from W. F. de Clerk and J. C. Pretorius, Government Water Works near Kopjes, injured in execution of their duties.

from W. B. Shaw, law agent, in opposition to the Incorporated Law Societies Consolidation Bill.

The petition was referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.

stated that the committee would now meet as on an opposed private Bill.

for extension of the Wolvehoek-Heilbron railway to Lindley and to a point on the Harrismith-Kroonstad line (five petitions).

Estimates of additional expenditure from (1) Revenue Funds year ending 31st March, 1912, and (2) Loan Funds from 31st May, 1910, to 31 st March, 1912.

Report of the Board of the South African Railways and Harbours year ended 31st December, 1911.

said that although it was not in the Orders of the Day, he would like to say that that day was the birthday of their right hon. friend, the member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), and they had the greatest pleasure in wishing their friend—the father of the House—a happy birthday. (Cheers.) Although the right hon. gentleman was the father of the House, he thought that everyone would agree with him when he said that as far as hard work was concerned he was the youngest, or one of the youngest men in the House, and he was an example to the younger members of the House. On behalf of both sides of the House, he wished that the right hon. gentleman might long be spared to serve the country and the people. (Cheers.)

said that on behalf of the Opposition he would like to support most heartily the remarks that had fallen from the Prime Minister. He (Sir Thomas) had had the honour and privilege of knowing the right hon. gentleman for many years. Although they had not always agreed with the right hon. member (Mr. Merriman)—laughter)—even those who disagreed with him recognised the enormous services he had rendered to Parliamentary institutions in this country. (Cheers.) Personally, he (Sir Thomas) had very often appreciated the wonderful qualities his hon. friend possessed at times when he entirely disagreed with him. He thought the right hon. gentleman had set an example in this House of hon. members being able to disagree with one another without interfering in any way with personal relationships. (Cheers.) In conclusion, Sir Thomas expressed the hope that the right hon. member would be preserved to the Parliament of this country for many years. (Cheers.)

said the hon. members on the cross benches sincerely hoped the right hon. member would be there for many years longer to give them those words of admonition which he so frequently addressed to them. (Laughter.)

rising amid cheers from all parts of the House, said: Mr. Speaker, I really feel quite overwhelmed because not only is this my seventy-first birthday, but it is my forty-third birthday of Parliamentary life. Naturally, I am growing rather feeble. (Cries of “No.”) I will only thank those gentlemen who have spoken—my right hon. friend the bead of the Government, and my friend the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, and my friend over there (Mr. Creswell). I have friends, I am glad to say, on both sides of the House. (Cheers.) I only hope they will all derive as much enjoyment in their lives from sitting in Parliament as I have. Practically my whole life has been passed in Parliament ; it has been the great object of my life, and I am never so pleased as when I can think that this House follows the best traditons of the English Parliament —(hear, hear)—that is, that we do not carry outside the House our little quarrels, squabbles, and fights that we carry on inside the House—that we carry on the English traditions of purity of public life, and that although we may exchange many hard knocks in the House we all look to one thing, and that is to making Parliament the true governing power in this country. Naturally, at my time of life—I don’t expect, to live many more years—I am like an old gladiator, who in the old times was always presented with a wooden sword. I feel the time is surely coming when, perhaps, a wooden sword will be given to me. But the function of the old gladiators was to train up the young gladiators. Of course a member of Parliament is something more than a gladiator, I hope, but if I can do anything it will be by greatest satisfaction at the end of my life to think that in some small degree I have contributed to forming the character of our Cape Parliament. I owe much to those who, when I was a young man, were in Parliament—Mr. Porter, Sir John Molteno, Mr. Saul Solomon, and others, who taught me and the young men of that day. My hon. friend the venerable Minister of Railways—(laughter) was a young man in those days. He will agree with me how much we owe to those older members of the House who carried on the traditions of Parliament. I thank the House very much indeed for the compliment it has paid me to-day, which I feel I am hardly worthy of.

moved that the Bill be now read a second time.

said that he thought that the Minister had misunderstood him a little bit the previous day. What, he had asked was when the report of the Railway Board on the question of proposed new lines would be laid on the table. There had been an undoubted delay last year, and they wanted to know when they were to get that report, and whether it would give them plenty of time to consider the proposals which would be laid before the House.

said that he must confess he was somewhat at a loss when he read the provisions of the Audit Bill passed by Parliament last year. Under section 48 of that Act the administration might incur an expenditure In excess of the estimates of £300,000 within the year. Two Bills amounting in expenditure to two million pounds had been introduced, and he would like the Minister to explain to them, had that expenditure been already incurred, and if so, had it been incurred in excess of the authority given by the Audit Act of last year? He thought it was due to the House for the Minister to say whether that Audit Act had been entirely ignored, and whether the Minister had been able to spend these large sums of money without the sanction of the Auditor-General or of Parliament.

