House of Assembly: Vol1 - MONDAY MARCH 25 1912
for legislation prohibiting the sale of liquor to aboriginal natives.
for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto.
for legislation prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor to natives.
for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto.
for the extension of the Wolvehoek—Heilbron railway to Lindley and the Harrismith—Kroonstad line (two petitions).
from J. H. Struwig, late police constable.
as chairman, brought up the First Report of the Select Committee on Native Affairs.
It was ordered to be printed and considered on Thursday, the 4th April.
Third annual report, Board of Commissioners of Land and Agricultural Loan Fund (Natal), nine months ending 31st March, 1911.
This report was referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.
The debate was resumed on the motion to go into Committee of Supply on the Estimates of Expenditure to be incurred during the year ending March 31, 1913, from the Consolidated Revenue and Railways and Harbour Funds respectively.
said that he would endeavour as briefly as possible, knowing the value of the time of the House, to deal with the position of the railways and harbours. The subject was one of the greatest importance to the public, and he would try to convey the position as clearly as possible, within a reasonable time. On the 31st December, 1910, the number of miles of railway in the Union belonging to the Government was 7,041, and on the 31st December last, 7,545, an addition of 507 miles. Of this the Cape had 69 miles, Natal 54, the Transvaal 293—in this, as in most important matters, the Transvaal was well to the fore and the Free State 89. The number of miles under construction to-day was 901–– of which 526 miles had been authorised since Union—apportioned as follows: Cape, 286 ; Transvaal, 462 ; Free State, 83 ; and Natal, 67. It was estimated that before the close of the ensuing financial year there would be completed another 775 miles of railway. He said nothing of those lines which he hoped would be authorised during the present session. That was a subject which he would not venture to introduce at this stage, because he feared that it would lead to considerable differences. He would, however, say this, that when the scheme was proposed, hon. members would find that his sins had rather been sins of omission than of commission. So much for the railways which were owned and which had been authorised and which were likely to be completed during the ensuing financial year. The quantity or rolling stock on December 31, 1910, was: Locomotives, 1,412; coaches, 2,141; goods vehicles, 22,848; and on December 31 last, the figures were, respectively, 1,421; 2,242, and 23,350. It would be seen that there had been a considerable increase. The question of the sufficiency of rolling stock was a matter that had been continually before them. The people of this country were very impatient of delay in the despatch or receipt of goods that had been ordered, and were often not reasonable ; and if the demands for rolling stock that were sometimes made on special occasions were supplied, they would have to find a large quantity of rolling stock that, for the greater part of the year, would not be employed. But, as showing what had been done, and the headway that had been made since Union, he would like to give the following figures.
Immediately prior to Union, there were purchased 682 engines, wagons, and carriages, at a cost of £699,000 or £700,000. Since Union, 1,331 engines, wagons, and carriages had been ordered at a cost of £1,082,000, and it was proposed to ask Parliament during the present session to authorise the ordering of 736 engines, wagons, and carriages, amounting to £791,000. They would see from this that the total amount was £2,573,000, including the amount which he intended to ask Parliament for during the present session. That large sum would have been spent since the advent of Union, including the small portion purchased before Union and paid for afterwards. Now, the approximate capital expenditure on Joan from money obtained from revenue was as follows: On the 31st December, 1910, the railway capital was £62,111,000; for rolling stock, £13,441,000. On the 31st December, 1911, £63,797,000 for railways, and rolling stock, £14,101,000. The total for 1910 was: £86,551,000; to the 31st December, 1911, £89,412,000. In this connection, speaking of the rolling stock and the permanent way, he would like to mention a matter to which attention had been drawn by the Assistant Auditor-General. In his report he drew attention to the fact that in his opinion the amount that should have been contributed to depreciation of the Union Railways was £6,000,000, and to that amount their assets is depreciated. Well, that was a very serious matter, and members would remember that the Auditor-General also drew attention to this matter. There was, taking the scale which was adopted by the Central South African Railways, no doubt a deficiency. If they took that scale for the Union—but he did not think it was a scale that was adopted generally elsewhere ; and even if it had been the scale as he understood from the statement of the Treasurer, the amount which was set aside depended very much upon the revenue for the time being, and was not, therefore, always in proportion to the amount of capital in respect of which depreciation had taken place. Sometimes it was more and sometimes it was less. If there was an overflowing Treasury, then the amount was large ; if there was not such a large surplus, or that part was applied to some equally useful purpose, then the amount was reduced. Taking, however, the scale referred to, the Union Railways, on December 31, would be short by £7,278,000. First let him say that their assets had been valued by the Engineer-in-Chief with the assistance of the Chief Mechanical Engineer, and taking the value which they put upon it there was an arrear of £7,278,000. He knew that some members thought that since the railways did not contribute anything towards the Sinking Fund it was necessary that they should contribute towards depreciation to the fullest extent. On that there was a division of opinion. An hon. gentleman who sat on the opposite side, who had himself been a general manager of railways, seemed to think that the amount which had been taken was far in excess of what was necessary, and he (the Minister) was amused when he said so the other day to find some members opposite, who he always thought held different views, cheer him when announcing that view. There was something to be set off against it. In the first place if they took the Auditor-General’s view the land between Cape Town and Simon’s Town utilised for railway purposes had appreciated enormously, and so had the land as far up as Worcester, and indeed all over South Africa it had appreciated in value. Then in other respects the assets other than these had improved. But this was an important fact of which no notice had been taken. It had been said that the Cape and Natal had not contributed anything towards betterment. They did not have a separate betterment fund, but they did contribute though it was not called betterment, and so did the C.S.A.R. Contribution was made of large sums prior to Union out of revenue for betterment and special work, and even for the renewal of assets. The Cape contributed something like £2,585,995 ; Natal £1,153,000; the C.S.A.R., £2,149,267, or a total of £5,837,000. Now, the Assistant Auditor General in arriving at the statement that there was a deficiency did not take into consideration this sum of nearly £5,090,000. Therefore, according to this, the real deficiency, not taking into account the increased value of land and other assets belonging to the railways, but taking these figures as betterment in the way in which he had indicated, only left a deficiency of £1,300,060—a very different sum to what was estimated. He could only say further if the railways and harbours were saleable assets he was sure that at the present moment they were worth more than the amount at which they stood in the books of the administration.
In connection with this question of depreciation just prior to Union, the General Manager of Railways was requested—indeed, he did not know that he did not suggest ’it—that a list should be made of all railway material along the line, especially along recently-constructed lines, and where there had been reballasting and relaying. Anyone travelling must have noticed the railway material at different places, and wondered why it was there. Inquiries were made, and competent people were sent out. The material was catalogued and valued, with the following result ; there was found lying on the veld rails and fastenings to the value of £140,000 ; sleepers, £93,000; bridge work, £10,000; scrap and old material, £85,000; machinery, £21,000; mechanical stores, £122,000; and general stores, £76,000—making altogether £551,000 worth of railway material, most of which could be used, and a great deal of which was already being used, in connection with new lines. It had since been collected, and was now stored, and was being used up as far as possible. This was not, he believed, all there was, but the matter was being continued, and he expected a considerable quantity more, of a considerable value, would be found and stored before long. (Cheers.) Now, the number of staff employed on the 10th of December, 1910, amounted to 52,591 ; and in February of the present year the number was 51,434. There was a decrease, and it was to be found among the people employed on construction; fewer men were now being used. The number of what were called white labourers on December 31, 1910, on open lines (people who were employed permanently) was 1,775 ; and on the 31st December, 1911, the figures had increased to 2,581. He did not want to go into this question again. He had referred to it before, but he would only say this: it was the policy of the Administration to continue to employ an increasing number of white labourers. (Cheers.) Sometimes he had been criticised for not employing more white labour. At other times, from more or less the same quarters, the criticism had been that the pay of the white labourers was insufficient ; but he could find a sufficient number of men to do the work on the tariff of pay offered, and these men were, strange to say, the people who complained the least about it. These were people who did manual labour. This, he might say, was the policy first initiated in the Transvaal, and it was being carried on, he thought, with very great success.
He would like to repeat that these people entered the service at 3s. 6d. a day. After a month they got an increase to 4s., and after that they were increased by stages to 5s. In addition to that, they supplied housing to many of these people, and intended, if the House would give him the money he wanted, to house a great many more of them in the coming financial year. And among these people receiving 5s. a day a very considerable extent of promotion was taking place—something like 400 per annum. Whether that promotion was welcome in certain quarters he did not know, but it was taking place. Now they had heard a deal about the amount of wages paid—and this was a matter of such vital importance to the country—he had had some figures taken out as regarded the salaries and wages paid on the railways. If they took the monthly average of salaries, exclusive of local allowance, of all the salaried staff—that was from the general manager down to the young fellow who joined at perhaps £3 or £4 a month—the average salary was, in the Transvaal and Free State £17 10s. a month, in the Cape £17 15s., and in Natal £15 5s. Well, he could quite understand some people being surprised that it should be more at the Cape than in the Transvaal, but the reason was that there were more long-service men in the Cape. If they took the salaried staff of under £500 a year down to the lowest, then it came out at £16 in the Transvaal, £16 10s. in the Cape, and £14 15s. in Natal. The Cape was still the dearest, and again for the reason that the men had longer service. Well, he had seen it said frequently that there was a great difference between the salaries paid, and the wages paid. Take a skilled artisan. His monthly wage was £20, and was therefore in excess of the average of all salaried men, and in excess of the salaried men at £500 a year. Still, for artisans in the Transvaal the average pay was £20, and he was not surprised to hear it, as the pay was 19s. a day at Johannesburg. In the Cape it was £16 5s. a month for mechanics, and in Natal £17 10s. ; therefore skilled artisans got a lower wage in the Cape.
