as chairman, brought up a Special Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, as follows :

Your committee call attention to the fact that savings under Head 2 of the First Schedule of Act 31 of 1911 have been applied to meet expenditure on Head 3, contrary to the provisions of section 4 of that Act. The additional expenditure to be provided by the Railways and Harbours Capital and Betterment Works Additional Appropriation (1910-’12) Bill, which has been referred to your committee, should therefore be £1,253,919, instead of £331,515, and they now ask leave to amend the Bill and title accordingly.

H. C. HULL, Chairman. Committee Rooms, House of Assembly, 19th March, 1912.

moved that the report be now considered.

objected, but withdrew his objection.

Before the House can leave this, has the Minister in charge got the assent of the Governor-General?

Yes.

said that the Minister should explain to the House what the position was; the House did not, he thought, understand that the amount had been increased from £330,000 to £1,200,000.

was understood to say that he did not have a copy of the Bill before him, but the principle was this : there had been two amounts, one in respect of the construction of railways authorised prior to Union, and the other for construction of railways subsequent to Union. Owing to an oversight in the provisions of the Act passed last year appropriating these amounts for other purposes the expenditure on one item had been exceeded by over £900,000, but there had been a corresponding saving of very nearly the same amount. Well, in the Bill which had been introduced, the one was set off against the other, and it was found that that was not technically correct, and he entirely agreed, he might say, in all humility, with the finding of the Public Accounts Committee. He had raised some doubts himself before on that, but it was thought it would be passed. Parliament had expressly provided how each should be spent, and that one could not be set off against the other. It left the substance as it was, but it was merely a technical point.

The motion was agreed to.

Leave was given to amend the Bill and title as desired.

said, in response to a resolution of the hon. House of Assembly of the 12th inst., he had to submit the following return: (1) The number of men enlisted as recruits in the Transvaal Police for the period May 31, 1910, to January 31, 1912, was 451. (2) The number of such men who had been discharged is: (a) On conviction by a Court of Justice on a criminal charge, 2 ; (b) on conviction by an officer or board for a disciplinary offence, 16 ; (c) as being unsuitable, 16 ; a total of 34. In addition to the above six men were dismissed for making false statements, and six deserters were struck off the establishment.

Petitions from M. Pantzegrauw and 94 others and from H. J. Dampier and 259 others, inhabitants of the district of Elliot, praying that the said district may be annexed to the Province of the Cape of Good Hope.

Finance and Appropriation Account of the Province of the Transvaal, 31st May, 1910, to 31st March, 1911, with Report of Acting Auditor of Accounts.

These papers were referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

asked if the Minister of Finance was going to put the further report of the Finance Committee before the House. They had dealt with one Railway Bill, but not the other.

Unfortunately, I have not come down with it.

said it was generally understood the Minister of Finance was going to deliver his Budget speech on Friday. There was no notice about it on the paper, and it was usual, he believed, to give at least ten days’ notice of his intention. He thought it was important that the hon. Minister should give definite notice so that hon. members would really know when to expect it.

I was not aware of any rule requiring ten days’ notice; but the hon. member can rest assured that I shall give notice to-morrow.

It will be on the paper?

Yes.

asked the Minister of Mines: (1) Whether it is a fact that a number of serious accidents from explosions have of recent years occurred from the apparent presence of explosives in coal used in stoves or fire-places of private houses in the Transvaal and Orange Free State; and (2) whether the Minister will state the name of the collieries from which the coal came, and what steps are being taken to prevent the recurrence of this class of accidents?

(1) Since October, 1908, eight accidents of the nature referred to have taken place in the Provinces named. (2) Although it is not possible always to state with certainty from what colliery the coal came in such a case, the reports of the Department show that it appeared that in all cases but one the coal came from the Cornelia Colliery of the Vereeniging Estates. The manager was informed in December, 1910, that further accidents would lead to very stringent inquiries. As a result of a further accident in 1911 a special inspection was made regarding the handling of saleable coal by the colliery, and a letter was addressed to the management regarding the precautions observed in coal sorting. It is understood that special precautions are now being taken by the company to remove any possibility of anything of the kind occurring in future.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) What is the number of white men employed in the Forestry Department who are in receipt of (a) 1s. per day; (b) between 1s. and 1s. 6d. per day; (c) between 1s. 6d. and 2s. per day; (d) between 2s. and 2s. 6d. per day; (e) between 2s. 6d. and 3s. per day; (f) between 3s. and 3s. 6d. per day; (g) between 3s. 6d. and 4s. per day; (h) between 4s. and 5s. per day ; and what is the nature of the work performed by each grade; (2) what is the number of coloured men employed at similar rates of pay and in the same gradations as are mentioned in paragraph (1) hereof, and what is the nature of the work performed by each grade ; (3) what is the number of Asiatics so employed ; and (4) what is the number of Kafirs employed in similar grades as above and what is the nature of the work in each grade?

requested that the reply be allowed to stand over.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether the petition from the inhabitants of Jansenville, praying that the question of connecting Jansenville and Klipplaat by rail, which was referred to the Government on the 13th December, 1910, for its consideration, has been submitted to the Railway Board ; and (2) if so, to what decision has the Board come with regard to the construction of the proposed line?

replied that the petition had not been submitted to the Railway Board, and, therefore, no decision had been come to. He would like to explain with regard to the initiation of railways that it rested with the Government and not the Railway Board. After a decision had been come to and the Government had determined to build certain lines, the Board was asked to report; but the question of the initiation of railways was not within the powers of the Railway Board.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he is aware that the railway tariff for coal is so high that on a quantity of coal costing twelve shillings and sixpence at Uitkijk (Vereeniging) and forwarded to Philippolis the freight amounted to one pound sixteen shillings, and whether he does not consider this an exorbitant rate which should be reduced?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and in regard to the second part the Administration does not consider that the railway rate on coal is exorbitant, except perhaps the rate over the branch line from Springfontein to Philippolis Road, which is being reduced on and from the 1st April next from 3d. to 1d. per ton per mile.

asked the Minister of Lands: (1) Whether it is the case that records lodged in the Surveyor-General’s office at Cape Town are to be removed to Pretoria; and (2) if so, whether he will specify whether any, and if so, which of the following records constantly required for the purposes of local litigation will be removed: (a) Records relating to sales and leases of land and licences to occupy land; (b) records relating to mineral leases ; (c) records relating to grants of land ; (d) records relating to applications for the above ; (e) correspondence relating to the above; and (f) reports of surveyors and others, and memorials relating to the above?

It is only proposed to transfer such correspondence and documents relating to Crown lands as is required for current administrative purposes in the Land Department, but it is not intended to remove original titles or diagrams of land, or records required by the Surveyor-General or the Registrar of Deeds. I would point out to the hon. member that the experience of the Department since Union shows that the correspondence and documents which it is proposed to transfer are seldom if ever required for purposes of local litigation ; on the other hand, they are daily required by officers of the Land Department in dealing with current administrative questions.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours what profits have been made on the Pietersburg-Bandolierkop line since its opening?

replied that it was very difficult to answer that question because there were no profits. (Laughter.) The profits—of course, he meant by that excluding interest—after paying working expenses for the month of October amounted to £113 ; November, £117 ; December, £162 ; and January, £31; a total of £423 for that period. Section Pietersburg to Munnik (38 miles from Pietersburg) was opened for traffic on May 9, 1911, and section Munnik to Bandolierkop (71 miles from Pietersburg), on August 15, 1911. From the date of opening to Munnik to the end of September, the loss was £1,119; so that there is a loss, excluding interest charges, from date of opening to end of January of £696.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether, in view of the fact that a factory for extracting nicotine from South African tobacco is ere long to be established, he will be prepared to allow the same concessions as to freight on unmanufactured tobacco destined for this factory as are at present allowed in the case of mealies?