asked when did the Minister expect the Butterworth-Idutywa line to be completed? His constituents were suffering extremely from the effects of East Coast fever, and wanted to know whether there was any hope for the speedy completion of that line, and whether the Government had the intention of going on with the further extension from Idutywa to Umtata.

said that he would suggest that a schedule should be attached to the Bill giving details of the expenditure, because there was no explanation of it, and any member who voted for the Bill, as it stood, would be voting blindly. He suggested that when the Minister sent the Bill to the Select Committee a schedule should be attached.

asked the Minister if he had received any interim report of the Grievances Commission, and if so, would he lay it on the table of the House?

(who was at times quite inaudible in the Press Gallery) said that the £125,000 might appear to be a large sum, but when they recognised that they had 8,000 miles of railway the amount per mile was small. The compensation amount seemed to call for some explanation.

said that in regard to what the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick) had said, he proposed to introduce the Bill dealing with new construction somewhat earlier that session than last year, so that there would be ample opportunities of discussing it. With regard to what the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner) had said, the line from Butterworth to Idutywa had been delayed owing to the fact that the old rails which were necessary for that line had to be taken from the existing lines, and had to be replaced with heavier rails, which had to be got from Europe ; and the delay was due to the fact that there had been a delay in getting the material from Europe. He was informed that the difficulty had been got over now, and the work would proceed with greater speed, and it was anticipated that the railway would be opened next year. As to what the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) had asked, a report had been published which dealt with minor matters, and he expected to have another report, if not the whole report, within a few weeks, and it would be printed and laid on the table of the House as soon as possible. As to what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton) had said, he would like to say that it was his intention that that Bill should go to the Select Committee after it had been read a second time ; and he would give all the detailed information.

The first item of £135,000 was the additional amount required for relaying work, which had been carried forward at a greater rate than estimated ; and largely owing to the fact that they were anxious to get on with the lines authorised last session. They could not get on before they had taken out the old rails, and put in the heavier new rails. The £25,000 traffic compensation was for claims arising out of the Gaika Loop accident. It was unforeseen, and the railway had had to pay heavy damages, and in some cases damages inf excess of what was reasonable. The item of £445,000 was a very large sum, and it was the interest paid to the Treasury It was a question he hoped that would be finally settled during the present session. It was simply taking a sum of money from one pocket and putting it into another. With regard to “miscellaneous,” the increase was largely due to the rebates allowed to East London and Port Elizabeth in connection with traffic to Bloemfontein. With regard to the working expenditure on harbours, this was extra interest under the new arrangement. At any rate, he promised that when the Bill was before the committee he would lay detailed information before it.

pointed out that the Administration had no authority to make the transier.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time and referred to the Public Accounts Committee for consideration and report.

moved that the Bill be now read a second time

said he had already referred to the question of money being spent in excess of the amount granted by Parliament. As the Bill was going before the committee, he would content himself by merely mentioning the matter to the House.

asked what steps the Government was taking for dealing with the possible large increase of traffic in coal. It was known that there was a great scarcity of engine power and trucks. He asked also if the Minister proposed any reduction on export coal rates.

said he mentioned a few days ago that the Government contemplated reductions in regard to the rates charged on coal. There was an increased demand for coal at Delagoa, Durban, and Cape Town. The colliers were not able to cope with the increased traffic.

Why?

Because there are not enough colliers.

It is because you can’t get the coal to the port.

said that until recently he had no complaints from Durban, a place where people were only too quick to lodge complaints. Some time ago complaints had been made in regard to the time taken to bring coal to Durban. Now, owing to the strike the demand for coal had increased largely, and all he could say was that the administration was doing its best to cope with the increased demand. He said that, considering the extraordinary circumstances, they were doing the very best that they could. There was a scarcity of trucks, and they could not keep enough to deal, say, with the maximum that was required for one or a few days of the year. He had been almost in daily communication with Mr. Hoy, whose opinion was that the Department was doing its utmost at the present time. There was a shortage of rolling stock, but they were getting a further supply. He recognised that this was an opportunity that should not be allowed to slip past. He assured the House that the Administration was doing the best it could under the special conditions that appertained at the present time.

said that the Minister had stated that the reason that there was a shortage of coal at Cape Town was because the colliers could not cope with the traffic. As a matter of fact, they had colliers lying at Durban sometimes for two or three days at a time. The trouble was that the railway people could not get the coal down to Durban. Complaints had been made. He admitted, however, that there had been a great improvement during the last few days.

said he hoped the Minister would ignore the request that very cheap rates should be granted for export coal. The Minister had said that the Government had the question of rates under consideration, and he hoped that he would not bring them any lower than he contemplated at the present time. He hoped that a special rate would not be granted in order to enable the coal strike in England to be broken.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts for consideration and report.