Now, he did not think that that was a contemptible wage, and he was not surprised that his friends on the cross-benches advocated that all private railways should become State railways. (Laughter.) He should like to point out a very important fact: that they paid now in wages and salaries very nearly 63 per cent, of the working expenditure, which for the ensuing year had been estimated at £6,591,000. That was to say, they paid £4,400,000 for wages and salaries, or, in other words, for every £3 the railway earned to-day it paid £2 in wages and salaries; and he doubted whether they would find many railways in which there was such a proportion as there was here. Now in that connection, speaking of the staff, if they remembered that last session it had been urged upon the Government, and, with his usual consideration in such matters, he had acceded to the request of his hon. friend the leader of —he would not say small party—but the vigilant party—(Labour cheers)—not the aggressive party—(laughter)—in response to a very urgent request—and he had been told that the railway service was seething with discontent, that they were on the verge of a strike and that very great hardships had been incurred and endured—and he had appointed a Railway Grievances Commission. He must say that when he first went to the Transvaal, when the change was brought about by Union, one of the things which surprised him most was what he heard and what he read of the state of feeling amongst the railway people in the Transvaal. They had been accustomed to something very different in the Cape, whether it was the atmosphere or not he did not know; but he believed, and still believed, that at the Cape they had a personnel which might be called fairly contented, as a whole. When he got to the Transvaal he found a very different state of affairs; and on the first occasion he spoke—it was true that it had been at an election time—(laughter)—he promised that he would appoint a commission. He believed that there was discontent, and he believed that there is still discontent ; but he was sure of this, that it had been very much exaggerated. He did not on that account regret that the Commission had been appointed, because it would be found that if there had been no other justification for the Commission, there would be the justification that most of the alleged discontent had been found to be exaggerated.
The Commission was composed of very competent men, indeed, who were also conscious that there were two sides to the transaction ; and that, while one must be fair to the persons employed, one must also have due regard to the public interest. That Commission had sent in its first report ; he had seen the chairman a few days ago, and he had told him that they would hurry on with the second and final report, so that it could be laid on the table of the House. The first report he had gone through, and he was afraid that many people would be disappointed. Out of a number of something like 400 complaints which had come before the Commission, something like 67 per cent, related to the question of pay. He was surprised that there was not 100 per cent. (Laughter.) The others were all comparatively trivial. He was sure, if members read the report, they would see that a great deal of what had been said was exaggerated, and that there were people even who were not always actuated by altruistic motives.
When shall we have it?
As soon as I get it.
Will you lay it on the table?
The hon. member asks me whether I will lay it on the table of the House. I have no objection at all; but you must remember that it will have to be printed, but he is quite at liberty to see it now, if he wishes—or any other hon. member ; and I will be quite willing to let them see it. Continuing, he said that partly arising out of that discontent, or alleged discontent, and other matters which had been brought to his notice, he had discussed with the General Manager the advisability of appointing a Commission to inquire into matters relating to the existing workshops—they had a very large number of men employed there, and spent vast sums of money in connection with these workshops; and it was necessary, in the interests of the State, that they should know that they were getting value for that money, and that these institutions were conducted with economy and efficiency. He ventured to say that the Commission which had been appointed was the most competent for the purpose which could be obtained in South Africa; and he doubted whether anywhere in the world one could get a more competent one. The chairman was Mr. Gilmour, chief engineer of the Randfontein mines, who was regarded as one of the very best men they could get anywhere for the work they had been called upon to undertake. Another member of the Commission was Mr. Beatty, formerly chief locomotive engineer of the C.G.R.—a most competent man ; and another member was Mr. Hendrie, who was now chief mechanical engineer of the South African Railways. The other was Mr. Collins, the mechanical superintendent of the South African Railways, also occupying a very high and important position. One of the points to which they were asked to give attention was the following: “The proper number of artisans and other staff to be employed at the several workshops in relation to the volume of work and the existing accommodation.” The reports had come, and it seemed to be rather the fashion nowadays to have majority and minority reports. They had a majority report and two minority reports. What he was going to read was a summary of the report in regard to the volume of work under the existing circumstances. The committee pointed out “that the number of artisans required to execute a certain volume of work depends upon the workshop facilities provided, and on the efficiency of the work, and as a first step, therefore, the committee endeavoured to measure the relative efficiency of what is apparently the most efficient workshop.” He might say that this was the most important question put to the Commission. The majority report had been signed by Mr. Gilmour, as chairman, and Mr. Collins, and a minority report had been received from Mr. Hendrie. Mr. Beatty had also sent in a report.
According to the report of the majority, the most efficient workshops were summarised as follows: Bloemfontein, 100. It did not follow that that was the highest standard of efficiency, but the highest standard existing at present was at Bloemfontein and Pretoria. The report went on afterwards to show that the efficiency even at Bloemfontein and Pretoria could be improved but at present it was the highest. These were the relative positions of the different workshops: Loco, repairs, Salt River, 86 per cent. ; Uitenhage, 55 per cent. (“Oh.”) Was it that attention was given too much to—well, he would not say what. (A VOICE: “Politics.”) At East London the figure was 69, at Bloemfontein 100, Pretoria 98.9, and Durban 58.0. Durban was the place where they had been most insistent that they should have what were called “full political rights”—laughter)—i.e., rights which the men had not got in the Cape Colony, the O.F.S., or the Transvaal, rights which an ordinary Civil Servant had not got, rights which the General Manager of Railways had not got, and rights which no railwaymen other than those of Natal had got. They were asked to give them political rights. (A VOICE: They had them once.) They would not have them again, not even for the support—and he valued it—of a certain quarter. His business was to run these railways as efficiently and economically as he could. (Hear, hear.) Then they came to coaching repairs, for which the figures were as follows: Salt River, 78 ; Uitenhage, 51 ; East London, 51 ; Bloemfontein, 76 ; Pretoria, 100; Durban, 74. (Hear, hear.) Under the heading of wagon repairs Salt River was very bad indeed—45. Uitenhage was creeping up—46. East London was 54, Bloemfontein 100, Pretoria 99.5, and Durban 66.5. He could quite understand some of the hon. gentlemen not liking this information.
I am quite enjoying it.
said that this was information which he thought the House should be in possession of. (Hear, hear.) He thought the country should be in possession of it, because they could not go on like this. (Hear, hear.) The figures for all repairs were as follows: Salt River, 69 ; Uitenhage, 52 ; East London, 60 ; Bloemfontein, 100; Pretoria, 99.8; Durban, 61. It was very remarkable. He had no constituents at Pretoria. (Laughter.)
You might wish to have (Laughter.)
I have got as many as I want, and I could get more. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he said that the question naturally arose, what was the excess of men in the different workshops? In order to ascertain the number of men required if the efficiency of each centre should be raised to the level of the most efficient, that was Bloemfontein and Pretoria—and if they could do it at Pretoria and Bloemfontein, it could be done elsewhere—the figures given were applied to the skilled and semiskilled staff, with the following result: At the different workshops the skilled and semi-skilled staff actually employed amounted to 4,672. These gentlemen found, in view of the facts they had mentioned, that the staff for the work required was 5,574, in other words there were 1,298 surplus men. (Hear, hear.)
The report went on to say also that as to the ratio of the unskilled labour, both black and white, with the skilled and semiskilled workmen, varied at the different shops, and as it was upon the latter that the labour efficiency of a shop really depended, the unskilled workmen were not included in the foregoing figures, but if the relative efficiency figures were applied to the whole staff, including white and black unskilled labourers, the following would be the result: Salt River, 586 ; Uitenhage, 351 ; East London, 209 ; Pretoria, 3 ; Bloemfontein, nil; Durban, 838; or a total of 1,787.
It meant that if they took the minority report, the additional cost would be about *£41,000, and if they took the majority report, it would be about £226,095 per annum. He could assure the House that he did not think the Government could have appointed a more competent Commission. He had said, and he always wished to be explicit upon that point, that men should not be meanly or niggardly paid, but it was not right that they should employ a larger number of artisans than was actually wanted. (Ministerial cheers.)
