They had nothing to fear. The only point was that there might be a source of danger. Who, he would like to know, would be more anxious than the municipalities to have any source of danger pointed out to them? He went on to say that they had had a large number of sittings of the committee, and no exception was taken to this in committee. He spoke of the difficulty of arriving at a definition of “riparian rights,” and remarked that for forty years the right hon. the member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had been passing laws, and for forty years the hon. member for Harbour (Sir H. H. Juta) had been getting briefs to explain those laws. (A laugh.)

said he felt that the committee was being misled on this question. The Minister of Native Affairs made what he might call a very specious argument, in the course of which he referred to the Wemmer’s Hoek scheme. He asked what would have happened if the Government had not the right to supervise work being done there? If the Minister looked at the Act, he would see that once the municipalities had satisfied the Cape Parliament that the works they were going to construct were proper works, nobody else had a right to interfere.

This is an improvement.

It may be an improvement ; I do not think it is. Proceeding, the hon. member stated that in the Southern Suburbs Water Bill of 1907, provision was made for compensation water of five million gallons a day to flow down. He was informed by farmers in the Frenchhoek Valley that that was more than the normal flow. He added that they all knew they had an excellent Director of Irrigation, but he could not do everything, and he would have to delegate his powers to minor officials, and he (Mr. Struben) was afraid that all the safeguards they were getting were very illusory.

said he did not feel convinced that local authorities were adequately protected by the clause as it stood, which he took it was the real contention of hon. members opposite, who said that there was no necessity for the amendment. He made reference to water from dolomite sources in regard to public streams, and said there might be cases where municipalities had dams or reservoirs which were not dependent on a subterranean channel from a public stream in any of the senses defined. If that were so, then there was no protection for local authorities for irrigation works, and he thought that the Minister must have recognised that, because there was a special safeguard in regard to the position of the Rand Water Board. He was convinced that if this special exemption were deleted, there would be no protection for the rights of the Rand Water Board, and he thought that the same argument applied to other municipalities. He hoped that the Minister would satisfy the committee on the point ; if he did not, then the contention of his hon. friend was correct. He pointed out that the contentions of the Minister of Lands and the Minister of Native Affairs were mutually destructive, and said he had come to the conclusion that there was no protection afforded local authorities, so far as existing rights were concerned.

thought they would be opening the gate too wide: if he had said municipalities, he would make the definition more clear. He moved in line 32, after “channel” to insert “well.”

said that Pretoria got special exemption, in spite of section 136. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Bloemfontein, that was a matter for the Law Department. The Provincial Councils would hesistate, he thought, in dealing with any irrigation scheme in connection with an Act of the Union Parliament.

said there had been a notice put on the paper; the first notice was simply to meet section 78, which would stand, and section 77 would probably be deleted.

Why was it put in?

said it was copied from the older laws, and the hon. member would see that it was provided in another clause, and then taken out. Section 78 must stand. What they proposed was that there should be a general law for all, except in those cases where larger municipalities came to Parliament for powers. What happened in Cape Town and larger places might not happen again; they must see that the powers of the Department were defined in section 4. When they looked at the section, they could see how far they could deal with these municipalities. It would be a pity to exclude them from coming to the Department and getting advice for next to nothing. He thought that the difficulty raised would be met with by saying that section 78 is not going to be interfered with. It would be dangerous to adopt the amendment. There was no intention to interfere with existing rights, nor was there any intention to confer greater rights than now existed.

said he was not satisfied with what had fallen from the Minister. In the early stages of the debate the Minister gave the assurance that municipalities were not to be interfered with, but now, when it came to the point, he said he wanted the power to interfere. The Minister was throwing dust in their eyes. Municipalities had never been interfered with before in this regard. Could the Minister give a single instance of waterworks in this country which had broken down to the danger of the public? The Minister was taking powers which were quite unnecessary—extraordinary powers, which would lead to interference and strongly be resented.

said he had been referred to by the Minister as having raised bogies. He (Sir Henry) was not infallible, but he was not in the habit of raising bogies. He presumed the Minister’s reference was to his (Sir Henry’s) remark that under the Bill the Minister could interfere with any farmer’s dam. So far from that being a bogey, it was absolutely the case; and when the Minister tried to make the House believe that it was a bogey, it showed that the Minister totally misunderstood his own Bill. In sub-section (g) of section 6, there was power to inspect any irrigation works, or the course of any public stream, and with the approval of the Governor-General to order any person to do such act and execute such repairs as might be deemed necessary in the public interest. Therefore the Minister could order the removal of a dam, and there would be no remedy in law. They had had various explanations given by the Minister as to what that meant. At one time it was to safeguard the existing lower riparian proprietors. The Minister shook his head—he did not remember the explanation. The Minister still shook his head—he really did not know what he had said. The Minister’s assurance that it was not meant to interfere with the larger municipalities did not safeguard them. Some other Minister of Lands might have a different view, and these assurances did not protect people when they went into court. The Minister admitted that he wanted to have the power to interfere when it was necessary, but that was not a thing which the House ought to agree to. Municipalities should not be at the mercy of any subordinate in the Irrigation Department who might think that their waterworks were not good enough.