The question of the rate which should be fixed for waste unmanufactured tobacco conveyed to factories to be used for the preparation of nicotine dips is at present engaging attention.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) What has been the average monthly remuneration paid in fees to the messenger of the Court at Boksburg during the past six months; (2) whether he is aware that this messenger is engaged in competition with others in private business; (3) whether the duties of messenger are not in conflict with his private work as a general agent; and (4) whether he will make it a condition of appointment that the messenger devotes his whole time to the duties of the office or that he be allotted other duties as provided in section 2, schedule (b), of the Magistrate’s Court Proclamation, 1902?

(1) The average monthly fees paid to the messenger of the Court at Boksburg during the past six months amounted to £143 4s. 10d. The average monthly expenditure during this period was £102 14s. 6d. The average net profit on fees was therefore £40 10s. 4d. per month; (2) the Department is aware that the messenger is engaged in private business; (3) no complaints have been received “that his duties as messenger are in conflict with his private work” ; (4) pending the reconsideration of the entire question of court messengers, or the passing of appropriate legislation on the subject, I am not prepared to act on the lines suggested, apart from whatever the Magistrate may order.

asked the Minister of Lands how many farm titles were converted into freehold under the Occupation Farms Amendment Act, 1907 (Transvaal), on recommendation by (a) the Minister of Lands of the Transvaal, and (b) the Minister of Lands of the Union?

The reply to the hon. member is: (a) 259 from August, 1907, to May 30, 1910 ; (b) 25 from May 31, 1910, to date.

asked the Minister of Finance: (1) Whether expenditure on the erection of a post office in Pilgrims’ Rest has been sanctioned; and (2) whether, in view of the intended early proclamation of the Graskop Township, the Government intends to sanction the expenditure of further moneys in Pilgrims’ Rest on private ground?

The answer to both questions is in the negative.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether the Government intends to take any further measures to deal with leprosy on modern lines?

It is a very difficult question to answer, because it is not intelligible. I don’t know what the hon. member means by dealing with leprosy on modern lines. I don’t know what modern lines are. If the hon. member refers to research, then I may tell the House I am doing my best to get a very high-class expert to conduct leprosy research here in South Africa, and hope to succeed.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether overtime payments to the running staff in the Transvaal are now calculated on the substantive pay of the men only or on the pay including allowance?

replied that overtime was paid all through the Union upon the substantive payment. No account was taken of local allowances. That was so except in regard to some persons in the C.S.A.R., with whom arrangements were made, and who were in the service on January 1, 1909. He believed they were a comparatively small body of men ; but, otherwise, local allowances were not considered.

asked the Minister of Justice whether he is aware of the grave inconvenience to litigants caused by the shortage of Judges available for the civil and criminal appeal work and ordinary civil work of the Cape Provincial Division of the Supreme Court owing to the fact that the Judge-President is unwell, that Mr. Justice Hopley is absent on Circuit, that Mr. Justice Buchanan is absent on leave in England, that Mr. Justice Fawkes is engaged at the Criminal Sessions, and that Mr. Justice Laurence is not sitting in the Cape Provincial Division ; and whether the Government is prepared to take into consideration the advisability of meeting the difficulty by assigning one or more additional Judges to the Cape Provincial Division?

While I am not aware of all the facts alleged by the honourable member, I am quite prepared on representations being made to me from the proper quarter demonstrating the necessity for assistance to the Bench, to give such representations favourable consideration with a view to according such assistance as may be necessary.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government is prepared to consider the advisability of supplying fencing material to the inhabitants of the Orange Free State Province on the same conditions as such material is supplied in the Transvaal?

It has been decided to discontinue the sale of fencing material to the public in the Transvaal when the present stocks are exhausted. Under the new Fencing Bill, advances tor fencing will be made by the Land Bank, the work of the Department of Agriculture being confined to the administration of the Act.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs: (1) Whether he is aware (a) that officers of his Department have since Union been compulsorily transferred from the Provinces in which, and only in which, they were liable to serve in terms of their original agreements ; and (b) that the hours of postal and telegraph assistants in Natal have since Union been extended from 39 to 42 hours or more per week ; (2) whether these changed conditions are due to Union; and, if so, (a) whether he is prepared to grant to officers who have been, or shall be, so affected the option of carrying out the new conditions or retiring from the service and receiving the pensions or retiring allowances to which they may be entitled; and (b) if he is not prepared to grant this option, whether he will state what interpretation is placed by the Government on section 144 of the South Africa Act which safeguards the existing and accruing rights of Civil Servants?

The hon. member is entirely wrong in assuming that there is any legal obstacle to the transference of Union officers between Provinces. If the exigencies of the Service require such transfers the Government has full liberty to carry them out. A change in the number of the hours worked by officials certainly does not constitute an interference with rights existing and accruing at the date of Union, and in no circumstances will the Government give the option to retire upon pension merely because an officer happens to dislike some changed departmental regulation. The nature of the rights referred to in section 144 of the South Africa Act is as stated in that section, viz. : the right to retire from the Service and at the time at which he would have been entitled by law to retire and on the pension or retiring allowance to which he would have been entitled by law in like circumstances if the Union had not been established.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to the judgment of the Appeal Court in the case of Whittaker and Morant versus Roos and Bateman ; (2) what steps the Government have taken, or intend to take, in order to secure (a) that, whether segregated or not, no awaiting-trial prisoner, not found guilty of infringement of the ordinary prison regulations, shall be treated as a convicted person ; and (b) that no awaiting-trial prisoner shall be in any way hindered from consulting his legal advisers with a view to preparing his defence against the charges brought against him?

(1) Yes. (2) Both the new Prisons Law and the regulations framed thereunder demand that an awaiting-trial prisoner shall be accorded the following treatment, viz.: that his hair shall not Be cut or shaved except for cleanliness ; that he shall have all reasonable opportunities of communicating with friends or legal advisers; that he may write and receive letters daily, and visits from friends twice a week, and oftener, if the superintendent consents; that he may wear his own clothes, unless insufficient, unclean, or required for the purposes of justice; that he may provide his own bedding and receive changes of clothing if clean and free from vermin ; that he may retain articles which are not dangerous nor calculated to facilitate escape, nor money and generally no unauthorised articles ; he may be permitted the use of paper and writing materials, to be provided at his own cost ; he may be permitted to smoke under proper restrictions as to time and place, provided adequate arrangements can be made ; further, in addition to literature provided for convicted prisoners, he may receive reputable newspapers and magazines; he may be permitted to send out money standing to his credit and hand out valuables, papers, and effects to legal advisers or friends; further, while not allowed out of gaol to interview or search for witnesses or evidence, the superintendent will transmit by post his communications to his witnesses, or communicate with the prosecutor with reference to his witnesses or as to evidence required. The segregation of an awaiting-trial prisoner is regulated by sections 24 and 25 of the Act. It is proposed to specially draw the attention of all prison officers to these provisions, and to impress upon them the imperative necessity for carrying them out, so as to accord awaiting-trial prisoners that consideration which is contemplated by law.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether the Zuurberg East Coast fever fence has been completed, and if so, what is the reason that the districts of Elliot and Maclear have not been opened for cattle transport according to the promise of the Government ; and (2) if the fence has not yet been completed: (a) in which of the two districts it is not finished ; (b) how many farms are still open ; (c) what steps have been taken to complete the line as soon as possible ; and (d) when will the work be ready and the said districts be opened for cattle transport to the Cape Province?