On the point of piece-work, the report pointed out that both the C.S.A.R. Commission of 1907-8 and the-Staff Committee appointed since Union had dealt with the matter at length, and recommended the introduction of piecework, and the conclusions of the Commission were substantially the same. The members were convinced from personal observation, as well as from their experience of workshop practice elsewhere, that some additional incentive was necessary to secure the maximum of sustained effort of which the average workman was reasonably capable, and they were of opinion that a system of piece-work, properly organised and controlled, offered the most suitable means of attaining this end, coupled with the most satisfactory results to both employee and employer. The committee were satisfied that the greatest care had been taken in introducing piece-work both at Pretoria and Bloemfontein to avoid unjustifiable rate cutting, and the balances constantly earned by the men, at both shops, over their ordinary rate of pay, were conclusive evidence that the introduction of the piece-work system was in no way prejudicial to the interests of the employee in that respect. The inquiries of the committee had further led them to believe that the men were in no way opposed to this, but had been largely persuaded into opposing it by their Trade Union officials. (“Hear, hear,” and ironical laughter from the Labour members.) The committee recommended that piece-work be introduced into the machine and boiler shops at once, and extended to the other departments of the workshops as soon as possible. The Majority Report also recommended that the conditions attaching to piece-work in Natal be withdrawn, and that no guarantee of a full day’s pay be given, for reasons set out in the report. The committee believed that in no other country were railway artisans treated so liberally in the matter of leave, while in comparison with the ordinary artisans, their treatment was generous in the extreme. The committee also believed that the wages compared favourably with those of the outside workers.
It might be necessary, in the interests of the Union, to effect retrenchment, the consequence of which must fall hardly on some, but he would endeavour to make the fall as easily as possible. Before long, steps would have to be taken to remedy a condition of things which was not in the best interests of the railway. (Hear, hear.) There was another Commission—it had been said that they lived on Commissions, and possibly they would have said the same of the Government if they had been on the other side of the House. There was no doubt whatever that the average man in South Africa had not quite appreciated —he (Mr. Sauer) did not ask for mercies or for favours—but he did not think the average man appreciated the difficulties connected with the change of administration from four separate Colonies. That required time. They could not make any great changes without the most minute information requiring the most careful inquiry. On that account it was necessary to appoint Commissions on which they must have men with special and expert knowledge. He had information which, for platform or election purposes, would create a sensation, but no wise Minister would deal with such a question unless he were fortified by the fullest information, and it was for that reason that Commissions had been appointed. The other Commission to which he referred was the one dealing with harbours. That Commission was presided over by a distinguished Cape Town merchant, who was well known all over South Africa—Mr. Ludwig Wiener—and he was assisted by persons with special knowledge, and with local knowledge. They brought up a report of a most interesting character. He (Mr. Sauer) did what was somewhat unusual. As soon as he got the report, being a democrat, he sent a copy of it to the Chambers of Commerce all over South Africa and also to the Harbour Advisory Boards, so as to get their views and to hear their suggestions.
Did you send it to the Trades Unions?
No ; they are only workers.
I did what I thought was necessary in the public interests. Proceeding, Mr. Sauer said the methods of working the different harbours were not identical, the method of levying dues was not identical, and the conditions under which the services at the different harbours were performed were not identical. (Hear, hear.). The Commission made valuable suggestions. One port—which thought it was the best managed port in the best of all possible worlds—he need not say which port it was—(Laughter)—thought that no improvements could be made. There was another port, less ambitious, which also thought its management as perfect as possible. One thing, however, was quite clear, that this heterogeneous arrangement we had now could not continue. Whether they would follow the lead of the best-managed port, he would not say—whether they would take the best out of each, he would not say.
A very important recommendation had been made. Before Union there was a deficiency on harbours. He was going to take steps to endeavour to cure that, tie thought the harbours should pay for themselves. (Ministerial cheers.) As it was, the people who enjoyed the privilege of living on the seashore paid precious little towards the railways. Why the man up-country, who kept the railways going, should, in addition, pay on the harbours, seemed to him unfair. He thought steps must be taken to bring the harbour expenditure in harmony with the revenue. He threw out the suggestion, that instead of having a complicated system of harbour dues, most difficult to understand, the dues should be levied on imported goods only. Everybody used imported goods—the man at the ports and the man up-country, and the exports should be freed from any dues at all. That would enable the producer better to compete with other parts of the world. At the same time, they made the man up-country pay his proportion as well as the man at the seashore. He thought that would be the simplest way to meet the deficiency. But be the method what it might be, he thought the time had come when steps ought to be taken—he believed there was also a question as to whether each individual harbour should be made to pay—(hear, hear)—to make the harbours as a whole to pay He foresaw a vista of discussion and disagreement on that question. (Hear, hear.) But a solution must be arrived at, and if he had to make it he naturally thought that his solution would be the best possible, and hoped that it would give satisfaction. (Cheers and laughter.)
He wished to show by a few figures one of the outstanding features of the revenue of the railways for the last year, namely, the large increase in passenger traffic. In 1009 first-class passengers gave a yield of £703,000, in 1910 £813,000, and in 1911 £890,000. The totals for the second-class were: 1909 £250,000, 1910 £280,000, and 1911 £308,000. The number had increased from 33,700,849 for 1910 to 37,165,000 for 1911. He then came to the people of Cape Town, that poor community which had recently been asking for some consideration because of its loss on account of the capital arrangement, asking for the small sum of £30,000, that poor community which to-day was perhaps the most prosperous town in the Union. (Hear, hear.) Yes, he was delighted at the fact. Then it asked for the very large sum of £30,000 because of the loss it had sustained on account of Union. Passenger traffic between Cape Town and Simon’s Town for the year 1911-12 had gone up enormously. It had gone up from 80,000 to 110,000 passengers, and during the present season of four months the number was 56,550. He was very glad that was so. He hoped it would continue with the greater facilities afforded. In connection with the nature of the traffic upon our railways he wished to point out how steadily the carriage of South African produce was increasing, while the traffic in respect of imported goods was decreasing. (Hear, hear.) He hoped that his farmer friends would not think that because of what he had said there was no room for making a further advance. These people who lectured the farmers did not try their hand at it themselves. (Hear, hear.) The Colonial produce carried on the railways was steadily increasing. In 1911 they carried 11,080,000 tons, of which 8,309,000 were South African produce. (An HON. MEMBER: What about coal?) There had been an increase in coal traffic. The figures were 6,000,000 and 6,328,000, an increase of 328,000, which was not so very much. Sugar had gone up, so had wool, skins, hides, and agricultural produce generally. This showed that all along the line there was an increase in Colonial produce, and he hoped that it would continue. He had no doubt that with the good rainy season they had had that at least in the immediate future there would be even more of this produce carried on the railways than hitherto. Had there been time he would like to have quoted the difference between the rates in respect of most farming produce, the difference between our rates and those prevailing on the Australian railways. Generally speaking, the rates were much lower here than in any of the Australian colonies. With the exception of forage and agricultural machinery all the products enumerated in the schedule he had before him were much lower than obtained in any of the Australian colonies. In wool this was particularly the case. In regard to coal, in a country like South Africa, where we bought coal at a lower rate than anywhere else in the world, we carried coal at a lower rate than in Australia, although he had heard from a colony supposed to be of light and leading that they had been complaining very bitterly about the rates of coal—(An HON. MEMBER: “For export.”)—and they said it was much higher than elsewhere, whereas, as a matter of fact, coal was carried at a lower rate here than in Australia. (An HON. MEMBER: What is the difference?) He would read the figures. Over a distance of fifty miles our rate was 4s., in Australia the lowest was 4s. ; for a hundred miles, the figures were respectively 6s. 6d. and 7s. 2d., for 200 miles 9s. 4d. and 10s. 5d., for 300 miles 11s. 9d. and 14s. 6d. The difference was very considerable. In regard to live-stock, as far as large animals went., the rates in South Africa were the very cheapest, but for sheep—(An HON. MEMBER: “Oh”)—they were slightly higher. He had other interesting information, but the time was getting on, and he would not detain the House. The Treasurer yesterday spoke of a little difference—quite a friendly difference—that existed between the Treasurer and the Railway Department on the question of on what capital the railway should pay interest.