moved: This committee recommends: (1) The award to Martha Beukes, widow of the late H. J. Beukes, constable, Tokai Convict Prison, of a gratuity of £50, to be paid in monthly instalments of £2 each. (2) That the pension of £49 15s. 3d. per annum awarded to H. W. Milner, late postmaster, Lichtenburg, Transvaal, be increased to £6S per annum, to take effect from the 1st April, 1912. (3) That the break in the service of Johanna Groenewald, teacher, from 1st April, 1911, to 31st October, 1911, Be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service. (4) That the breaks in the service of J. J. J. Brownlee, teacher, from 1st January, 1899, to 30th June, 1900, and from 1st April, 1901, to 30th June. 1932, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service. (5) That the break in the service of A. J. van der Merwe, teacher, from 1st January, 1908, to 31st December, 1909, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service. (6) That the breaks in the service of J. J. Strasheim, teacher, from 1st April to 30th June, 1906, and from 1st October, 1908, to 30th September, 1911, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service. (7) That the break in the service of Gladys F. Robertson, teacher, from 1st January, 1907, to 31st December, 1909, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service.

On paragraph 1,

pointed out that several widows were refused pensions last year, and he wished to know whether the committee was acting on any definite policy.

said that this was a most distressing case. It was understood that the man contracted tuberculosis at the station at Tokai. He died from tuberculosis, after serving the State for something like 12 years, and left a widow and three or four children. The committee felt that, in view of the information given them, some trifling sum should be given to the widow for some months.

said he only wanted to point out that last year this committee refused three widows a single penny. Now they were changing their tune, and one would like to know if there were some sort of principle adopted.

said they could not make a principle of these things. They must treat each case on its merits and that was what they were obliged as a committee to do. He thought the cases that his hon. friend (Sir E. H. Walton) mentioned were not destitute.

They were very poor.

This woman was one of the poorest of the poor.

said that in the cases referred to by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir E. H. Walton) pensions were asked for. This was not a pension they were asked to vote, but a gratuity.

No, No, don’t mislead the House. When these petitions were presented to the House they asked for pensions or some other relief as the House may deem fit.

asked if there was any difference in principle between a gratuity and a pension?

I should think, if you drew it, you would find a very marked difference. (A laugh.)

Agreed to,

On paragraph 2,

asked if any particular principle had been adopted in this case.

said that the petitioner had served various Governments in South Africa for a period of nearly 30 years. He was granted a pension of £49 15s. by the late South African Republic. He lost his post through no act of his own. The Committee had treated the case as if he had been a Civil Servant in the employ of the Cape Government and had recommended that his pension be increased to £65 per annum.

said the pension was increased because Milner was old and sickly.

was glad the pension was to be increased, as he knew Milner well, and the increase was well deserved.

Agreed to.

On the remaining paragraphs,

asked whether the breaks were in conflict with the Cape law or why it was necessary to refer these petitions to the Pensions Committee?

said that these applications for condonation of service always came before Parliament. Only Parliament could condone the breaks. It simply condoned the break and enabled the teacher to count the back service.

asked whether it would not be possible to devise other machinery for dealing with these cases, instead of having them brought before Parliament. He suggested that a provision might be made in the Civil service Bill so as to enable these cases to be dealt with by the Executive.

These people are not Civil Servants. You cannot possibly deal with them as Civil Servants.

said that, under the law of the Cape, teachers used to be in the service of the committees of the separate schools, and they were now in the service of the School Boards, but they were not servants of the State. He did not think the House could really deal with this matter at all. The matter really rested with the Provincial Council. The State had assumed a responsibility in regard to the pensions of these teachers, and at the same time they were not servants of the State. They were others whom, he thought, they might deal with in the Civil Service Bill, for instance, the railway men, who had joined the pension fund.

mentioned the case of D. F. Strauss (No. 31), and said he did not understand why the prayer in this case was not entertained.

said that there was no necessity for the petitioner to come to Parliament at all. He was granted twelve months leave of absence. It was not necessary for him to come to Parliament to get that endorsed. That year could not count for service. It was granted as leave and his future and back service would count, so that the petitioner was no worse off.

hoped the Government would take into account when framing the Civil Service Bill the matter raised by the hon. member for Maritzburg and lay down definitely by law what was meant by continuous service and under what circumstances a man may have broken service condoned. The law laid down that if a man had so many years’ continuous service he was entitled to a certain pension. There were cases where a man had not had continuous service, and this House had authorised the Government to pay him a pension to which he was not entitled by law. He thought that was an entirely wrong and unconstitutional thing. A man should only obtain the pension to which he was entitled by law. He hoped that state of things would not be allowed to continue any longer, that the law would define continuous service, and the circumstances under which a break of service was to be condoned ; and under no circumstances would this House condone a break other than those provided for.