(1) The Zuurberg East Coast fever fence has not yet been completed. (2) (a) The fence in Elliot district is now completed. In Maclear district the fence is nearly completed, (b) One farm, (c) The farm in question is a very small one, and provision is being made for the immediate completion of the fence bordering on it. (d) As East Coast fever exists on Engcobo commonage, only 16 miles from the fence, and as the disease is always particularly active at this season of the year it is not considered advisable that movements should be permitted at present, and even when the fence is completed permits will only be granted after most careful inquiry and the Department is satisfied that the movement is a safe one, and that the conditions imposed by it will be carried out. It must also be clearly understood that the issue of permits may be suspended at any time, should it be deemed advisable to do so.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he intends to cause a public inquiry to be held into the circumstances of the death of Guard A. Lambert, who was killed on duty on Saturday, the 9th inst?

said that an inquest was being held that day. In serious cases a departmental inquiry was held.

asked the Minister of Lands whether, out of the sum of £120,000 allocated for the purchase of Land under vote “F” of the Loans Appropriation (1910-1912) Act, 1910, the Government has purchased any land, and, if so, whether he will give the following particulars in reference thereto, viz.: (a) The dates of purchase ; (b) the names of the sellers; (c) the locality and area of each ; and (d) the date of, and special conditions (if any) attached to the purchase?

replied that he had not got all the information. The hon. member might allow the question to stand down.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to the letter published in the “Cape Times” of yesterday signed by Mr. W. J. Palmer, late Director of Agriculture in the Orange Free State ; and (2) whether the statements contained in that letter with reference to the circumstances connected with his retirement are correct ; and if not, in what respect are they incorrect?

said he had not yet read the letter in question, and asked that the matter be postponed.

asked the Minister of Public Works whether he is aware that (1) building operations will terminate on the Law Courts so far as masons and bricklayers are concerned in a few months ; (2) the number of men affected is about 100 skilled and 100 unskilled men ; (5) there are no prospective building operations excepting the Rhodes University ; and whether he will push this work forward in order that a considerable body of highly skilled men and their assistants may not either be thrown upon the streets or be forced to emigrate to Australia or elsewhere, to the loss of Cape Town and district.

replied that the answers to (1) and (2) were in the affirmative; and in connection with (3) that the Loan Estimates and ordinary Estimates made provision for buildings in Cape Town and district, the plans for which were being prepared.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours if his attention had been drawn to the statements made at the Bloemfontein sitting of the Railway Grievances Commission with regard to native policemen superintending the work of white men.

replied that his attention was drawn to the matter. Just afterwards the General Manager of Railways came to his office, and he asked him whether the information given in the House on a previous occasion was correct. The General Manager replied in the affirmative, and added that he derived his information from the Assistant General Manager at Bloemfontein.

asked if the Minister would make an independent inquiry?

I am satisfied with the information I gave to the House.

The question of a revised tariff for the Union is one which has had necessarily to be considered prior to the delivery of any Budget statement, as the estimates of revenue would be very seriously affected by any alteration that might be made. As regards any revision of the tariff, it is obvious that the recommendations of the Commission on Trade and Industries must have the fullest possible consideration in every bearing, i.e., in effect on revenue, on industries, on increased, cost to consumer, and on commerce generally. The matter also is not one merely of revision of Customs tariff, but also one of abolition of what is commonly called preferential railway rates. The latter have been built up gradually, and have been conceded, after the most careful consideration, as necessities, for the advancement of local manufactures and produce. It would be highly improper to remove any necessary advantage conferred by them unless with the full assurance that a compensation arises from some other source. Any undue haste in dealing with them might result in incalculable injury to the producer, manufacturer, and even the consumer. A compensation by way of in creased Customs duties, therefore, has to be very guardedly considered. The difficulties of the position are clearly too great to be dealt with immediately. It is desired, above anything else, to arrive at a Customs tariff which can reasonably be regarded as unlikely to be altered for a long period. This cannot be done lightly, even though the necessity for revision has been apparent for some years. In any revision of the tariff, we have to consider the fact that in two years we shall no longer receive any aid in revenue from the railways, and we do not want to find ourselves compelled to revise the Customs tariff again then. The revisions are admittedly disturbing elements as regards production, manufactures, and commerce.

The question whether or not there is time to carry a Tariff Bill successfully through during the present session has had to be considered. If increases are proposed, they operate under the Customs laws immediately on Ministers bringing the resolution or notice into the House. If decreases, they do not operate until the Bill has become law. The trade of the country is immediately disturbed; the consumer has to pay increased prices for his goods immediately, where the duty is proposed to be increased. If the increases are not sanctioned by Parliament within the session, the merchants get relieved of their bonds to pay the increase of duty, or get the duty paid refunded, whilst the consumer seldom gets his overpayments refunded by the merchants. The abolition of preferential railway rates would have to be timed to co-ordinate with any increase in duty. Pending sanction by Parliament of increases in duty, these preferential railway rates would, however, have to continue in force, with the result that inland communities would be doubly taxed. Obviously, once increases in Customs tariff (when the preferential railway rates are consequently to be abolished) are proposed, there would have to be extreme urgency for Parliament’s approval. As the Commission has also reported on the Excise duties, the whole question of such duties will also require to be considered in their bearing upon any revised Customs tariff. Ministers are, therefore, of opinion that in all the circumstances, it would be most unwise to propose any alteration this session.

asked if the Minister would have the statement circulated, so that members might discuss the matter in connection with the Budget.

said that he would lay the statement on the table.

asked the Prime Minister a question with regard to the order of business. He pointed out that as the majority of hon. members, the press, and outside people were doubtful about the matter, he would be glad if the Minister would state whether the House was to sit on Easter Monday.

There is no intention of sitting on Good Friday and Easter Monday.

asked for Mr. Speaker’s ruling on the point as to whether Notice of Motion No. IV., in the name of the hon. member for Georgetown (Mr. Andrews), standing on the order paper for Tuesday, the 2nd April, was in order, in view of the fact that the Electoral Bill had already been introduced into this House when the notice of motion in question was given? The first clause of that Bill read: “The laws mentioned in the first schedule to this Act shall be and are hereby repealed to the extent set out in the fourth column of that schedule, together with so much of any other law as may be repugnant to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act: Provided that nothing in this or any other section of this Act contained shall be construed as repealing any provision of any law to the extent to which the qualification or disqualification of persons to be enrolled as voters is set forth therein, and the law in force in any division relating to qualifications and disqualifications of persons to be enrolled as voters in that division shall remain of the same force and effect as immediately prior to the commencement of this Act.” He pointed out the rules of the Cape House which were in force in that House, and indicated how they applied in a case of that sort, and went on to quote the procedure adopted in the House of Commons. Under these circumstances it did appear that a certain amount of inconvenience would be occasioned in discussing this Bill. He should, therefore, like to have Mr. Speaker’s ruling as to whether the hon. member was in order.

said that before Mr. Speaker gave his ruling, he would like to draw attention to what he believed was the fact, that in the Bill mentioned by the hon. member there was no mention of qualification for voters whatever.

stated that he would consider the point raised, and give his ruling on a later occasion.

moved that from and after Friday, the 29th inst., the House suspend business at 6 o’clock p.m. and resume at 8 o’clock p.m. on Fridays.

seconded.

suggested that, in place of the Thursday evening sitting, the House should sit on Wednesday evenings, so that they would not have two evening sittings consecutively.

replied that the motion should first be agreed to, and then afterwards Thursday evening could be changed to Wednesday evening.

The motion was agreed to.

moved for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Occupation Farms Amendment Act, 1907 (Transvaal).

seconded.

The motion was agreed to, the Bill was read a first time, and set down for second reading on Wednesday, 27th inst.

moved that the agreement entered into with Mr. Henry Horace Wright granting a monopoly for the purchase of Government scrap metal and certain preferential rates on the railway be laid upon the table of the House. He said it was very regrettable that this subject should have to be brought before the attention of Parliament by a member of the Opposition. The question he wanted to direct the attention of the House to was the granting of a monopoly, a valuable concession, to private individuals. He thought the proper course to be pursued would have been for the Minister to have laid the information before Parliament, to submit the proposed agreement to consideration and discuss the matter with the House before the agreement was signed. Not only had that not been done, but, incredible as it might appear, Parliament to-day had not got this agreement before it, nor had it got the papers.

It has been in the “Gazette.”

What has the “Gazette” to do with this House? This House is the authority which has to do with matters of this kind. No information has been laid before Parliament up to the present moment. Proceeding, Sir E. H. Walton said, he wished to discuss this agreement in Parliament and ask this House to express its opinion upon it, but he was unable to do so because there were no papers before Parliament. In the first place, therefore, he had to ask the House to rule that this agreement and the papers should be laid on the table. (Hear, hear.) He hoped in any discussion in that House it would be brought home to Ministers that the sense of the House was that no such agreement should be entered into until Parliament had been consulted. He did not know whether this would be called a vote of censure on the Government. Here was a case in which this monopoly and these concessions had been granted, not only without the authority of Parliament, but without the knowledge of Parliament. Parliament nothing about it, and the thing had been done behind Parliament’s back. He did not know why the Minister refused to give these papers the other day when they were asked for. Parliament was the proper authority to judge of the papers. There was no urgency in getting this contract completed before it could be brought before Parliament.