The capital on railways and harbours, on which the Administration was liable for interest, had formed the subject of discussion between the Administration and the Treasury. Under the provisions of section 127 of the South Africa Act, the railways and harbours were required to defray from earnings the necessary outlay for interest due on capital, not being capital contributed out of railway or harbour revenue, and not including any sums payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, in accordance with sections 130 and 131 of the Act. The Administration contended that the meaning of the section was that interest should only be paid on a sum representing the unredeemed loan capital invested in the railways and harbours at the date of Union, plus, of course, subsequent withdrawals from the Treasury on capital account. On the other hand, the contention of the Treasury was that the words, “not being capital contributed from railway or harbour revenue.” had reference only to revenue that might be contributed to capital account after the date of Union, and that the term “interest due on capital” must be taken to mean that the Administration was liable for interest on the total. The total capital expenditure on railways and harbours to May 30, 1910, was £88,595,705, but there were contributions from general revenue of: Redemption of loans, £3,561,185, and capital expenditure, £9,453,001, giving a total of £13,014,186, to which must be added contributions from revenue of railways to capital account, £1,680,749, and contributions from revenue of harbours, £661,996, a total of £15,356,931, so that £73,238,774 was the amount on which the Administration contended interest should be paid. This would make a difference annually of £456,000 in the amount of interest to be paid in perpetuity to the Treasury, and would be to that extent in excess of the amount the Treasury was called upon to disburse in interest on loan capital invested in railways and harbours. His hon. friend, in his speech on the Budget last Friday, drew attention to the fact that, under section 127 of the South Africa Act, the Railway and Harbour Administration was relieved from making any contribution to the sinking fund in respect of debt incurred for railways and harbours, and that the liability for the contribution fell on the Treasury. That was so; but the amount of £456,000 was in excess of the amount, £570,000, payable to the sinking fund in respect of that portion of the debt which was applicable to railways and harbours, and did not reduce the capital on which interest was payable, but went into general revenue, and helped to defray the cost of catching that useful bird, the Barbary ostrich. (Laughter.) Now he would come to a most necessary part. The estimate of revenue submitted to Parliament last session was £11,181,000. There had been, he was happy to say, a surplus over revenue of £1,011,000—the actual amount over the estimate would be £1,011,000 When he said actual he meant as near as possible, because they were near the end of the financial year, so it might be taken that the actual excess would be £1,011,000. He would not say that it was very good estimate; but it was difficult to estimate revenue in this country whether one was the Treasurer-General or the Minister of Railways. A drought might make all the difference, and the position in Europe and America might make a very serious difference to our railway revenue. From that would have to be taken £652,355, expenditure and interest. And to the £1,011,000 had to be added subsidiary services £43,000, and there had been a saving of £26,000 on harbours. That meant that the position was now as follows: There was £1,011,000 in excess on the revenue estimate. Expenditure, £652,000, leaving a balance of £420,346. They had then a balance of £75,391 10s. 10d., being balance at 31st March, 1911, making the total balance £504,346, giving them a total of £429,346. The excess in revenue was very largely owing to passengers. The additional expenditure of £650,000 included £440,000 in interest. Then there was also an amount of £70,000 real estate, and £22,000 had been spent on rails, and £22,000 on sleepers. This was provided last year out of loan moneys, but this year it was decided that it must not be paid out of revenue. The position was, therefore, as follows: £70,000 was for real estate, £22,000 for rails, £22,000 for sleepers, and £110,000 for renovation of stations, etc. Then there was £25,000 for compensation in connection with the Gaika Loop accident. And for the current year a balance of £504,755. Out of this he proposed to give his hon. friend the Minister of Finance in his modest and fair request, £500,000, leaving him (the speaker) then on the transaction with a small balance of £4,735.
Reduced rates.
No ; this is what comes from the financial year. Yes, there were reduced rates; but this is simply appropriating the surplus revenue on the current financial year which leaves us a net balance of £429,000, which with the surplus of the previous years gives me £504,000, out of which my hon. friend takes £500,000, leaving me a balance of £4,755. Now I come to the railway estimate for the ensuing financial year. Proceeding, he said the estimate of revenue for the ensuing year was £12,116,000. The estimate for the last year was £11,967,000, and that gave an estimate for the ensuing year of £148,887 in excess of railways, and on harbours £1,191. The estimate for harbours was £896,000, and if they added that to £12,116,000 it gave a total revenue estimate of £13,013,000. It would be seen that the expenditure was estimated at £11,027,000: Loss on harbours was estimated at £378,000 ; for betterment, £600,000; for rates equalisation, £70,000. Continuing, he said the expenditure was £11,027,000, and if they added to that £378,674 for loss on harbours, betterment, rates equalisation, and unappropriated £40,000, it would give a balance of £12,116,000. Let him put it again:
Estimated expenditure |
£11,027,000 |
Loss on harbours |
378,000 |
Betterment |
600,000 |
Rates equalisation |
70,000 |
Unappropriated |
40,000 |
That equalled £12,116,000. Now, it would be seen that there was a considerable increase in the expenditure here. The increase in expenditure over 1911-12 was £1,219,000—Railways £1,113,000, and Harbours £105,000. This was how it was made up. There was £253,000 maintenance. This was due to the provision made for maintaining an additional 560 miles of line, increases granted to certain employees, substituting white for coloured labour, additional gangs required for special ballasting and renovation of buildings ; and the next was £108,000, which was due to a greater number of coaches and goods vehicles now in stock ; £80,000, maintenance of rolling stock and depreciation; £93,000, traffic expenses. This was due to the contemplated opening of new lines and new stations. Then there was the very large sum of £433,000 additional interest. Now, it would be seen that so far nothing had been said with regard to a very important matter and one in which members of the House took more interest—or a certain number of members—than in any other matter relating to the Budget. He would say that these estimates—the figures as read by him—the estimates of revenue were made on the basis of a certain sum of money being allowed for the reduction of the rates. That was to say, after the deductions which they contemplated, he proposed laving the estimates of revenue and expenditure in detail before the House, so that the whole position could easily be seen. The estimate of revenue which he had given there, was on the basis of the reduction of railway rates for a certain amount.
His hon. friend the Minister of Finance, in addressing the House in that very interesting speech which he had delivered on Friday, referred to the policy, and what would be the policy, of the Government ever since its formation, mainly of giving effect to that provision in the South Africa Act which required that after certain services had been met, the surplus should be devoted towards the reduction of railway rates for the inland parts of the Union. He might say that, as indeed on all things, on that they were a united Cabinet—(a laugh) —and they had only delayed in giving effect to that because they had taken advantage—and reasonably—of the further provision in the South Africa Act, which had been contemplated at the time as necessary, that they must wait for a little while, and certain arrangements must be adjusted, and the Government had to look around and take revenue out of the railway surplus. But he thought that the Minister of Finance was much to be congratulated, and he hoped that the public would appreciate the fact, that perhaps before the four years had elapsed the Treasury would make no further demands on the railways, and that they would then, in that case, be able to give effect to the provision of the South Africa Act which stated that, after certain services had been met, the railway rates must be reduced. Well, a good deal of that had been done already. Since Union, in the early part of the Union, during the first ten months of Union—he thought it had been in February, 1911—if not before, there was a reduction of £465,000 in the rates. True, that was mostly in the Cape Province, but it had been done to equalise the rates all over the Union; then the rates had been reduced in November by a further £121,000 ; and the present Estimates had been based on allowing for a reduction of rates of no less a sum than three-quarters of a million—£750,000—zeven honderd vyftig duizend pond. (Hear, hear.) He knew that in these days a million signified very little, and they hardly comprehended and apprehended what it meant ; but to give up fully three-quarters of a million in railway rates w.as a very large sum indeed. It was possible that in the future they might be in a position to make a further reduction, and nothing would give him greater satisfaction.
Will all the Provinces benefit?
My hon. friend asks me whether all the Provinces will benefit by this. In my opinion, all the parts that are furthest away from the sea will benefit most—and should benefit most. (Hear, hear.) (Mr. JAGGER: Where will you begin?) Where we shall begin is not an easy matter, but the principle is that long distant parts of the Union will benefit most by the reduction of rates proposed to be made. Continuing, he said that he would not now go into the question in detail in respect of on what these reductions would take place; but, broadly, he would say that what man wanted most was food; and, secondly, shelter, and in that he would include coal, and certainly and foremost, agricultural produce. (Hear, hear.) These were broadly the directions in which the reductions would take place. He hoped, before the House rose, to give it a full statement of what it is proposed to do. A large portion of the Cape Province is further away from the sea than any of the other Provinces; and, of course, it will benefit. With me, this is not a question of this Province or that Province, but the ruling factor will be the distance; therefore, the long distance will benefit most. Continuing, he said that they would then have—since Union and since he had the honour of being Minister of Railways—reduced the railway rates by £465,000, £121,000, and now another £750,000—(hear, hear)—making in all a sum of £1,500,000, which the railway would have given up in railway rates ; not that they expected that the public would be grateful—they were only grateful (he was understood to say) for favours to come. They had also contributed—land done so gladly—the “small” sum of £5,179,000 towards the relief of the general revenue. The result was that since Union, in remission of railway rates, and in contributions to the Treasury, the railway had handed over a sum of £4,479,000. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, he would say this: that the South African railways and harbours formed a most valuable asset—(hear, hear)—and if it was a business conducted with economy, economy, economy, it might continue to be a valuable asset ; but if they should give way to the pressure which was exercised by the public, by the Press, and by members of Parliament, and grant anything like the facilities that were asked for, then before very long, instead of being a very valuable asset, they might have to discuss and see how a deficiency would have to be met. Giving here and giving there what appeared to be a trifling sum might lead to very serious consequences, and valuable as that asset was, he was persuaded that the only way to keep it in a position which was beneficial to the State, and not otherwise, was to see that no money was spent which was not absolutely necessary to make it an efficient machine. (Cheers.)