The amendment to insert the word “well” in line 32 was agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Baxter was negatived.

called for a division, which resulted as follows:

moved an amendment that the words “for safeguarding the health of the inhabitants of” be deleted. He held that these words limited the scope of local authorities, who had many functions to fulfil in addition to those pertaining to public health.

asked what was the effect of the amendment.

explained.

moved in line 52, after “water,” to insert “in such area.”

Both amendments were agreed to.

On the definition of “normal flow,”

moved that the definition of “normal flow” be deleted. A new section would be proposed later.

This was agreed to.

On the definition of “owner,”

thought that the words “Act of Parliament” should be substituted for the word “law.” As it stood, the definition did not deal with the bona fide occupier, and it had been decided in the Courts of the Cape Colony in the case of Vermooten and Van der Merwe that a declaration could be obtained as against the bona fide occupier.

said he would be indebted to the hon. member if he gave notice of such amendments. They had to deal with the legislation in force in four different colonies.

suggested that the Minister allow the section to stand over. He admitted that notice should be given.

asked the Minister whether he would at the same time take notice that he had omitted definition (c) of section 3 of the Cape law of 1906. It provided for the lessees of Crown lands under certain specified cases and the co-proprietor of land on undivided shares.

The term “by law” covers all these cases.

said the argument of the Minister was no answer to the remarks of the right hon. member for Victoria West. He pointed out what had appeared in the Cape Act.

said he would point out to the Minister that he had left out sub-section (c) of section 3 (e) of the Cape Act. He thought the clause should stand over.

said he thought that the clause in the Bill was wider than that in the Cape Act. He thought they should not define everything ; it would be better to have a general clause. He moved that the interpretation stand over.

said he thought that the argument of the Minister so far as a general clause was concerned was dangerous.

The interpretation of the term was ordered to stand over.

On the definition of “public stream,”

moved that it stand over.

This was agreed to.

On the definition, “riparian Land”

said he did not know if that clause covered all. He moved: In line 43, after “court,” to insert “or under an award”; in line 49, to omit “riparian,” and to substitute “such”; in line 52, to omit all the words after “sub-division” down to “portion,” in line 54, and to substitute “shall be entitled to such share of the water to which the undivided land is entitled as the water court shall decide and apportion.”

said he thought that the committee should see the clauses on the paper, and he moved that the interpretation be allowed to stand down.

It was agreed that the definition of “riparian land” should stand over.

said he hoped the amendments would appear in the Votes and Proceedings. It was impossible to see the effect of an amendment immediately and if he (the speaker) did not understand an amendment he would vote against it.

On the definition of “surplus water,”

suggested that this matter should stand over.

said that he had moved out the definition.

said he had an amendment dealing with surplus water, which was, after all, the most important thing with regard to this Bill. He was sorry he had not put it on the paper. (Hear, hear.)

said that he proposed to move in a new definition of normal flow, and he proposed to add the definition of “surplus water” at the end of this.

said he did not know why the Minister did not carry out his original idea, which, he thought, was the right one, and that was to put all the definitions together, instead of scattering them about. (Hear, hear.) As it was going to be dealt with, he would take this opportunity of saying what it was that he intended to propose. It was the same thing as he introduced when he spoke on the second reading. After all, the main difficulty they had in this country was, what was going to be “flood water”? His proposal was that “flood water” should mean the excess of water flowing in a perennial stream over and above the water required by all riparian proprietors on that stream for the purpose of irrigation. In other words, if there were five riparian proprietors on a stream, when all those five riparian proprietors had got all the water requisite for the irrigation of their land, then what was over and above that would be “flood water” and should be dealt with as “flood water,” but until every proprietor on that stream had got what was requisite and necessary for the irrigation of his land, it was not fair to say to the lower man that everything else was surplus water and that the upper man could take it. The fair thing was to so adjust one’s weir as to take a certain amount of water until an allowance was made for its running over, and when it rose above that they could take it as if it were surplus. He would submit that now for the consideration of members.

said that the amendment was of a very drastic nature, and he could not understand it. What was meant by water required for irrigation? If they made proper use of the water there would be none left.