The history of the thing was, as he understood, that some years before Union the Transvaal Government conceived the idea of making a contract of this kind. They called for tenders, in the beginning of 1910, for the purchase of an amount of iron scrap that the Railway Department had at Pretoria, amounting approximately to about 15,000 tons, and it evidently occurred to the Government of the day that the individuals who bought that might start ironworks in the Transvaal—not a bad idea at all. They said in their tender that they would do it for five years, and that, for the purpose of encouraging the industry, they would give facilities on the railway, and finally, that the successful applicant would be required to carry out experimental work in the smelting of iron ores to the satisfaction of the Government. He had been told that a number of tenders were received. The Government went apparently into negotiations with a representative of Messrs. Lewis and Marks. He did not want to emphasise the fact, but he would mention that in this case the negotiation was entered into and the agreement had been made with a member of Parliament. He wanted to call attention to that as emphasising what he was saying in regard to the necessity of putting an agreement of this kind before Parliament prior to its being signed. The contract provided that there should be experiments with local iron ores, but only if it were commercially feasible. The capital of the concern was to be £250,000, but the division of the capital was rather extraordinary; £247,500 was to be subscribed presumably, in £1 shares, and £2,500 was to be divided into 50,000 shares of 1s. each. The holders of the shilling shares were to share equally in the profits of the company after dividends of 7 percent. had been paid. The House would like to know who the holders of the shilling shares were. In the event of the company being liquidated these two classes of shareholders would share equally. The contract might have been all right, but it should have been explained to Parliament. Why had it been suppressed? Why had hon. members to demand that the contract be produced? If there was nothing to hide, why hide it? (Laughter.)

He, did not wish to suggest that Ministers had anything to conceal, but the very fact that they kept information from Parliament caused suspicion in the country. The contractor was to hand over his interests to the Company which was to make the agreement with the Government. The date upon which the agreement was made was rather an important point. Had the Company yet entered into an agreement with the Government? The Company was to take over 15,000 tons of scrap material now at Pretoria—12,000 tons within six months of the signing of the agreement, at £1 per ton, and the remainder within the next six months. Payment was to be made on the following terms: £350 monthly until the Company’s furnaces were ready, but they might not be ready for 18 months. At the end of 18 months the Company must pay £650 monthly, so that the Company might take two and a half years in which to pay off its indebtedness. The price was to be 20s. a ton. If scrap iron was to be exported it had to pay in railway rates 1d. per ton per mile during the existence of the agreement, but if the Company wished to send scrap iron by rail to their works they would pay only half that rate for the first 200 miles and ¼d. per ton per mile for any distance over that. There was a clause which he did not profess to understand, namely, that for 16 years the Government was to buy its iron and steel requirements from the Company. Then the Company was to conduct experiments on Transvaal iron ores subject to certain provisos in the contract which were not in the notice calling for tenders. He (Sir Edgar) wished to know if there were any other tenders received, why the form of the tender was departed from in the agreement, and whether the other tenderers were all Informed of the alterations that were made to the advantage of the contractors. In the tender notice it was stated that the contractors were to carry out certain experiments which would have been worth the country paying for. Was that in the agreement? The contractor would do that if it were commercially feasible—if he had a surplus profit, but unless he had he would not spend a penny on experiments with South African ores. We did not secure any real tests of our ores by this agreement. All the iron would have to be carried to Vereeniging—for no object that was apparent in the agreement. With regard to the railway rates, were the other tenderers told that they would get the same inducements that had been given to the Company? Were other iron works in the Transvaal allowed the same privileges as this particular Company? If the Government intended to maintain the monopoly it was very much worse than appeared on the surface ; it would be less serious if the reduced railway rates were to be given to any other iron works in the Transvaal. Then, had the Company lodged security with the Government for the due performance of the contract? What was meant by the statement that the Government was for 16 years to buy iron and steel work from the Company if the price were found satisfactory? He supposed that referred to railway plant, and he was sorry that the Commissioner was not present. What was at the back of the mind of the Government when it made this agreement? With regard to the price per ton for scrap material to be paid to Government by the Company, he was told that this was a very low one, and he was supported in that by the statement made by the Company in an article it had got inserted in the London "Times.” In this article it was stated that the Company paid only £1 per ton for the scrap material, and in this respect it was said in the article that the Company was placed in a position of exceptional advantage, because in England such scrap cost from £2 15s. to £3 10s. per ton. His reading of the contract was not quite the same as that of the contractors, which was that the Government had to purchase all they produced. Well, that was a highly favourable agreement. That the Government could have explained if they had taken them into their confidence, and they should not have tried to corkscrew it out of the Government with that question. Then the other day they had the report of the Railway Board, and as the railway was the chief sufferer under that agreement, he wondered what the Board thought about it, but it said not a word about it. It was quite evident from the figures he had read that the contractors thought it was going to be a very profitable thing indeed, and their estimate, which had been published in London, was that their profits would be £25,000 on a paid-up capital of £100,000. If their estimate were realised, he thought that every hon. member would agree with him that they were going to do extremely well. He wanted to get an expression of opinion from that House with regard to the principle of entering into contracts of that kind; and he said that whatever was done, Parliament should be consulted. In that case a monopoly had been granted, and there were other firms in the Transvaal and, they, hoped, other firms in South Africa, carrying out the same business. In that House they had no right to pick put certain individuals, whoever they might be, or certain interests, and so give them an undue advantage over other competitors. It was in the interest of the country that industries should be started and that there should be some competition. The Government had not only not asked Parliament for its authority, but had ignored it, and had not even informed the House of that agreement, and they would not have heard anything about it except from what they had seen in the newspapers, if that question had not been asked. It might be said that the matter was merely of that company, and that it was not a very large one, but he would point out that a great principle was at stake. (Hear, hear.) He hoped that in South Africa they would never encourage monopolies, and if they did permit valuable concessions of that kind to be given, and monopolies being granted without Parliamentary sanction and authority in that young country it was creating a precedent which South Africa would certainly live to regret. (Hear, hear.)

seconded the motion.

said that he rose immediately to address the House in connection with that matter because it seemed to him that the hon. gentleman who had moved in that matter had taken an unusual course—he did not want to use a stronger term—to move, as he did, before he had asked for information. In his hurry to attack the Government, he had put a motion on the paper, which had been on the paper three weeks before, and at the last moment someone must have reminded the hon. member of the unusualness of his motion, when he had changed it. As to what the hon. member had said about the papers not being laid on the table of the House, his (Mr. Malan’s) reply was a simple one: that the usual course had not been taken to ask for them.

I asked for them.

Certainly not ; if the hon. member will refer to his notice of the question on February 6, he will find he did nothing of the kind. He certainly heard something of the contents of the contract, and came to the conclusion that there was something wrong; and instead of asking for the papers and getting the information laid on the table of the House, he entered into the merits of the contract, and when he put his question, I replied that the facts, as stated in his question, were substantially true. I replied that the contract would be published in the “Gazette.”

That was not the answer given.