who rose amid Opposition cheers, said he must confess that his hon. friend the Minister of Railways had not left that crispness of impression upon his hearers which they were accustomed to expect. There was one matter in particular to which he would like to draw attention, and on which he would like further information before they continued the discussion on the Estimates. He referred to the Estimates of Expenditure from loan expenditure. Hon. members would see in those Estimates an item for railways and harbours of £4,907,000. His hon. friend that afternoon did not mention that expenditure at all. He presumed that details of that item would be laid upon the table before they continued the discussion, because it was impossible for them to deal with a lump sum of £5,000,000 in discussing the proposals of the Government. They wanted time to discuss the position laid before them on Friday by the Minister of Finance. There were one or two points in that discussion to which he hoped the attention of the House would be directed. He hoped to draw the attention of the House to a most extraordinary statement made by the Minister. The proposal was one that, he thought, they had never heard the like of in any Parliament. During a time of abounding prosperity, during a time when every avenue of revenue was yielding more than its estimate, when the pockets of the Treasury were bulging, they found that the Treasurer not only budgeted for a deficit in the financial year about to be entered upon but that deficit he proposed to take from his sinking fund. (Hear, hear.)
There was one other point he wished to allude to now, and that was, that the Minister of the Interior told them a fortnight ago that he hoped to lay the Public Service Bill before the House in a few days, and he gave them to understand that it was in the hands of two departments, and, therefore, that occasioned some delay. He might tell his hon. friend in confidence that in another place it was discovered that this Bill was in his own department, that the Bill had been sent to his own department, and sent there some three weeks ago. He thought his hon. friend would find that that was correct. The position was this, they were drifting on through this session. They were dealing now with the Estimates of Expenditure, which would affect the whole of the public service in the country. But what expenditure they were fixing they really did not know. Seeing that Parliament should give the necessary authority for that expenditure by Act of Parliament, and should further lay down in an Act of Parliament the conditions under which the public service was carried on, he wanted the Minister of the Interior to understand that they would offer the most strenuous opposition to going into Committee of Supply unless that Bill were brought forward in the House. (Opposition cheers.) They thought it very essential that this measure should pass this session and that another year should not be allowed to pass until the public service was regulated by Act of Parliament, and not left to the whim of Ministers themselves, and that they would take all the steps that Parliament allowed them to take to prevent any further delay. It was obvious to them that the Minister had got a heavy programme in front of him. He had several important measures. If this Bill were to be carried, it must be laid on the table of the House at an early date. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate until Thursday.
The motion was agreed to.
IN COMMITTEE.
On clause 156,
desired an assurance from the Minister that nothing in the Act affected the present rights of any local authority.
said he could assure the hon. member that there was no practical fear of any such rights being affected or interfered with.
said that assurance was not clear enough. He would move, therefore, to make the point clear, that the following words be added after the word “law,” the words “agreement, judgment, or award.”
thought the amendment should have been put under section 25. The present clause was not the suitable place for it.
thought that whatever affected the point should be put into the clause.
hoped his hon. friend would allow the amendment to stand over till his right hon. friend had an opportunity of considering it.
desired to know how long they would have to wait for that opportunity.
said they would have an opportunity upon the consideration of the amendments.
moved to add at the end of the clause the words, “or any other source of supply.” They should be careful in guarding the interests of local authorities and to see that their water supplies, wherever drawn from, were properly protected. (Hear, hear.)
desired to know whether clause 156 was not antagonistic to clause 121.
said he took it that the committee were entirely agreed that if the amendment would make the Act clearer then they would put it in.
desired an interpretation of the word “now” in the clause. He moved to omit the word and to insert the words “prior to the passing of this Act.”
What comes in between “now” and “hereafter?” He said, it was in the interests of the whole country that the water rights of the administrative capital of the country should adequately be protected.
hoped the Minister would be exceedingly careful. It was necessary to make provision to protect existing rights that municipalities legally had acquired—(hear, hear)—but they must be exceedingly careful in accepting amendments which would destroy the whole argument of the Bill. Would it not be better for the Minister to allow the clause to be negatived and, after full consultation with the Minister of Native Affairs and other legal gentlemen in the House, introduce a new clause which would meet all the reasonable arguments advanced on the part of the municipalities?
said he was rather alarmed at the remarks of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. (Ministerial cheers.) That clause was put before the Irrigation Conference, and there it was constantly held that no existing rights, except dog-in-the-manger rights, would be touched. Irrigators had become alarmed since they had heard from the Minister of Native Affairs that existing rights would be touched. Hitherto they had thought that no existing rights would be infringed.
Nor will they.
said he was telegraphed for to go to a meeting of irrigators at Robertson on Saturday. That meeting was called by men who attended the Irrigation Conference. They had become alarmed lest their rights would be interfered with. He had the greatest objection to safeguards being withdrawn.
said the debate only increased the existing suspicions. If existing rights were assailed, he would vote against the third reading.
hoped that the Minister would accept the amendment, and not go back on the understanding they had come to.
denied that he wished to go back on anything. He pointed out that there had been ample time for amendments to be placed on the paper. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kimberley, who had taken that course, had been accepted. However, he did not want to cling to the clause without giving an opportunity for consideration of the amendment. He therefore moved that the clause stand over until they had disposed of the other clauses.
This was agreed to.
New clause 157,
“137. Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed as derogating from any powers granted under any law regulating expropriation of land for Government railways or harbours save that before exercising any powers conferred upon the Railway Administration in respect of expropriation of rights to water the officers of the said Administration shall consult the Minister.” He explained that the new clause did not give the railway any further powers, but merely safeguarded existing rights. As originally proposed there was some question about the second part of this new clause, but that had now been deleted.
Agreed to.
On clause 137,
moved to add at the end of the clause : “Except that the provisions of section 1 and of Chapters III., V., VI. and VII. shall not apply to any such lands set aside for the occupation of natives as are referred to in section 147 of the South Africa Act, 1909, unless and until the Governor-General has, by proclamation in the ‘Gazette,’ declared that those provisions shall apply to those lands, and the Governor-General may declare those provisions to apply to the whole or any portion of any such lands.”
Agreed to.
The committee reverted to clause 2.
On the definition of “owner,”
said that he had considered whether this clause could be made clearer in the direction suggested. The right hon. member for Victoria West had asked that it should he brought more into line with the Cape Act. On looking into the matter he found that two laws that ought to have been included in the Cape Act had been omitted, and he thought it better to have this general definition.
said that he had pointed out that several meanings were attached to the word “owner.” First there was the person whose title was registered in the Deeds Office. He had put the case before the Minister of the bona fide occupier, and had cited the case of Van der Merwe and another. He had asked the Minister to consider that question with regard to the bona fide occupiers of land. Then he had pointed out to him in respect to the phrase “or in whom the land is vested by law” that the words “by law” were no improvement on the Cape Act, which said “by Act of Parliament.” They might have land vested in a person by law but not by Act of Parliament. Was this phrase to mean Act of Parliament or the ordinary law? They might have land registered in the name of a person who died, and the land might then be vested by law in some legatee. To bring the matter to a head, he would propose in line 18 to omit “by law” and to insert the words “Act of Parliament,” which brought them back to the same position as was taken up in the Act of 1906. Land might be registered in A’s name and B might have the use of it.
said they were dealing with the Union and not the Cape Province. They should cover those cases which might be overlooked by an Act.
said that the case of the usufruct would not be met by the clause. If they proposed to deal with that, then they should amend the clause. A man might have a long lease. He did not think they should lose sight of the lessee.
moved as an amendment, after the word “vested,” to insert “under any law, Act or Parliament, or as a usufructuary under testamentary disposition.”
did not think it would meet the case entirely. He thought they should delete the words “is vested by law,” and insert “or the enjoyment thereof is vested by law, agreement, or testamentary disposition.” He moved to this effect.
wished to know how this clause would affect a person having the usufruct of the land.
replied that the next paragraph provided for this matter. The rights of children were protected.
put a question as to the rights of one who had the usufruct of a farm after a portion had been set aside for a child who had become of age.
said that a person who had the usufruct of a farm should not be regarded as the owner, as he would then be able to borrow money on it, which might be against the interests of the minor heirs.
referred the hon. member to the original definition of “owner.”
said that under the Cape Colony law the matter was clear. They had either to deal with persons in whose name the property was registered, or in whom there was a title vested by Act of Parliament. Now the right hon. gentleman had introduced the words “vested by law.” That opened up an entirely new vista. If property were bequeathed to “A,” with a usufruct in favour of “B,” that usufructuary had not got any land vested in him by law; but if instead of using these terms, the testator used some other terms, and bequeathed the property for life subject to a fideicommissum in favour of a third person, the person who had the usufruct had got the land vested in him by law. The absurdity of the position was this: that they could both only use it for life, but, under the terms introduced in this Bill, the fiduciary would be a riparian owner, and the usufructuary would not. He suggested that they should introduce further words into the clause to make this clear.
said he did not see any objection to doing that, but he should be sorry if either himself or anybody else were afterwards made responsible for all these nice distinctions. If the Court decided what was a fiduciary, it decided one distinct thing as to ownership. If that were the sole difficulty, he thought it could be met by putting in “legislative enactment.”
pointed out that a tenant might be in a great difficulty in regard to water passing his land, if his landlord would not make an agreement with him.
said what they were dealing with was the owner of the land. He hoped his right hon. friend would retain the definition as it stood.