said he would like to point out to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, who appeared to view with the greatest suspicion any amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, who, after all, may be said to have some knowledge of irrigation, that, if his principle were carried out, it may be a good principle, but it would lead to the desiccation and destruction of all those people who, on the faith of the existing law, had cultivated their lands lower down the river. That little “Garden of Eden” which the hon. friend behind him spoke about would stand a very poor chance, if the principles now adumbrated by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn were carried out. They had existing laws which protected the lower proprietor. If they were going to do away with those every man could take all the water that ran past his door. When they came to that clause, he would like his hon. friend to tell him what they proposed to do under this Bill which they could not do under the existing Acts. As he read the Bill, they would be able to do less on an intermittent stream than they could do under the existing law. (“No.”) He wanted to know what particular rights were given to the proprietors which were not given by the existing law.

said it would be well if the Minister would study the Bill a little. Under the present Bill there was to be a normal flow of water, and this was to be marked by a bench or by weirs or sills. It did not matter how many rivers there were, the same procedure would have to be followed. In this Bill they would have the same difficulties; there would be the same bench and gauge mark.

said the principle was that this clause should be deleted. At the same time, although he quite admitted that the hon. member for the Harbour spoke with authority on these matters, still it seemed a pity that he had not taken a greater interest earlier, and so prevented such a prolonged discussion.

said the Minister had alluded to his not having attended the committee. The fact was that he had been serving on two committees, running concurrently, and he could not be in three places at once, although he did his best. (Laughter.) However, he had grasped the points sufficiently to sign a memorandum that he i disapproved of the finding of the committee.

said in the present law there was a definition of a normal flow ; there was a definition of a perennial stream—but he understood that by the definition of the Right Hon. the Minister, he proposed to bring all streams under the same category; but this was most difficult, because streams were always changing their character. Under this definition of the normal flow, they would get the same finality. There was an intermittent stream in the Midlands. The upper proprietor was taking all the freshets, and the proprietors lower down were getting no water at all. That would have to be prevented.

said they had had a great number of law suits over the question of whether a stream was perennial or not; they would have the same trouble to decide what was the normal flow and what was not. In regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, they would have the same difficulty in ascertaining what was meant by an excess of the normal flow.

asked whether the Minister was going to give them a definition of what was surplus water.

said he intended giving that definition.

The definition was deleted.

On clause 4,

moved that the paragraphs under sub-section (1) be taken seriatim.

Agreed to.

On paragraph (c),

moved in line 22, after “water supply,” to insert the words “or power.”

Does the hon. member mean water power or electrical power?

said he thought the time had come to deal with electrical power. They were dealing with an Irrigation Act which was going to be passed by a Government majority, and they ought to make these powers as clear as they could. The words he wished to add would mean water power. Although they must not do anything to interfere with the necessities of agriculture in the matter of irrigation, there was no need to forget the development of electrical energy. He quoted from a letter he had received, in which the possibilities of hydroelectric enterprises were referred to, and many successful schemes in America cited. The Irrigation Department should take into consideration the question of electric energy, especially in regard to the Cape Peninsula. He wished to take nothing from the riparian owners, but they should use a national asset to the best advantage possible.

said that if the amendment were adopted, they would have to obtain reports from electrical engineers as well as from irrigation engineers.

supported the amendment. He knew of portions of the country, for instance, Pilgrim’s Rest, where the use of water power was a great industrial factor.

expressed hi? willingness to accept the amendment.

You accept it!

Yes. Water could be used for power and then diverted for irrigation purposes at a comparatively small outlay. He pointed out that certain farmers were already using water power, and the water did not thereafter run to waste.

The amendment was agreed to.

On paragraph (d),

moved the omission of the words “whether” and “or otherwise.” The Government would be interfering with the practice of mining engineers by examining and reporting on schemes on which a report was necessary in connection with an application for a Government loan.

hoped that the Committee would not accept that. There was no intention to interfere with engineers. The difficulty generally was to get engineers. The preliminary report could very well be made by the Department.

The amendment was withdrawn.

On sub-section (e),

hoped that the Irrigation Department was not going to make loans off its own bat. He knew that their present Irrigation Engineer was an excellent man, hut there had been cases where they were not quite so safe. The Minister and the Director might plunge the country into serious trouble. The granting of loans should be in the hands of the Treasury

said that the control of the Finance Minister was not eliminated by the clause.

was satisfied with the explanation. He was averse to the granting of loans being in the hands of enthusiasts.

said that the administration proposed was what had been adopted when his right hon. friend was Prime Minister and Treasurer.

Don’t you believe that. (Laughter.) When he was Minister, he continued, he had not granted loans.

The amendment was withdrawn.

At this stage progress was reported, and leave granted to sit again to-morrow.