Undoubtedly that was the answer given, and I told him that instructions would be given immediately, and the contract would be published—and as a matter of fact, it was published. No papers in connection with this agreement were ever called for in this House, and for the hon. member to talk about concealment, there is nothing to conceal—unless it be his own mismanagement of this motion—he puts it in one form and then runs away from it, and says there is something on the part of the Government to conceal. Continuing, Mr. Malan said that as regards the merits of that contract, as far back as 1908 the Transvaal Government, in the Mines Department, had made certain investigations in connection with the working of the refractory iron ore in the Transvaal. Three questions had to be investigated: the nature and the quantity of the iron ore in the Transvaal ; the quality of the coke used in the reduction of these ores, and the question of suitable lime for blast furnaces of that description. The report of the Mining Engineer was published in 1909, and he gave a very complete account. While these investigations were going on in the Mines Department, the Railways were dealing with the question from a different point of view, and getting rid of large quantities of scrap which they had in their workshops, more particularly at Pretoria, and thought to start a factory of their own, but while making investigations, decided to join hands with the Mines Department, and in 1909 came to an agreement that each department should put up £15,000 for the purpose of seeing what could be done to investigate the mineral resources as far as iron ores were concerned in the Transvaal. At the last moment, it had been thought advisable to get expert advice before any step was taken, and acting on that suggestion, Professor Harbord was brought over from England, who, in his report, rather advised caution, and said that either the Government could have their own plant or a private individual could start a plant. The matter had then been submitted to the Government Mining Engineer, and Prof. Harbord strongly recommended that it would be inadvisable to have two concerns working side by side, or getting more than one company interested in the matter, and that, under the circumstances, it was better to utilise the scrap of the Government, and experiment on a larger scale with the refractory ores of the country. The Government had come to the conclusion that it was better to use the scrap of the railways, and use it as an inducement to start a real iron industry in the country, which would undoubtedly be of great advantage. Tenders had been called for in February, 1910, just prior to Union, and if the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central had taken the trouble to ask, he would have received an answer. Four tenders had been received, and an agreement had been entered into with Messrs. Campbell and Walker, and in giving effect to that idea, the Transvaal Government had acted on the report of the expert advisers. The capital was £200,000. The contract was not completed with Walker and Campbell. They informed the Government they could not give the security, and could not raise the money.

The Government then communicated with the second man on the list, who was Mr. Wright, and a contract was then entered into with him that he should float a company with a capital of £250,000; and negotiations had been completed on those lines. He would give the hon. member an absolute assurance that it was practically the same arrangement that was entered into with Walker. If there was a member of Parliament behind Walker or Wright, he knew nothing about him, and if a man floated a company, and got a member of Parliament to back him, that was his affair. The affair was perfectly plain, and they knew nothing : of a member of Parliament, because, in the first instance, the man who succeeded in getting the contract was not the man with whom the Government subsequently entered into the contract.

When was that?

Wright’s contract was at the beginning of this year—no, it was in June of 1911. Proceeding, he said the hon. member for Port Elizabeth also asked whether this agreement with the company had been entered into, and whether the security had been deposited? Yes, the security had been deposited. The contract with the company had been drafted ; but, as a matter of fact, had not come back from Johannesburg yet, or had not yet been actually signed ; but they were bound to sign it, under the terms of the agreement. Now, the hon. member had asked the question: why was this contract not submitted to Parliament? He would say to him, in the first place, that the contract was submitted to the Railway Board, and not only was submitted to the Board, but the Board approved of the contract. On June 23 the Railway Board passed the following resolution: “Noted draft agreement submitted by General Manager for the proposed establishment of an iron and steel industry, and for the sale of railway scrap. Resolved that the General Manager be authorised to arrange for the conclusion of the agreement in terms of the draft submitted as agreed upon, subject to the alteration of clause 10 with regard to the guarantee.” The alteration referred to was that clause 10 relating to the guarantee be not deleted, as was suggested. That alteration was made, so that all the hon. member’s objections regarding not consulting the Railway Board fell to the ground. The Board was always a party to the agreement, and approved of the contract.

The negotiations began before Union. There was no Board then.

The Railway Administration, I meant. The Railway Administration of the C.S.A.R. was associated with these arrangements before Union, and after Union it was submitted to the Board and they approved of it. Continuing, he said the hon. member, not knowing the facts, of course thought there was something to hide about this. A very cogent reason why it was not thought necessary to come to Parliament was, firstly, because the Railway Board had approved of it, and, secondly, because they would have lost a considerable amount of time. Parliament was just prorogued, and in June, 1911, the negotiations with the previous contractor having been broken off —supposing the Government said: “No ; we are not going to enter into this contract with Wright,” the result would have been the whole of the transaction would have been hung up for some months until Parliament sat ; and he thought, under the circumstances, seeing that tenders had been asked for and the whole thing had been discussed and the Railway Board had approved, he thought the Government was justified in entering into it. But the hon. member said it was a monopoly, and he wanted to know the prices. He would quote the prices for which scrap iron had been sold. The House would know that under clause 9 of the agreement the scrap would be sold in Pretoria at 20s. per the short ton and within a certain radius ; and outside that radius the price was 31s. as a minimum, rising to 42s. The average prices obtained for scrap iron and steel per short ton of 2,000 1b., sold since Union at each port were in 1910, in Cape Town, 27s. 11d.: Port Elizabeth, none sold; East London, 31s. 6d. ; Durban, 30s. 4d In 1911 at Cape Town, 31s. 4d. ; Port Elizabeth, 22s 1d. ; East London, 25s. 7d. ; Durban, 32s In 1912, at Cape Town, 28s. 11d. ; Port Elizabeth. 27s. 6d. ; East London, 29s. 9d. ; and Durban, 31s. 6d. The scrapiron and steel sold in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State prior to Union, but since January 1, 1909, realised on an average, at Pretoria, 19s. per short ton ; and at Bloemfontein, 15s. 1d. As far as the prices were concerned the Railway Administration had made a very good bargain indeed. (Ministerial cheers.) The price at Pretoria was above the average, and within that radius it was the same. Outside that radius the minimum price of 31s. was more than the average price. So the Railway Administration had done very good business indeed. (Ministerial cheers.)

But he would like to read to the House an extract from a memorandum made by Sir Thomas Price on the subject. He said that the terms of the agreement are satisfactory to the Union Government and the Railway Administration in that (a) the scrap purchased may not be exported but must be used for manufacturing iron and steel in South Africa, (b) The price obtained for iron and steel is higher, on an average, than that obtained for scrap exported in the last three years. The practice of the several colonies prior to entering into the agreement now under consideration was to call for public tenders for its scrap, selecting as a time for doing so when the European market and shipping freights seemed favourable, and when there was an accumulation of scrap at one or more of the depots available for disposal. He might just say here, proceeded the Minister, there had never been any question of submitting those contracts entered into in the different Provinces before Union to Parliament. It had been an ordinary matter of administration, (c) If the company does not elect to purchase any scrap beyond the agreed minimum offered, the Administration is free to dispose of it otherwise, (d) Similarly, the Administration is free to reserve to itself any of the scrap it can use. (e) The prices fixed for scrap at the coast are such as to make it unlikely that the company would purchase it for years to come, and probably not at all, so that if any other company is prepared to commence operations at or near the coast, the Administration is, to all intents free to dispose of its scrap to such company, (f) The Government has been able to secure the purpose it had in view, and the employment of labour in South Africa on work hitherto undertaken oversea, without incurring the expenditure contemplated at the Pretoria Railway Workshops. (g) The efforts to discover a satisfactory method of treating the native iron ores cheaply will be continued, as provided for in the agreement. The terms stated were the best that could be secured. Past experience has not made industrial enterprise an attractive form of investment in the chief financial centres of the world. It is in the interests of South Africa, therefore, that the present enterprise, which from the considerable capital that will be expended is important, should be successful, and that every encouragement that can be consistently given it to that end should be afforded. Proceeding, the Minister said that from the railway point of view, both as regarded the price and the free hand with which they had been dealing with scrap, their interests had been amply protected. And, as he said, the Railway Departments had been in the habit of selling their scrap in the past without any reference to Parliament. But the point the hon. member laid stress upon was the Tailway rates, and he said this monopoly would have more advantageous terms as regarded railway rates than anyone else. He wondered where he got his information. As a matter of fact, the facts were as contained in the report, which stated: "It should be added that, as pointed out, the monopoly suggested has not been granted, but only the privilege of the first offer to purchase the scrap of the Administration, over and above what the company has undertaken to buy, and the Railway Administration has agreed to sell for manufacturing purposes in South Africa. It should be further pointed out that preferential rates have not been granted to the company as stated. The same rates will be granted to other companies undertaking to convert scrap material into merchantable iron, as the Union Steel Corporation have agreed to do. As a matter of fact, the matter had been under discussion by the Railway Board, and that was the position which was taken up There was nothing to bind the Railway Board giving other people, who wanted to utilise scrap iron in this country, the same rates.