My hon. friend hasn’t made clear the point of the man who occupies land for 50 years.
He ought to be got rid of. (Laughter.)
said the whole matter brought him to the question of prescription. If a man occupied land for 30 years, was he to be called a riparian owner? If that were so, then they must make provision for him.
said that the point was one of some importance, as it was an old custom to leave property to children, the widow to have the usufruct; and under that measure the wife would not have that, which appeared to be an injustice to the widow. Everyone was free to make gifts, but if he made gifts he could not be regarded as owner still.
said that if the hon. member would think about it for a moment, he would see that the fault lay with the man who made the will, and who left the property; not with that measure.
The amendments moved by Mr. Struben and Sir H. Juta were negatived.
The amendment moved, by Mr. Merriman dropped.
On the definition of “public stream,”
held that in large areas many streams were entirely due to flood water; they might flow in defined channels. The result was that they became public streams. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort said that rights in that respect were not affected while an owner made beneficial use of the water. In the first place he wished to avoid litigation on the term “beneficial use.” The Bill left it open to the lower proprietor to adopt a dog-in-the-manger policy. It would practically stop the conservation of water in arid parts, where it was really every man’s duty to conserve as much as he could. It was well known that considerable expense was entailed in throwing a simple dam across a stream to catch such water. Hon. members had said that another reason for declaring it a public stream was that present streams would have an intermittent flow owing to the conservation of water. But he maintained that if they were going to declare every stream that brought a large supply of water a public stream, they were not going to have conservation of water in the upper parts. He would move an amendment, and hoped that the House would fairly consider it. It was to add at the end, “A stream, the flow of which is entirely due to flood water, shall not be deemed to be a public stream.”
hoped that the Minister of Lands would accept the amendment, because if it were not agreed to, he would rather see the Bill wrecked, because that definition was going to interfere with existing rights.
said that if flood water man, say, once a year, and one man dammed up all that water, would that be right? He could not understand the attitude of the hon. member for Prieska.
said that there was no talk of a river, but of a “dry watercourse,” in which there was water only after the fall of rain. He had never alluded to a river. It was unjust that when there was flood water on a man’s farm he Would not be allowed to impound it.
said he thought that the hon. member for Clanwilliam was unnecessarily, alarmed, and suggested he should read clause 13 in conjunction with clause 10, and the definition of a public stream was perennial or intermittent stream, and only the perennial stream was dealt with in a different way from the surplus or flood flow.
said that the stream dealt with by his hon. friend had already been defined.
said that he disagreed with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, who had a wrong idea of the situation. This was totally different to the 1906 Act.
said the Bill was to facilitate the storing of water.
said that what ihe was dealing with was not a stream, but a dry run. He objected to them going on with the Bill until they had defined a public stream. They were not asking for any interference with the rights of men living across what they could call public streams. The definition simply defined their right to flood water.
said that if this were carried the Government would be prevented from conserving water at a mountain or some convenient spot.
said the definition would handicap the making of dams.
said that application had to be made to a Water Court, and thus obtain the necessary protection.
said he hoped the Minister would not accept the amendments. They should have the rights protected, and these particular rights required to be very carefully protected. Clause 9 laid down that all water adjoining a public stream was public water, and that was altogether against the existing law. They wanted to make it clear that a public stream was not an intermittent stream; a public stream was a stream that had a natural flow and was capable of division between the riparian owners. They had rivers which had no perennial flow now, but which might have in years to come. The Zak River was not a river in living memory; it was made by merino sheep.
asked if the hon. member meant that a river like the Zak was to be regarded as a private stream? The Minister went on to discuss the changes effected by section 7 of the Act of 1906, and added that nobody had shown how this Bill carried the authority in regard to intermittent streams further than the 1906 Act carried it. Under this Bill a man could use the water that rose or fell on his own ground, except where the water had been allowed to run down to one’s neighbour for a period of 30 years. If this amendment went through, he would suggest to the Right Hon. the Minister of Lands that he should withdraw his Bill, because his Bill would be worth absolutely nothing. The opposition to the clause was entirely of a dog-in-the-manger character.
Business was suspended at 6 p.m.
Business was resumed at 8 p.m.
again asked the Minister to give a full explanation of the meaning of the word, “public stream.” If it was as he understood it to be he thought it would be far better if the Bill stood over for another year at the very least. He regretted that hon. members of the Transvaal, Free State, and some of the Cape would not agree on this matter; he wished it to be realised that in his part of the country they did not know of perennial streams; they only had “dry streams,” and if the upper riparian owners were not allowed to build dams considerable hardships would be imposed. He wanted it plainly stated what a public stream was; and he wanted the hon. member for Potchefstroom to explain to him what that was. Under that measure a man would not be allowed to construct a dam on his property to impound flood water if he could not catch it all up—which was an impossibility—and so he must vote against that clause.
said there was much in what had been said by the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Kuhn), and it came down really upon what the Court decided was a public stream. According to the definition all rivers in the Free State would be regarded as public streams. In that case every riparian owner who wanted to make a dam would have to ask leave from the River Board. That definition would make a great change in existing customs.
said that on every mountain they could find a kloof through which flood water flowed, and according to that Bill, that would be a public stream. In his district there would be farms having twenty public streams.
said he thought the misconception under which hon. members suffered was due to not understanding what “normal flow” meant. The water which ran in such a dry sloot was actually flood water, and not a normal stream. That flood or surplus water could be used. If, in addition, he had the protection of the River Board, he was wholly safe.
said that if they all recognised that whenever an Irrigation Bill was passed, somebody or other would have his rights interfered with, he thought that they would come to an agreement. The Act of 1906 introduced a new principle, which had already been explained by the hon. Minister, and it had worked well so far. In the present Bill they seemed, as it struck him, to go one step further, and the Bill said that if water fell on or rose out of a man’s farm it was his, but as soon as the water ran in a certain course, it became a public stream, and the rights of the owner of the ground ceased. On that point the present Bill went further than the Act of 1906. He hoped the Minister would explain more fully the position where water fell on a man’s land.
expressed surprise that some hon. members could not grasp the fact that the Bill was in no wise different to the Act of 1906. He could not understand why the right hon. member for Victoria West made so much difficulty in the matter, as he had assisted in 1909 in drafting a similar provision to that under consideration. It appeared as if some hon. members had read the Bill upside down. (Laughter.) In the absence of objections from the lower riparian owners, any persen could construct a dam to impound the water which rose from or fell on his ground. New conditions were necessary in a new country. If the clause were not adopted as moved by the Minister of Lands, the Bill might as well be abandoned.
said that the hon. member who had last spoken had taken his name in vain, and had missed his point. The Act of 1906 dealt with perennial streams, not with intermittent streams. He was also wrong in saying that this was a young land. It was an old country, in which rights had been created and had grown up.
said that it was quite clear that very few members of the committee realised what great changes were being made by the Bill. The hon. member who had spoken last had missed the whole point. (Laughter.) He talked about hon. members going backwards. Well, all they wanted was to keep what they had. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Vrededorn had mixed up perennial streams with public streams and intermittent streams in a most wonderful manner. He did not blame him one iota. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort and the hon. member for Potchefstroom took quite divergent views of what the Select Committee had had before them as the object of the Bill. It only showed that hon. members did not realise where the Bill was taking them. The Minister of Native Affairs said that no change was made. He would point out that section 8, sub-section 1, had nothing to do with the case at present before the committee. They were dealing with flood waters. That sub-section dealt with water rising on a man’s land by way of springs and so on, and had nothing whatever to do with flood water, which was merely rain water that came down from heaven. Under the Act of 1906—he was sorry to have to refer to the Cape Act, but this Bill did not really affect Natal and the Transvaal—under the Cape Act an intermittent stream was not an intermittent stream until the water from a man’s farm and from his neighbour’s farm joined. What was now proposed in the Bill was in 1906 opposed by the right hon. member for Victoria West and the Minister of Native Affairs, who said that it was a monstrous interference with private rights. They would not have it at any price. What was then laid down was that every man on one of these dry streams should be entitled to take what water he could get out of it, but if he made a wasteful or unnecessary use of it, the lower proprietor could go to the Water Court and ask for some of that water. What was the present proposal? Every dry sprit on a man’s farm, so long as it ran in a defined channel, was a public stream, provided there was enough water for more than one person. That was a total change in the law, as the hon. member for Clanwilliam had pointed out. Under the Bill it was not necessary that the water from the two farms should join together. What they ought not to do was to take the right of a man of using the water of an ordinary dry kloof on his own farm. It did not affect Natal or the Transvaal; he did not know what portions of the Free State it affected, but it did affect the Cape Province. If a man used the water wastefully, they could deal with such a case.