said he could not see how the hon. member could say that this House was acting unconstitutionally. He asked by whose authority they acted. They were acting on the authority of Parliament, and they understood no other authority. Might he explain that often in this country they had young men and girls who, after passing their matriculation, were unable to go on with higher studies. They took positions as teachers for a year or two until they could collect sufficient money and then returned to college to pursue their studies, after which they again entered the service. By allowing them that break they encouraged them to continue their studies and add to their proficiency. Supposing a man had served for five years, broke his service for two, and then served another five, he would be credited with ten by condoning the break, not twelve years’ service. So what was the objection? The hon. member wanted to deprive that man of his service and pension rights. (Hear, bear.)

said he quite understood the hon. member for Paarl, and agreed that that man should be allowed to continue his studies; but all he said was, let that be laid down by law. What he said was unconstitutional was that the House should attempt to legislate by resolution. He said that when it had passed a law the Government should not interfere with it by resolutions. (Hear, hear.)

said he might point out that so far as leave of absence was concerned, it was regulated by law in the Cape. Section 41 of the Cape Act rendered it unnecessary for a petitioner to go to the House. He did not think they could lay down any hard and fast rule in this matter. Supposing a man had been serving the State for twenty years, but after fifteen years, owing to some unfortunate action which he could explain, there was a break in his service, and five years later he retired. If they did not condone that break, he was deprived of fifteen years’ service. Surely that was not contemplated by the Legislature. They could not deal with every case by legislation, and therefore Parliament ought to have the power to condone a break in a genuine case. (Hear, hear.)

The recommendations were agreed to.

This committee recommends that the break in the service of E. E. Stockenstrom, teacher, from 1st July, 1910, to 31st December, 1911, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service.

asked how it came before the House at all, because it was surely a Provincial Council matter. It dealt entirely with the question of teachers’ pensions, and he quite agreed with what the hon. member for Fordsburg and other hon. members had said, that provision ought to be made in the law. It should not be difficult to make that provision. He understood that they had no proper, power to alter this. This matter ought to go before the Provincial Council. He would ask the Chairman’s ruling whether this recommendation was not one which should have been dealt with by the Provincial Council?

stated that, as he understood the position, only the central Parliament could at present deal with questions relating to pensions.

Am I to understand that pensions can only be dealt with by this House?

said that before they considered that it would be wise to consider the provisions of the Union Act. It was only after the officers had been permanently allotted to he Provinces that the Provincial Councils could deal with them. It would be well if until they were allotted the House continued to deal with their pensions.

Agreed to.

This committee recommends (9) that the break in the service of T. Hamilton, teacher, from 1st October, 1910, to 16th October, 1911, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service. (10) That the break in the ser vice of C. G. D. Gerneke, teacher, from 1st January, 1909, to 31st December, 1911, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service.

Agreed to.

said he thought they were entitled to know precisely why the Select Committee had rejected certain of the claims. They had information about those granted, but none as regarded those refused.

asked whether any petition that had been refused could be referred back to the committee for reconsideration?

You are quite in order to do that.

said he presented a petition to the House, and on a slip attached to it expressed a desire to give evidence. He had heard nothing more about it, though he had a fund of documents relating to the case. The case was No. 16, that of F. G. Fraser, and he would move that it be recommitted. For more than thirty years Mr. Fraser was engaged in the various railway administrations in South Africa. He was taken from Natal to the Imperial Military Railways, and after the war was sent to the C.S.A.R. His health failed, and he asked to be relieved of his guard’s duty, and was sent to the goods sheds. The work there was too hard for him, and he asked for something else ; but was told that nothing could be done for him. In May of 1910 he was asked to call at Mr. Hoy’s office regarding the question of compensation, and on calling there, did not see Mr. Hoy, but some other officer, and said he would leave the matter in their hands to be decided. Subsequently he received a letter which stated that his case had received special consideration, and although he was not entitled to any special gratuities, he (Mr. Hoy) had resolved that he be paid the gratuity he would have been entitled to under the regulations if he had been retrenched. The General Accountant had been instructed to send him a cheque for £37 10s. That was what he received after thirty years’ service. He moved that the case be referred to the committee for further consideration. The man really wanted work, and did not come as a beggar, and was quite competent to do work.

said if the man wanted work, he should go to the Railway Department, for that was outside the scope of the committee.

said that the committee should give Mr. Fraser a small pension or a gratuity. The man had been a faithful servant to the country for thirty years. It was all very well for the members of the committee to disclaim responsibility as they had done.

referred to the case of H. D. Mears, and asked for information. As to the other case, it was a matter of the right to work.

said it was not a question of the right to work, but of the right to live.

thought it would be just as well for the case to go back to the committee. The official report was that Mr. Fraser joined the railways in March 1901. If it could be Proved that he had 30 years’ service the case should go back to the committee. As to the case of Mr. Mears, he could not remember the details.