When was that announced?

I don’t say that it has been announced. I only said that the Administration can do this. No monopoly has been given. No extra advantage has been given to this company which could not be granted other people. The question is perfectly simple. Continuing, he said that the Railway Department or the Administration was anxious to establish this industry. As a matter of policy it was a wise thing, instead of sending the scrap iron to Italy, Belgium or England at a nominal figure and then re-importing the same material to, if it were possible, deal with the stuff inside South Africa. Then the mineral resources of the country would be investigated, and if a system of dealing with the ore was discovered it would be a very good business. No monopoly had been created nor had special railway facilities been granted this company that could be obtained by any other. He said that, considering all the circumstances, the method in which the Railway Department had dealt with scrap in the past and that valuable time would have been lost had the contract not been completed, the Government was justified in doing what it had done. If the hon. member wished to see the papers he could do so.

said that in dealing with the matter he did not wish to impute dishonest motives to the Government, though the course that had been pursued was somewhat extraordinary. He pointed out that if the steel people of England had understood more clearly what the Government expected there would not have been only one tenderer for this contract. It was thought that the Government was insisting on the expenditure of large sums of money on research work. No one could be blinded to the fact that it was not a question of a few thousand tons of scrap. That did not enter into the question at all. The question was that the Government had entered into this agreement without reference to Parliament. In clause 13 they discovered exactly what the company had to do. It was simply fooling with the thing. (Laughter.) It was known that the iron ore of the Transvaal was refractory, and the course the Government should have pursued was to have sent a quantity of this ore to England to see whether it could be made amenable to practical purposes. Instead they had rushed into this agreement. He went on to refer to the clause delaing with investigation work, and pointed out that the company was only expected to carry on that sort of work out of surplus profits. It was too ridiculous. It was not sense. If the entire capital of the company was still intact so long as it did not make profits it need not spend one penny on the exploitation of the iron ore of the Transvaal. They did not see the genesis of a big staple industry; what they did see was the making of a permanent endowment of a pettifogging—he used the word advisedly—scrap iron shop, which would neither be a source of profit to the State nor of benefit to the people of South Africa. The Minister—he did not blame him said that they were not creating a monopoly, but if clause 12 did not create a selling or buying monopoly he did not know what it meant. Of course, it did ; there was no getting over the fact. The Government was bound for a period of sixteen years to purchase the products of this extraordinary company. But who was to decide the price of these products? The Minister. He did think, too, that here was an opportunity where the Government, having a realisation of its duties to the people of this country, might reasonably have put in the contract a clause to the effect that white labour, to a certain extent, should be employed. This agreement had many faults, it had not one redeeming feature, and he trusted that it would never go on and that it would never be ratified by Parliament. (Hear, hear.)

said he was sorry that the Minister had spoken so early in the debate, because he did not desire to appear to take him at a disadvantage. He congratulated the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central on having introduced this motion, particularly on the terms in which he did so. The hon. member objected to the establishment of private monopolies; they on that bench also did. The Minister in his speech stated that iron and steel scrap had been sold in the past at varying sums, less, at all events, than the price they were going to extract from this particular company. That, however, was not the point. The point was, could the Government have got better offers from other contractors? (Hear, hear.) He said most emphatically they could. In point of fact there was a company already existing in the Transvaal which was not only prepared to offer, but had offered, to the Government a higher price than had been offered by the company concerned. After the contract had been entered into with Wright, a member of this particular firm—Cartwright and Eaton—approached the General Manager of Railways with this offer in November, 1911, and he was informed that the contract with Wright would expire at the end of December, that no further steps were being taken as far as Wright was concerned, and that he had had a month’s extension granted to him. Why was that extension granted to him? This particular firm were shut out while they were waiting to find out whether Wright was going to take the contract or not. In December the firm he had mentioned received a wire asking them to say what they were prepared to take immediately. The Government must, therefore, have been prepared to consider a new contract. The firm replied offering 25s. per ton, free on rail at Pretoria, and saying that they would be prepared to take 3,000 tons for the first year, and that they were prepared to take 6,000 tons per year afterwards. While these negotiations were going on, Wright got an extension. This gave them reason to consider well what the Minister meant when he said that there was no monopoly. Cartwright and Eaton were prepared to import, and had imported, skilled men from England, and they were going to employ white labour and train it in this particular branch of work. Yet, in spite of all these considerations, this firm were shut out while the other party was given an extension of a month. He contended that the papers should certainly be placed on the table.

said he did not know whether it was desirable to prolong this discussion, seeing that the Minister had agreed to lay the papers on the table, and if the papers were laid on the table, of course, hon. members could take any steps they liked. He had no intention for one moment of going into the question that was raised so eloquently by the hon. member who had just sat down about the relative merits of rival purchasers of that delectable substance called scrap. One may be good and the other may be good. His point was an entirely different one in regard to this question, and he was glad that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth had raised it, and that was the whole question of contracts entered into binding upon the country without the ratification of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) That was a most important constitutional point, and one which this House was bound to face and bound to express an opinion upon, although this was in itself perhaps a small matter, and he was sure, if anybody had the slightest suspicion of there being anything behind it, the artless speech of his hon. friend the Minister (Mr. Malan) would have dispelled it. He was sure that nobody who had anything to conceal would have talked as he did on this subject. But that did not get over the fact that the Government had made a contract here extending over 15 years, and one which practically did set up a monopoly in the steel business, and, still more, which bound the railways hereafter to go and purchase their requirements from these people, who might make shocking bad rails. Here in this country we had had a somewhat bad experience recently in regard to buying rails. Yet they were to be bound to buy these things here, at what price? Let them consider the gigantic bounties they were getting in Canada in this steel business, and what a miserable sea of corruption the country was being dragged into from this very practice of giving bounties to such concerns. And who would suffer in Canada?

The farmers.

The merchant? No. The farmers are the people who have suffered, and it is the farmers who have now risen against this system of bounties and all that kind of thing. Therefore, I say We ought to be doubly cautious in a country like this, which, apart from its minerals, is but a poor country, before we go and impose burdens upon the shoulders of the people under one specious pretext or another which may afterwards prove to be detrimental to the best interests of this country. Proceeding, the right hon. gentleman said they were bound to inquire into this thing. He did not want to go back in this, country, but really one had not forgotten what a miserable time they had in that House 19 years ago over this very question of granting contracts which were, let them say, irregular—he was not going to use a harsher word—OT which they thought were irregular. There was a good deal of bad blood stirred up over this question throughout the country then, and they laid it down that no contract of any magnitude should be entered into except with the ratification of Parliament. We had a clause in the Audit Act to the effect that no building contract above a certain sum should be entered into except subject to ratification by Parliament. He bad wished to strengthen that, but there were certain difficulties in the way. But here was a new start. The Minister of Mines had great ideas, but the country, which had to pay for all these experiments, should have been taken into the confidence of the Government. (Cheers.) All this went on behind Parliament, which was told that it had no voice in the matter, because the agreement was signed. That was wrong—(cheers)—and it was a thing that should thoroughly be inquired into The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Rockey) had drawn attention to the clause about the purchase of material from the company by the Government. This was represented as being a trifling thing by the Minister, and he (Mr. Merriman) had not the least doubt that the Minister, in the innocence of his heart, thought it was a trifling matter. But it was not a trifling thing to the company promoter. It was on the strength of such things that clergymen’s widows and half-pay officers were dragged in. That was the worst of these things. We began in a perfectly innocent, straightforward way, and then in stepped the company promoter. There were points about this sort of thing that were very Wrong. Government had entered into a contract binding its successors in office and binding the country for 15 years without the matter being ratified by Parliament. Government should have consulted Parliament prior to entering into a scheme of that, sort. Proceeding, Mr. Merriman said he did not think he could do better than quote the words of a great man. A question of this sort cropped up in the British Parliament in 1870. The British Minister of Public Works, with the best intentions possible, had granted to a committee a considerable quantity of bronze for the purpose of erecting a statue to one of our Indian heroes without acquainting Parliament of the fact. What did Mr. Gladstone say? He said: “They might establish all the rules of account they liked, but if the House once allowed a Government to do what it pleased with public property in kind without making any account, they did all in their power to promote a system by which the plunder of public property could be carried on to any extent.” This contract (continued Mr. Merriman) had been entered into in a perfectly bona fide manner by our innocent Ministry. (Laughter). Although Ministers lived near the rose they, had not inhaled its fragrance in regard to company promoting. (Laughter.) If this sort of thing went on we should be saddled with a perfect network or monopolies which would have to be borne by the inhabitants who were left here after these good gentlemen had filled their pockets and gone off to more prosperous climes. (Cheers.) He was inclined to think that bound up in this innocent looking document was a concession granted by the late Republican Government of the Transvaal to a Mr. Henderson. That concession gave tremendous rights in the matter of iron and steel. Had these people got that concession in their pockets and were they going to produce it at the right time? That concession had never been annulled. The sooner the Minister laid the papers on the table the better, and in the interest of the future of this Parliament and country we should inquire into the matter by means of a Select Committee. It was no use having vague statements. We wanted to know what the facts of the case were—whether they were sufficient to justify the Minister of Mines in his rather glowing anticipations or whether we ought not to take some steps in this matter before it is too late. (Hear, hear.)