said he saw no difference even after the explanation of the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour. He did not see that rights were affected, because if there were only one man concerned, no question could arise.
said that there would arise difficulties under clause 98, if that definition went thus. He saw difficulties in the way if matters remained as they were now. Clause 9 laid down that water which fell on a farm was private property, but as soon as it ran in a recognised course it became public property. That definition affected the Free State, and would give rise to much dissatisfaction.
said he thought that hon. members had been arguing in the air. He asked hon. members to read the sections referring to this matter which appeared in the Act of 1906 and the Bill that was before the House. It seemed to be the opinion that the Bill was doing away with the rights of private water that flowed on a man’s own property. He maintained that until this water joined a defined channel with a man’s property lower down that man could do what he liked with the water. He could not understand the difficulty or the danger pointed out by other hon. members. There seemed to be an idea that the Bill was going to take away rights. There was no such proposal, there was no such principle in the Bill, and he thought that it was the last thing his right hon. friend desired to do.
said that as that definition appeared in the Bill, he, as a member for the Orange Free State, could not vote for it. He had already expressed the fear that, under that Bill, it would not be possible for the owner of a farm to use the water which fell on his farm as soon as it ran in a recognised bed, and thus became a public stream. The water would then have to be divided. Under those circumstances Free State farmers who lived on the banks of dry rivers would suffer injury.
said he had thought at first that the definition referred to injured private rights, but had changed his view. Clause 8 spoke of a stream which arose on a farm. That water belonged to the farmer. If the water had run on to a neighbour’s farm for thirty years, the neighbour had then a right to it. Water which fell and remained on the ground was private property until it flowed in a public stream. Clause 13 dealt with the rights of riparian owners to flood water. The riparian owners could do with such water as they wished, whether it ran in a defined channel or not, so long as it remained on their land. If flood water ran over a man’s ground in a public stream, he could take water from the stream and use it. The clause gave the right to a lower owner to use such of the water as the upper owner allowed to pass unused. The clause laid down clearly that rights to the water were valid only so long as the water was beneficially used. If they read clauses 8 and 9 in connection with clause 13, everything would become clear.
said the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, had tried to create the impression that clause 8 only referred to a perennial stream, and had thus misled many other hon. members. It was never the intention to restrict the application of the clause in such a manner. A riparian owner could not only use the water which fell on his ground, but a portion of the flood water as well.
said that, if the hon. member for Ladismith would allow him to say so, it would be well to read what the Act said before he made statements about “misleading.” The first sub-section of section 8 dealt with water rising on land. Water could not rise unless it came from a fountain or a spring or something of that kind. That had nothing whatever to do with flood water. If the hon. member had confined himself to the second sub section, instead of dealing with the first sub-section, he would not have been misleading the committee. The Minister of Justice’s explanation did not help the committee one iota. A public stream was any water running in a defined channel of a man’s land capable of common user. The moment water nan in a dry kloof down which water had flowed to other owners and which was capable of being used by, two riparian proprietors, that was a public stream. (Hear, hear.) Water that fell from the heavens as long as it was simply running about the ground could be caught up by anybody, but the moment it entered a defined channel it became a public stream and then the second part of section 8 did not help them. The hon. member for Ladismith should not say that he (Sir H. H. Juta) was misleading the committee. He was trying not to do so; he certainly did not want to mislead the committee.
said that he had attempted to follow the discussion as well as he could, and when two different camps argued like that, it put most hon. members rather in a quandary. After the explanation, by the Minister of Justice, of clause 13, however, the matter had been cleared up as far as he was concerned, and he was satisfied that any person could use the water which fell on or rose from his ground, and could also divert from a public stream as much of the water as he could use.
said that the more the hon. member for the Harbour talked, the more he was convinced that he did not wish to understand; the committee did not wish to run away with the existing rights or anything else. If he would try and look at article 8 he would see that they were only concerned with water that ran to waste. Apart from the water that fell to the ground, and apart from the water that ran down a stream, there was some more water, and what was to become of that?
said that although he did not think that the Minister had answered the member for Cape Town, Harbour, still he thought the latter had not convinced him. To his mind the hon. member had not explained anyhow what was the purpose of using the words after “riparian owners” That meant that there was more than one owner. Although the Act defined what was a public stream—which was a stream in a defined channel—still, if this water were in his kloof, it was still his stream. If it divided another farm, that was a different matter, and took on a different character. He thought the proposal was an advance on what had gone before, and he intended to support the clause, and not the amendment of his hon. friend. (Ministerial cheers.)
said there was in Bloemfontein a dry sprit, the Kaalspruit, which ran for a distance equal to eight hours on horseback. It was suitable for the construction of dams. He wanted to know, if that definition were accepted as it stood, if any riparian owner on the banks of the Kaalspruit would be prevented from impounding as much water as he was able to do from that stream, which was a dry stream?
said that, in explanation, he wanted to draw hon. members’ attention to sub-section 2 of clause 8 and clause 13. Only “ownership right” was taken away when the water ran in a bed, and not the right to use the water. Clause 13 gave back everything which clause 8 appeared to take away. The right to own was taken, and the right to use given back. That was fair. The right to use the water was not taken away at all. As to the Kaalspruit, for example, what they warned to prevent was a man erecting a huge dam and impounding water which he might sell. He was, however, given every right to dam if he used the water for his own purposes. The water in the Kaalspruit could be stored and used by the riparian owner as long as it was on his farm.
said that he had many doubts on this matter, and was thankful for the explanation given by the Minister of Justice. But had he taken enough account of the opening words of section 14? Further on, in the definition the “use” of water was referred to, but what exercised their minds was the right of lower proprietors. If the Minister deleted the opening words, “subject to existing rights,” their complaint would be met. The hon. member for Vrededorp referred to water that ran in a canal, but was not a public stream. He could not recall any such case. The Bill embraced all such streams. The hon. member should bear in mind that when he voted for the Bill he would be protecting every stream, however small.
reminded the Minister of Lands that it was a very dangerous thing to read only one clause of a Bill when there were several bearing on the same point. The last speaker had put his finger on the point which he and the right hon. member for Victoria West had been discussing for some time. Let them take the case of flood water on a dry stream, and deal with the amendment of the hon. member for Clanwilliam. The Minister was an upper proprietor. He (the speaker) was No. 2; and the hon. member for Clanwilliam No.3. The Minister’s clause 13 notwithstanding, he (the speaker) could go to the Water Court and get protection for his works, and the hon. member for Clanwilliam could go to the Water Court and get protection for his works, and if the Minister of Justice happened to be at all somnolent, and was not on the spot, and came after them, he would find that though an upper proprietor he could not touch their water. Under sub-section (b) of section (2) of clause 14, the Water Court had the right to grant permission to an upper proprietor to Store water, provided that it did not interfere with the permission already granted to a lower proprietor. It showed that the Court could grant to the lower proprietor the right to divert surplus water. What was the practical effect? Supposing half a dozen riparian proprietors on one of these streams, all wide-awake men, went to the Water Court and said: “Here is the surplus water, we want to make works, we want to carry out irrigation works”—and they had got five years in which to carry them out—the Water Court would then have to decide how much it would give them. The upper man could not take the lot. That was not the object of the Bill. His right hon. friend’s object was that they should have development of irrigation, and not that one man should collar the lot, and the Bill provided that the Water Court should deal with that surplus water and give protection to those people to the extent of their needs and wants.
said that the Minister of Justice had stated that the surplus or flood water in a public stream could be “used”—which was rather a wide term. What he (the hon. member) wanted to know was what “use” exactly meant, and whether, for example, he as a riparian owner on the Kaalspruit could construct a dam. It was true that one could use the water which fell on a farm, but only so long as it had not joined a public stream.
said that Kaalspruit was a public stream, and the water in it could not be used, nor could one construct a dam.
said that he could not see why the hon. Minister could not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Clanwilliam (Mr. Watermeyer), which would give hon. members more satisfaction. What was the objection?
said the question was continually getting more clear to him. (Laughter.) The definition in the Bill would give occasion for much dissatisfaction. It would be necessary to determine the length of a stream before it could be regarded as a public stream. An owner ought to have the right to construct a dam across a stream on his own ground.
said the Minister of Justice had somewhat misled hon. members. Everybody knew that an owner could do with flood water what he wished. But according to the Bill when water fell on a farm and ran in a defined channel it became a public stream. The speaker’s objection to the definition was that every watercourse, however small, would become a public stream, which could not be dammed up, for every lower owner would demand his share of the water. If a dam were made therefore, it would be necessary to construct it so as to allow water to run past it, and that would make the dam very expensive. If he accepted that definition as it stood he dared not go back to his constituents.