It was agreed to refer back the case of F. G. Fraser.

reported the resolution, and asked leave to bring up the report at the next sitting of the House.

Agreed to.

hoped that the Minister would give them some information as to whether a riparian owner had the right to construct a dam on the bed of a river. In his district dams were usually constructed across streams, and the water was pumped on to the ground. Would that be prevented by that Bill?

replied that it would be better if the hon. member would repeat his question at a later stage, when that matter would again come up for discussion.

said he regretted exceedingly that owing to indisposition the hon. member for Cape Town Harbour (Sir H. H. Juta) was not able to be there. He (Mr. Merriman) thought it was a very great misfortune that they should go through that Bill without having with them the best legal authority they had on this subject. The clause constituted a very important change indeed, because it introduced a new phrase—a public stream. They were changing an intermittent into a public stream, and they did not recognise the normal flow. They said there should be no right of property in public water. Hitherto water in an intermittent stream belonged to the man whose property it passed so long as he did not play the" part of dog-in-the-manger. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Schoeman) was very vigorous the other day and challenged him to show him (Mr. Schoeman) the slightest degree in which common rights would be infringed upon.

I will be glad if you can show me.

After last night’s discussion it must be very clear to the hon. member that certain rights are going to be interfered with. (Mr. SCHOEMAN: “No.”) He may know better than the Minister of Native Affairs. Although I don’t think the Minister in charge of the Bill has got so far he has hidden his light under a bushel—the Minister of Native Affairs was too frank. You are going to interfere with the rights of a man to water in an intermittent stream. In what possible way does the Bill improve the rights of an irrigator? In a perennial stream you can lead out flood water, if you can find out what it is, but you had much greater right in the existing law over an intermittent stream.

said if that clause did go through he could assure the Minister that he would give a serious blow to irrigation, and riparian owners of intermittent streams would be seriously injured. Water which fell on the ground belonged to the owner, but if it ran in a recognised bed, then it was public property.

Would not the Minister postpone this chapter and go on with the rest of the Bill? He went on to say that it was a great misfortune that the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir H. H. Juta) was not present to discuss the Bill. There was plenty of other material to discuss.

moved that the clause stand over.

said that he was afraid that if that part of the Bill stood over the rest of the Bill would have to stand over.

No, no.

said that he thought that the interests of the country demanded that the Bill should pass. He acknowledged that there was a difficulty, but the alternative would be the postponement of the Bill and the possible wrecking of that measure.

said that he did not agree with the right hon. Minister at all there. There were other chapters which were of the greatest value, which did not deal with rights at all, hut with the machinery of irrigation in the country. Take, for instance, the Water Courts. He questioned if they started on that, whether they would finish it by 3 o’clock. (Laughter.) Many alterations were made in connection with Water Courts; valuable alterations, he might say.

said that he would agree to the postponement, on condition that they would have that chapter again on Monday.

said that he was entirely in favour of the clause in the Bill. They must deal with these intermittent streams, not from the legal, but from the practical, point of view. As to what the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Kuhn) had said, what had been done by his hon. friend in 1906 had been to throw out a definition, which had been introduced by the Chief Justice in “another place.” (Cheers.) He hoped that the hon. member would not take up the misguided attitude he had then taken up, because if he did, it would not be in the interests of the country or of the people he represented. If the same development took place in the hon. member’s district as had taken place in the Cradock district, he would be faced with the same difficulty. He thought that hon. members should carefully study the definition and understand the intention of the clause which his right hon. friend proposed to insert. All the rights that existed on intermittent streams remained under the Bill. Instead of using the terms intermittent and perennial they called all streams public streams, and said that the flow was either normal or abnormal. The normal flow was the ordinary perennial flow. The abnormal flow was a flood flow over and above that to he defined by the Bill without interfering with vested rights of a practical character that existed at present. He would be the last person to vote away nights of a practical character.

denied that the definition of intermittent streams would fail to protect the lower owners. The question was quite clear, and he advised hon. members to read clause 10.

was glad the Minister was willing to postpone the clause, as he was convinced that the Bill could be improved.

said that if every hon. member were to discuss that matter they would not gain anything at all, and time would be wasted.

The motion was withdrawn.

thought that the consideration of clause 2 should stand over.

moved to report progress.

thought it was wrong to postpone the matter simply because the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, was not present.

asked if it would not be possible to go straight on until progress was reported. Then they could revert to Chapter II. when business was resumed.

moved that Chapter II. stand over until Chapter III. had been considered.