said the Minister had not quite stated what appeared to him (Mr. Duncan) to be the effect of the contract on one or two points. The Minister had said there was no monopoly, because Government had only to buy from the company on such terms and at such prices as might satisfactorily be settled. If that were so why was the clause referring to that point put in? They had only to look at the prospectus to see why it was put in. It was used in order to make the public believe that the company had a concession from the Government to buy all the material the company produced. (Hear, hear.) If the Government understood that the clause meant nothing they should not have allowed it to go into the contract. If it meant nothing the only reason why it was used was to mislead the public. Then the Minister had stated that the contractors had no preference in regard to railway rates, because other people could get the same rates if they asked for them. What was the meaning of the clause which stated that the administration should not during the continuance of the agreement carry any scrap for the purpose of export at less than 1d. per ton per mile, except only such scrap that was not taken over by the company? The contractor was not bound to take over all the Government scrap, and for the scrap that he did not take over the Government were free to carry at any rate they pleased. But for scrap belonging to private persons the Government could not charge a less rate than 1d. per ton per mile. Was the idea that people up-country, should be compelled to sell their scrap to the company? (Hear, hear.) That was no conjecture, and it was one of the plums held out in the prospectus, which said that the South African Government Railways had agreed that for 16 years the railway rates for scrap for export would materially be increased, while scrap for the works would be carried at a reduced rate. The contractor thought he had been given privileges. (Hear, hear.)

moved as an amendment to insert after “railway” the words “and all other papers and correspondence in connection therewith.” It was, he said a frightfully bad precedent for the Government to make deals pledging the country to any particular commercial undertaking or in any way dealing with these matters without the sanction of Parliament. The members of the Government clearly had shown themselves to be babes in these transactions. On both sides of the House there must be a consensus of opinion that Government without the sanction of Parliament should not enter into such agreements. To reassure the supporters of the Government he would say there was in that event no real danger of their dear Government having their hands tied. Government had only to grind Parliament down well enough towards the end of the session and then about midnight put something through when everybody was tired. In any case, whether Parliament was going to respect itself and to insist on its privileges, or was going to allow itself to be dictated to by an autocratic Government, let Parliament lay down the principle that no such agreement was to be entered into without the sanction of Parliament. (Hear, hear.)

seconded the amendment.

said he did not wish to go over the points his hon. friend had referred to, but he quite saw it was possible to make it appear that this contract was entered into not in accordance with the best Parliamentary procedure and also not in the interests of the country. Ho thought Parliament was perfectly entitled in that case, not only to have all the documents and papers before it, but he would go further, and support the idea the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had put forward, and have a Select Committee to go into the facts of the question. The earlier history had been set forward by his hon. friend, and he believed the old agreement with Mr. Walker had been completed with the old Transvaal Government, and after Union he found it impossible to raise the money, and the second tenderer had been offered the contract. He thought that probably explained why Parliament had not been consulted in the matter, and his directions had been that the agreement had been completed with another person; and in a new resolution Wright had been substituted for Walker. Under these circumstances, there must be some explanation why that agreement had been entered into with Mr. Wright without Parliament having been consulted, and he thought a strong case had been made out for Parliament having to be consulted in that case, and for a Select Committee to go into the matter. After Union, when he had become Minister of Mines, he had carried on negotiations with Mr. Wright, and now he (General Smuts) appeared in the unfortunate position of defendant for the Government. He thought that the Railway Administration, on inquiry, would be found to have acted with great care and caution in the matter, and he hoped his hon. friend would agree to lay all the papers in reference to that matter on the table of the House, and that he might go further, and appoint a small Select Committee to go into the facts; and he was sure that the Railway Administration would be able to assure them that the best arrangements had been made.

said that he was very glad to hear the statement of the hon. Minister, and because he took a more responsible view of the situation than the Minister of Mines (Mr. Malan) did, because the fence behind which He sheltered himself was of a most flimsy character. When the hon. member for Cape Town Central had put his question on the paper, it was a simple thing for the Minister to have said that he would lay the papers on the table. The reason why he (Sir Edgar) had amended his motion was on the orders of Mr. Speaker. He did not want to go over it again, because he saw that the Minister of the Interior recognised his responsibility, and that it was essential in the interests of purity that Parliament should be cognisant of contracts of that kind. The Minister was very anxious to get their local ore exploited; so were they alll, but there was no guarantee that a single penny would be spent, on investigations in that connection. He thought it would be a very wise thing to have a Select Committee ; and as to the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe, he would accept that.

The amendment was agreed to.

The motion as amended was agreed to.

communicated the following message from the Senate,:—

The Senate returns herewith the Bill “to facilitate the settlement in accordance with native custom of certain disputes between natives” with paragraph, (f) of clause 6, which has been struck out and placed between brackets, with a footnote stating that such paragraph does not form part of the Bill, pursuant to the ruling of the President of the Senate. The Senate now desires the concurrence of the House of Assembly to the said Bill.

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

moved:

“That the Government be requested to consider the desirability of taking the necessary steps at as early a date as possible to make the duty on imported meat, as fixed by the Customs Convention, 1906, applicable to the whole Union.” The hon. member said that meat became cheaper when the Cape Parliament proceeded to increase the tax. A good deal had been said about the encouragement of industries, and the House could not do better than make taxation uniform. Now that they were about to form their own army, they must take care that they were able to feed it. In time of war much would depend on that. It would perhaps be said that he wanted to favour a particular industry, but he would point out that in Natal both sugar and tea were protected. Perhaps he would also be accused of bringing up the whole fiscal question, and it would therefore be better to go into the question in order to show why the Transvaal abolished or suspended the tax on imported meat. He referred to the increasing growth in the quantity of sheep and goats, and said that in 1904 there were in the Cape 18,700,000 head, which had increased in 1906 to 25,000,000. In the years 1906 to 1910 the importation of meat steadily grew less, being respectively 77, 49, 18, 6 and 5¾ million lb., representing a value of £757,000, £500,000, £180,000 £60,000, and £55,000. In 1911 the imports mounted to 11½ million lb. (£106,000). It was thus clear that it had again become necessary to protect their own cattle-breeding industry. In 1907 the then member tor Beaufort West moved in the Cape Parliament that the import dues on meat be increased one penny per lb., which showed there was sufficient meat in the country. Although it was adopted, it was never carried out, because the then Prime Minister had some difficulty with the Transvaal. A great deal of meat was then imported. The Industries Commission dealt with the import dues last year, but had made no recommendation with regard to fresh meat other than pork. He hoped the Government would consider their recommendations. Even though the public had to pay a little more for meat, it would still be an advantage to the country if no more meat were imported. It was true that imported meat was cheaper, but they should remember how readily meat was bought when cattle were slaughtered owing to East Coast fever. Since that slaughtering of cattle, importation had greatly increased. Cattle breeding ought to be assisted. If that branch of industry suffered, others would also suffer. The country could provide enough meat for its own use, and importation ought to be opposed. The great importation of meat amounted to a threat for the Angora goat farmers. In the absence of a demand for meat, the farmers were unable to slaughter the goats, as a result of which they were allowed to grow too old, and the hair became too thick. The price of mohair was thereby reduced. In 1910, 17,800,000 lb. were exported to a value of £903,000, whilst in 1911, 21,000,000 lb. were exported to a value of only £917,000. South Africa would not suffer if there were an extra import duty of 1¼d. per lb. In Australia there were 20 sheep per white inhabitant, and there they exported meat. In South Africa there were 21 sheep per white inhabitant (if they accepted five natives as being equal to one white man), and importation was therefore unnecessary. He knew by experience that the Unionists were free traders, but as soon as they went to England they were protectionists. South African trade must be protected in the interests of the future of the country. The country was young, and must be made strong, so that afterwards they could compete with other countries. In Canada the import dues produced 72 per cent of the ordinary revenue. From the 31st May to 31st December, 1910, meat had been imported to a value of £55,000. In 1911, it amounted to £106,000., In the first three months of 1912, their imports would amount, to about £27,000. The bulk of that money was sent to Australia, and South Africa was by so much the poorer. By the * preference given in the tariff to English goods they were making a free grant of £600,000, and he thought the Government should try to abolish those tariffs and give the amount to the Impuerial Navy. In the report of the Industries Commission, a higher import due was recommended on ham and pork, but the question which he was discussing had not been dealt with. The Union export amounted to £55,000,000, of which only £12,000,000 consisted of agricultural produce. Of the latter figure, ostrich feathers and mohair represented £7,000,000. He regretted that small amount of exports, which, ought to be increased by means of protection, without which the country could make no progress. Too little money was invested in local industries. Money was available for bonds, but not for development of industries. A lot of ground was bought, not for farming purposes, but for speculation, and that injured the country, because it lost them the confidence of investors.

supported the motion. He had always taken up the standpoint that it was one of the first duties of the Legislature to protect industries against competition. There was, for example, the potteries at Olifantsfontein, which were now in their childhood. The grain farmers had been to the Government by deputation. They could not do much with the grain here owing to lack of labour and machinery, and yet it was imported. He thought that was an intolerable position, and that both grain and meat should be protected. They had an abundance of meat here, and still it was imported from Australia. According to the Customs Convention every colony could levy dues on meat.

seconded the motion, and said the Prime Minister had expressed himself at Bloemfontein as being in favour of protecting all industries with a raison d’être. What be wanted to know was were the Government going to carry out that policy in the Transvaal? There were sold in the Transvaal three kinds of meat, namely, good meat, second quality, and so-called “compound” meat. Meat was imported for Kafir use. Especially the goat farmers complained that their meat had to take second place to that from Australia. The Transvaal imported the most meat, and there should now be a higher duty. In the Cape there was meat available, and yet they preferred to import it from abroad, so that whilst they had Union, the Provinces were still treating one another as foreigners, Many people had cattle, but could not sell it, because the great market was closed to them owing to the preference for imported meat.

said that really what hon. members wanted was to compel them all to eat Angora goat flesh. To his mind, to put a penny on the duty could only have one effect and that was to put up the price of meat. It was all right to say that the butcher would have to pay it, but surely they did not suppose that the butcher would pay a penny a pound more duty and not take it out of the consumer. Only the other day a contract was given at Wynberg by the Military, and they found that frozen meat was 9s. 9d. cheaper per 100 lbs. than Cape meat. He wanted to point out something his hon. friends seemed ignorant of, and that was, that as a matter of fact, the Transvaal was an increasing market for slaughter cattle and the like. In 1904 the railway carried 24,318 head of slaughter cattle; but in 1909 the figures had increased to 94,611. Take sheep. In 1904 the sheep, goats and pigs sent to the Rand by the railway was 328,000, and in 1909 it was 542,000. That did not show that they had been squeezed out of the Johannesburg market. He thought it was fair to infer that traffic to the Rand was still increasing. It was absurd; it was not fair, and it was not correct to say, for one moment, that the Colonial producer of meat and stock was being squeezed out of the market. Then again, the price of sheep was going up. When the motion was on the table he took the trouble of satisfying himself as to the price of sheep. He found that 15s. was the value put on a sheep weighing 45 lbs. Now they told him the price was going up and it was 16s. and 16s. 6d. They had to remember that the frozen meat imported into Cape Town by sea was mostly used by the military, who paid no duty, by shipping and by German Southwest Africa. A recent report stated that as the result of East Coast fever in Natal no local meat was procurable. The farmers had not the slightest doubt, if they put in Maritzburg. Well, would it not be very unjust in face of the shortage to put on an increased duty? He thought he had shown, clearly that so far as the Rand was concerned it was an improving market, and he thought he had also shown that the price of sheep was increasing; and certainly the price of wool was going up. And he had not the slightest doubt, if they put on this extra penny a pound, they would send up the price of meat on the Rand. His advice to them was to let well alone under the circumstances.

said the question was one of the first importance, and well worthy the attention of everyone, and especially of cattle farmers and consumers of meat. The question of increasing the import dues affected not only meat, but many other articles, and such increases should not take place piecemeal, but the question should be dealt with as a whole. The increase in the meat imports was chiefly due to the importation of beef, beef at the end of 1910 having been very scarce in Johannesburg. The mines required a particular sort of meat for the Kafirs, and it was impossible by legislation to compel anybody to eat goat flesh so long as he preferred beef. In the Transkei there were about one and a half million cattle, from which the Rand drew its supplies, but when East Coast fever broke out in the Transkei, a scarcity of meat was feared, and Johannesburg imported beef in large quantities. That importation would speedily come to an end There should he uniformity, both in regard to taxes and to import duties. The hon. member who had brought the motion forward had told them that imported meat was not used in the Cape Province. Only the military authorities imported meat, and that was free of duty. In the Cape therefore no one would pay an extra tax on account of the increased duties. In the Transvaal he (the Minister), had always opposed taxation which might injure the other colonies, and had always kept in view a future Union. Since the Union, a Commission had been appointed, had reported, and in connection with that report the Minister of Commerce and Industries had made an announcement. If they now resolved to increase the duty on meat, they would at once receive requests for an increase of the duties on wheat and other foodstuffs. During that sitting there would be no time to consider a Customs Bill. The consideration of the Estimates would certainly occupy them six weeks, and the question of Customs dues must be postponed till the following year. Of the meat imports to a value of £105,000, a good deal was re-exported to German South West Africa. There were plenty of sheep in South Africa, but still ham and pork and suchlike were imported to a value of £250,000. It would be excellent if the farmers would devote themselves to the production of these articles. The farmers in South Africa could not yet compete with Australia, seeing that every year from three to five million sheep died in South Africa, representing a dead loss of from £2,000,000 to £5,000,000. A farmer began here with a few ewes, and kept them until they died of old age. They ate grass and other food, even when they had ceased to be of value, whilst in Australia they kept the sheep for a certain number of years, and then they were disposed of. If that system were applied in South Africa, the country would make good progress, and overtake Australia, because it was so much closer to the European markets. The farmers would do much better if they had fewer cattle, and handled them in a more systematic manner. The hon. member for Jansenville should not press the motion, but await the proper time. When the Customs Tariff came up as a whole for review, he (the Minister) would support an increase. He felt that an end must be made to this importation of meat. Meanwhile the use of native-grown meat was increasing, as witness the number of sheep slaughtered in Johannesburg. In 1904, 100,000 sheep were slaughtered in Johannesburg, and in 1911. there were 770,000 sheep, of which 500,000 came from the Cape. There was therefore great progress, and he felt certain that during the following year no more meat would be imported, but that it would be exported.

moved that the debate be adjourned till April 3.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved that Live of absence for this session be granted to the Hon. Mr. Maydon, member for Darban, Greyville.

seconded.

Agreed to.