said it had not been proved that every little course would not be regarded as a public stream. He moved, as an amendment, to insert in line 13, after the word, “channel” “from upper riparian land.”
said the beginning of every public stream was not necessarily a public stream, despite the criticisms of hon. members. The mover of the amendment was afraid his rights would be impaired, but there was no reason for any such alarm. A defined channel was necessary to constitute a public stream, a stream of water of such a character that it could be used for irrigation. In the case of Kaalspruit the River Board would have to decide whether the construction of a dam would injure the rights of lower owners. So long as the lower owner had sufficient opportunity to take water, the higher owner would not be interfered with in building his dam.
withdrew his amendment.
said that all he would add was that if they wanted to wreck that Bill, hon. members should vote for that amendment.
moved, in line 31, to insert after “channel,” “through more than one riparian property.”
said that the hon. member for Cape Town Harbour (Sir H. H. Juta) must be congratulated, for he had succeeded in making several hon. members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House thoroughly alarmed—(Mr. VENTER: Oh, no.)—and if that amendment were carried, the Minister of Lands would be well advised to withdraw his Bill. These misconceptions which had arisen were due, he thought, to hon. members having been frightened by the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour. They were afraid that if the water on a farm ran in a course the owner would not be allowed to dam it up. The Bill did not say that. They had a right to dam as much as they were entitled to previously. A man could store up as much water as he could use, but not more, and he would not be allowed to let the water run to waste. If the amendment were carried, it would simply mean that intermittent streams would become private, and the upper proprietor could store up all the water he liked without leaving any for the lower proprietors. As to the hon. member for Potchefstroom and his amendment, his aim was a good one, and the hon. member supported the Bill; but he thought that it would not improve matters, and he would not achieve his purpose. If a stream only ran on one man’s property, he could do what he liked with it. He hoped that amendment would also be withdrawn.
said he did not wish to push the amendment, and would withdraw it.
said that the hon. member for Prieska had stated that according to the definition, Free Staters would not be justified in making dams. The position was that in the Free State they had no right at present to make dams, but got the right under that Bill.
said he did not mind his hon. and learned friend calling him a “bang-maker,” but he would assure him that he was no fear-maker. He did not want to frighten anybody, but only wanted to point out what was the effect of the Bill. He gave his hon. friend credit for honestly interpreting the Bill in the extraordinary way he had, and his hon. friend would give him (Sir Henry) credit for interpreting it in the way he had. (An HON. MEMBER: “In the ordinary way.”) The point was that they differed, and differed very materially. Let them imagine a stream that was so small that if allowed to run it would not go beyond the boundary of the farm on which it had its source. In that case, of course, it belonged to the owner of the farm in question. But there were many dry kloofs down which bigger streams ran. Under the Act of 1906 there was no right in any persons to any stream unless the stream was formed of water from two or more farms. In order that anyone else might get any right in any water it must be water combined from two different riparian lands. If the right hon. gentleman would only introduce something of that sort so that where a stream combined with water from another farm and called the stream a public one, then the Minister would do away with a great deal of the difficulty. But he (Sir Henry) could not see the justice of saying that the water from a kloof on a man’s farm should become a public stream. Either let them say that the water from two streams must join before the stream becomes a public one, or else give a man the same right he had before.
The amendment moved by Mr. Watermeyer was declared negatived.
A division was called for, and resulted as follows:
Ayes—22.
Crewe, Charles Preston
Currey, Henry Latham
Henderson, James
Henwood, Charlie
Jagger, John William
Juta, Henry Hubert
King, John Gavin
Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert
Macaulay, Donald
MacNeillie, James Campbell
Marais, Johannes Henoch
Mentz, Hendrik
Merriman, John Xavier
Meyler, Hugh Mowbray
Nathan, Emile
Neethling, Andrew Murray
Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.
Van Niekerk, Christian Andries
Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus
Watkins, Arnold Hirst
C. L. Botha and J. A. Venter, tellers.
Noes—65.
Alberts, Johannes Joachim
Andrews, William Henry
Baxter, William Duncan
Becker, Heinrich Christian
Beyers, Christiaan Frederik
Bosman, Hendrik Johannes
Brown, Daniel Maclaren
Burton, Henry
Clayton, Walter Frederick
Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page
Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt
Cullinan, Thomas Major
De Beer, Michiel Johannes
De Jager, Andries Lourens
De Waal, Hendrik
Duncan, Patrick
Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm
Fichardt, Charles Gustav
Fischer, Abraham
Fitzpatrick, James Percy
Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen
Geldenhuys, Lourens
Griffin, William Henry
Grobler, Evert Nicolaas
Heatlie, Charles Beeton
Hertzog, James Barry Munnik
Hewat, John
Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus
Joubert, Jozua Adriaan
Keyter, Jan Gerhard
Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert
Long, Basil Kellett
Louw, George Albertyn
Madeley, Walter Bayley
Malan, Francois Stephanus
Meyer, Izaak Johannes
Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus
Neser, Johannes Adriaan
Oliver, Henry Alfred
Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero
Orr, Thomas
Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael
Runciman, William
Sampson, Henry William
Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik
Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus
Smartt, Thomas William
Smuts, Jan Christiaan
Smuts, Tobias
Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus
Steytler, George Louis
Stockenstrom, Andries
Struben, Charles Frederick William
Theron, Hendrick Schalk
Theron, Petrus Jacobus George
Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem
Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus
Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius
Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus
Walton, Edgar Harris
Watt, Thomas
Wiltshire, Henry
Wyndham, Hugh Archibald
C. Joel Krige and C. T. M. Wilcocks, tellers.
The amendment was accordingly negatived.
On the definition of “riparian land,”
moved an amendment in the definition of riparian land, in line 45 to omit “as a whole,” and in line 49. to omit “a” and to substitute “any.” That would give each sub-division a share of the original grant as the Water Court might decide.
said the amendment made it absolutely necessary for the Water Court to decide upon the division.
moved that sub-section (b) be deleted. He thought that if that section were agreed to, it would cause much difficulty in the Orange Free State.
said the effect of the amendment would be to take away the water rights of undivided portions of riparian land.
supported the amendment. If riparian land were divided in such a manner that a portion of the ground did not abut on the river, then the ground would be sold cheaply, and yet the buyer would demand his share of the water from the public stream.
supported the last speaker.
explained that the Dill provided for such a case, and the clause protected existing rights. When a farm was divided, the rights of a portion of the ground could be taken away either by agreement or by decision of the Court.
thought that after the words “entitled as” should be added “parties or,” so as to meet the case. He moved to amend Sir H. Juta’s amendment.
said that suppose a man sold a part of his farm at say, £2 a morgen, and nothing was said about the water, was that man to get the water? He did not think so.
said that such a difficulty could not arise under the Bill.
said that perhaps be might explain what the difficulty was. They would suppose there was a farm of the extent of this House with a river running through it, and then this farm was thus divided into two and nothing was said. Under the common law this land had no right to the water. They found that even if the farm were divided among twenty people they would all use the water, and therefore there was a very great need for the Act passed in the Cape. It was only right that where nothing was said to the contrary they should have a right to the water. If the one party wished to say the other had no right to the water he could say so. If they did not wish a man to have any right nothing was easier than to say so.
said the definition was of force as to the future, but what about the past? If a man bought ground in the Free State away from the rivers, and then waited to register his purchase until the present Bill became law, he would be able to enforce his right to a share of the water.
said the definition might lead former buyers of portions of farms to demand a share of the water.
said a very serious point had been raised, because this Bill went back to original grants. If any land was part of a farm originally riparian, but which was, years ago, cut off from riparian rights, it would have no right to the water.
suggested to the hon. member for Winburg that he should withdraw his amendment, and said that the point could be considered at a later stage. It was necessary that the new provision should not be retrospective.
withdrew his amendment.
amendments were agreed to.
Mr. Struben’s amendment was agreed to.
On clause 136, saving of existing rights.
withdrew his amendment, and proposed the following new clause: “All powers and jurisdiction exercisable under this Act by the Governor-General, the Minister, a Water Court, a River Board, or an Irrigation Board shall be subject to all rights acquired by any person before the commencement of this Act and existing at such commencement for the purpose of supplying water to the public.”
said that he was prepared to accept this.
said that he would withdraw his amendment standing on the paper.
Mr. Baxter’s amendment was also withdrawn.
Those moved by Sir H. Juta and Mr. Neser were negatived.
said that in the present amendment the Municipalities were not named except under the name of person.
said that the new clause covered what the old clause 136 contained, plus the other part.
New clause 136 was agreed to.
amid loud cheers from both sides of the House, moved that the Bill be reported with amendments.
The motion was agreed to.
The Bill was reported with amendments, which were set down for consideration on; Thursday.
Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure of South African Railways and Harbours, 1912-1913.
The House adjourned at