The motion to report progress was withdrawn.

moved that the further consideration of clauses 9 to 23 stand over.

was opposed to the chapter being held over.

said he had no objection to clause 9. It was clear, and would injure no one’s rights.

said that it could not be the intention of hon. members to wreck the Bill. Chapter II. was of the greatest importance, but as a matter of courtesy to the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, it was postponed until Monday.

The motion was agreed to.

On clause 25, Use of subterranean water,

moved, in lines 31, 32, and 33, to omit “the holder of any mining title may take steps for removing to any place any subterranean water from a mine worked by him,” and to substitute, “the owner of any mine which is being lawfully worked may take steps for removing any subterranean water from that mine.”

said that in his district dolomite formations were found, and thought it unfair that an owner should not have the right to take subterranean water from his ground and sell it. He asked for further information.

said that the holders of mining titles were favoured under that clause more than the farmer. One could deal with the water without having to apply to Parliament, whilst the other had to ask permission. He moved as an amendment, therefore, in lines 35 and 35, to omit “and may with the consent of the Governor-General,” and to substitute, but he shall not without the consent of Parliament.”

said that the rights of farmers were fully protected. As to what the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Van Niekerk) had said, the dolomite formation had not been found in his district, though there were lime formations.

asked the Minister of Lands a question in regard to underground waters in Bechuanaland.

said he had already drawn attention to the dolomite formation on the Rand, and to the rights which the Rand Water Board had to the water there. That Board had the right, according to the Transvaal law, to pump ten million gallons of water daily out of the dolomite. He now feared that the Minister, under that Bill, was going to give more extended rights to the mines.

We are not giving more rights.

pointed out the evil results which the pumping of that subterranean water had had on the surrounding farms. It was an easy matter to get a mining title, and then put a well down and pump the water away. The farms in the Klip River Valley were continually becoming drier, and he thought an end should be made to such a state of affairs.

said a most important amendment had been moved by the hon. member for Waterberg, and one that would have a very serious effect. Surely the hon. member saw the difference between a farmer who was supposed to use his water for the purpose of developing his land, and the water that was met with in mining, which was a nuisance and had to be got rid of. The mine owner might only remove the water if necessary for carrying on mining operations, or for the safety of the persons employed thereat. If the amendment was carried out it might be construed as giving rise to the necessity for a mine owner to go to Parliament before he could dispose of the water in his mine. But he understood the amendment to mean that he would not prevent a man removing his water without going to Parliament, but would prevent him giving or selling it to a farmer. But if a mine owner found a beautiful volume of water was he to allow it to run to waste? The difference between a mine and a farm was that the water in a mine was a nuisance, not an asset.

said he did not object at all to the removal of water from mines ; but why differentiate between the owner of the main reef and the owner of a farm? One had to apply to Parliament to remove his water and the other not.

moved an amendment in line 1, to omit the word “the” and insert “recognised.”

said the whole of the section as he understood it was an infringement of the private rights. That might be justifiable or not; but according to law a man who raised perennial water from a piece of property belonging to him that was his own water and subject to nothing.

wanted to point out to the hon. member for Waterberg one reason why a differentiation should be made between a farmer and a miner, and that was because there was no necessity for a farmer to bore down and remove the water unless for his own private use, whereas a miner had to get rid of the water. It was merely a question of whether he was to allow it to run to waste, or whether he was to be allowed to dispose of it in any way.

in reference to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Boshof, said it had in view the interests of a single mine only at Boshof. The hon. member wanted an advantage for one mine at the cost of the whole community.

said that talking of a dolomite formation, such as that near the Witwatersrand, it might be quite possible that some mining concern could bore down into water, and establish what was really a waterworks on the mine. He did not say that would be done, but if the hon. member’s amendment were adopted, they would have to apply to Parliament before they could sell that water, and therefore he did not think the amendment was unreasonable. But he did not quite appreciate the distinction between dolomite water and any other water.

said he did not think that hon. members had understood the amendment he had proposed to that very case. The mine had to be in actual working. Regarding the dolomite formation in the actual working of things, in the Transvaal the provisions made had been found to be absolutely necessary. They would upset all the calculations of mining men if they interfered with it. In connection with the Rand Waterworks, there was no doubt about it; they had to deal with the fact that they had spent over three millions in dealing with the water, and they were dealing with it for the benefit of something like half a million of people. They were using the water for the support of a solid industry, and it was impossible to take that right away without such a breach of faith that he did not think Parliament would contemplate for a single moment. A still greater grievance would be created by interfering with these rights. Why should they make mining more expensive by refusing the mines the right to sell water pumped out of the mines?

said the Minister had been arguing very much in favour of existing rights, but the whole of the chapter under consideration was in restriction of the normal natural legal rights under the common law. Under the Roman-Dutch law, a man who raised water from the ground had the right to that water, and he could dispose of it as he liked. They should be very careful how they worded, this chapter. They ought to put in “the owner of any farm in the dolomite formation. If he obtained water by boring, he could dispose of it to his next-door neighbour. If they restricted that right, they were striking a blow at people who might otherwise be disposed to spend money in boring.

suggested that they should take out “any” and substitute “such.” In regard to the contention of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Nicholson), the Transvaal Act of 1908 drew exactly the same distinction between the owner of a farm and the owner of a mining title. He understood that the hon. member (Mr. Nicholson) voted for the Transvaal Act.

thought the suggestion of the hon. member for Waterberg would make the position more secure.

said it seemed to him that under the Bill a mining company could raise water from its own shafts, and could use all the water it wanted for its own purposes, but that it could not sell the water or give it away without the permission of the Government. The town of Jagersfontein would have been without water unless it could have obtained it from the Jagersfontein Diamond Mining Company.

There is no dolomite formation there.

said that in the case of a miner who encountered water which he did not want, if he sold it, it would be only with the consent of the Government, who would be satisfied that he was doing legitimate mining. Parliament should help to develop the gold-mining industry in the interest of the whole country. The hon. member for Vrededorp had made an immense fortune out of the very thing he (Mr. Geldenhuys) had been talking about, and he was a member of the Volksraad at the time.

I was not.

The Second Read.

The Second Raad had nothing to do with it.

They did not said there were no farmers worth mentioning in the Klip River Valley before the mines were found. They came because the mines were discovered.

They came long before.

They did not produce a bag of mealies to a thousand morgen. Proceeding, he said that mention was made the other day as to the improper character of the grant given to the Rand Water Board. He (Sir Percy) bought the farm Zwartkopjie for £60,000, when it was not worth £6,000. It was bought for the purpose of giving water to the mines, and everybody knew it. Now, people wanted to take away the rights obtained under the Jaw in payment for casing and perfectly openly. All the farmers were bought out. The case made out by the hon. member was not a very grateful one coming from him.

said the Government must not continue to give people the right to sell water from the dolomite. If all the water from the new shaft at Wonderfontein, which he heard gave 18,000,000 gallons per day, was pumped out, the Mooi River would be dried up. He did not wish to handicap mining, but agriculture must be guarded against the pumping away of the subterranean water.

said that this clause was to protect existing rights properly acquired. His hon. friend was talking against the further extension of rights. He might be right, but the law did not give further rights.

You can go to the Government.

The hon. member was a member of the Parliament which did it.

Oh no!

I saw you there.

You are mistaken.

I am sorry then. Continuing, he said that if the hon. member wished to protest against the extension of these rights, that was not the place. The hon. member said that the people who had this property got a million in compensation. They never even got their money back. They did not get the interest. They did not get compensation. He must have been referring to some other people. Surely Government would be on the look-out to prevent people doing bogus mining; they would get the unanimous assistance of hon. members on that side of the House.

said that after the explanation of the Minister he would withdraw his amendment. In connection with sub-section 4, he asked on whom the onus of proof lay.

said that tin mining would not be affected in the least. It referred to water from the dolomite sources. The point was: Was there sufficient protection?

said that the clause favoured mining above farming. A farmer, who got more water than he wanted, could only dispose of the surplus by consent of Parliament, whilst the mines could dispose of their surplus with consent of the Government. But a time might come when they would have a Government who thought more of money than of bread, and then the provision would be dangerous. He moved as an amendment, that the word “Governor-General” be deleted and the word “Parliament” inserted.

urged that where water was raised to the surface for the purpose of mining operations there was no danger of bogus waterworks being created, in view of the consent of the Governor-General having to be obtained. If water were brought to the surface of a mine it was, the claimed, an absolute necessity in the interests of the country that it should be used in some way or other, especially when such ample protection was provided.

said that he could not agree with the hon. member for Wakkerstroom. If there was too much water in a mine, and they were not allowed to pump it out or sell it until Parliament met, they could conceive what a state of affairs might arise, and it would lead to very great difficulties in regard to mining operations.

pointed out that difficulties would most likely arise in the Witwatersrand if they had to apply to Parliament for leave to dispose of water that was raised to the surface of mines. He stated that the recent shortage of water on the Rand would have been very much aggravated if one mine had not been able to supply water to other mines.

replying to the question of the hon. member for Waterberg, said the onus would be on the complainant. He could not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom. Before the Government would give their consent to the sale of water, they would have the matter inspected by experts. Parliament’s decisions were decisions by a majority of votes.

Mr. Van Niekerk’s amendment was negatived.

The Minister of Lands’ amendment was agreed to.

Commandant J. A. Joubert’s amendment was negatived.

On clause 26,

inquired as to the size and composition of the Water Boards, and asked whether the Free State for example, would be one Water Board district.

said that that would depend upon the amount of work in the districts.

On clause 31, Powers, jurisdiction, and authorities of Water Court,

said he wished to move an amendment to sub-section (e), which would allow persons to appeal to a local division as well as a Provincial Division of the Supreme Court under certain safeguards. It was in line 23, to insert the words “or local” between ‘’Provincial” and “Division,” and at the end of the clause to add “Provided that appeals from any judgment of the Court presided over by a Judge of the Supreme Court shall be heard before not less than two Judges.” That would prevent a one judge Court over-ruling the decision of the Water Court. It would also allow the Eastern Districts Court to hear appeals.

hoped the Minister would not accept that, because the Johannesburg High Court and Griqualand West High Court were only one-Judge local divisions, and, therefore, under it they would not be able to hear such appeals. The only Court that could do so would he the Eastern Districts Court.

said that no good would result from the amendment, which would only cause oral confusion. The Eastern Districts Court was included in another section.

said to wished to make provision for the future. There would be no hardship to anyone.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 32, Pending disputes in Water Court not to be heard in other Court except by consent of parties,

referred to a ease from Worcester, in which the Supreme Court was uncertain whether it or the Water Court had jurisdiction.

said a case should not be dragged from one Court to the other without the consent of the parties.

On clause 35, Appearance before Water Court,

moved in line 8, after “party,” to omit all the words down to “appear,” in line 9, and: to substitute “wishing to institute or defend proceedings in a Water Court may do so.”

said he did not know what an engineer had to do with the settling of water rights. He would have something to say with regard to Water Courts on the third reading of the Bill. The clause was simply to give the poor farmer a chance. Perhaps a man could not afford to brief counsel. Frankly, he would say that he was suspicious of the amendment.

said he only altered a misprint.

said the hon. member for Ladismith did not want to prevent a man appearing personally. He thought that the amendment of the hon. member for Ladismith was unnecessary. He did not see any possible effect; it would only confuse the language of the Bill.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 42, Courts to follow the practice, etc.,

moved to insert “magistrates” in line 69, and in the same line to omit “of resident magistrates.”

Agreed to.

Clause 44, Regulations, etc.,

moved the following be a new sub-section (h): “(h) The terms and conditions upon which application for water-power privileges will be considered and the form thereof and of any notice connected therewith, and the principles and considerations which shall guide the water court in granting or refusing such applications.”

said he did not think it necessary.

The amendment was negatived.

said he wished to move an amendment in line 51. after “No such regulations shall be of force or effect,” to add “until they have been approved by a majority of the Judges of the Court of Appeal, such approval to be notified to the Governor-General by the Chief Justice and He did so because this clause constituted to a certain extent the law, and they were now dealing with Courts that were not legal, and he did not know why the Supreme Court was passed by.

said that was by no means left out with any particular object; but he was given to understand that the Judges themselves had some difficulty with it.

said they had no Attorneys-General now who were responsible to Parliament, and he thought it was very necessary to have the safeguard.

said he would like something better than it to be approved by the Judges of the Supreme Court. They had something similar proposed in the Cape Act, but the Judges did not like having to frame rules except for the conduct of their Courte. It might be that in time to come they would have to interpret their own rules. He felt the force of the objections raised by the Chief Justice so much that he laid down that the regulation should be drawn up by the Department and laid on the table of the House for consideration.

said it was a very curious thing that, notwithstanding the objections, they did approve of it; because he had had the notice. He thought it a proper safeguard that the Judges should approve of it.

said he was not dealing with the Act of 1909, but the Act of 1906. The Judges objected to framing the regulations. They were simply asking the Judges to do the work of the Executive and to tie up their own judgments when cases came before them.

said that he agreed with the Minister in regard to the judges and the regulations, but he thought when the Bill was passed the regulations should be framed as soon as possible. He considered that there were ample safeguards.

said they ought to have such safeguards as they could get, and he strongly urged that his amendment should be adopted. He did not want them to go helter-skelter into irrigation, or they might, in enabling one man to irrigate, prevent ten others from irrigating.

said that it would place the judges in a most invidious position if they had to approve of regulations and subsequently sit as an impartial judiciary to decide what those regulations meant.

said that very great powers were given under this clause, and he thought there should be some safeguard of an independent character He would move that, after the words “Governor-General” there be inserted “after consultation with the Chief Justice of South Africa.”

said he did not see how this proposal to ask the judges to approve the regulations would work.

Mr. Mentz’s amendment was negatived.

Mr. Merriman’s amendment was also negatived.

Progress was reported and leave obtained to sit again on Monday next.