praying that the South Africa Defence Bill be amended in various respects.

from W. R. Gray, station master, Springs, Transvaal.

from C. T. Simpson, accountant, Provincial Service, Bloemfontein.

from F. Stembridge, late lockup-keeper, Hermanus.

from J. H. Pienaar, principal of the Public School at Riebeek East.

as chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee one the South Africa Defence Bill, reporting the Bill with amendments.

It was ordered that the report and evidence be printed and that the House go into committee on the Bill on Wednesday.

as chairman, brought up the fourth report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts (pp. 649-654, “Votes and Proceedings”).

urged that the report should be circulated as early as possible, and that they should not wait until the annexures, which were very voluminous, had been printed.

It was ordered that the report and evidence be printed and considered on Thursday, the 25th instant.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that the first reading of the Bill be discharged and the Bill be withdrawn.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The Bill was accordingly withdrawn.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure of the South African Railways and Harbours for the financial year 1912-13, laid on the table of the House on the 25th of March, 1912, be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

seconded.

Are you sure those are the Estimates? The report is before Parliament.

I think my hon. friend is confusing the estimates. The main estimates we have dealt with. These are other estimates.

What are they? Are they supplementary estimates? I have the estimates here.

Better wait for the Minister of Railways and Harbours to return. (Laughter.)

said that the estimates were estimates of revenue.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: In sub-section (1), line 9, after “Minister,” to insert “excepting for the purposes of clearing ground for homesteads, gardens, or land.” The hon. member was inaudible in the Press Gallery.

said that he was not against the idea, but the lessee should not be the judge of the matter, because that might lead to an undesirable state of affairs. Applications were never refused when cutting down appeared to be necessary. He objected to the amendment.

said that the Minister generally had a difficulty in seeing the practical point of view. If a man cleared the land of bush to erect buildings that came in the course of his settling there. If he wished to clear the land now it would be necessary to call in a surveyor.

You know better than that.

I don’t know. (Laughter.) That is the only way I can see out of it. He submitted that forest land should not be allotted to settlers, but reserved.

thought the clause impracticable. He moved the insertion of the word “forest” between “any” and “trees.”

pointed out that some of the native timber was very valuable, and unless they had this provision, there was nothing to prevent the settler denuding the land of timber and then leaving it. He could readily obtain leave from the Minister when it was necessary to clear the land of bush for the purposes of development.

hoped that the House would not accept the amendment. It would involve endless discussion as to what were forest trees. Their timber should be protected wherever possible. No reasonable request for clearing land had ever been refused.

said that permission to collect dead wood in certain forests had to be withdrawn, owing to abuses, wood being ruthlessly cut down to make dead wood. There was the provision in leases that the tenant should not cut down bush, and surely the Bill should provide the same thing. He would also like to ask the Minister whether in the supplement to the following clause he would make provision to prohibit the ruthless burning of mountain veld? It had a bad effect on the possibilities of a water supply.

pointed out that the people for whom they were legislating had no money, and unless regulations were made they would ruin the ground. If they bought the ground they should do as they chose.

Both amendments were negatived.

The Select Committee’s amendments were agreed to.

On clause 36,

moved to insert the following new subsection to follow sub-section (i), viz.: (ii) Provided that where a lease has been granted to two or more lessees in common, and one or more of such lessees fail to comply with the provisions of this Act and the conditions of the lease, the lessee or lessees who shall have complied with the provisions of this Act, and the condition of the lease, have the right the approval of the Minister, have the right to take over all rights of such defaulting lessee or lessees accruing to them under the said lease. He said that at the second reading the Minister signified that he would favourably consider the suggestion in the Select Committee. Unfortunately there was a tendency to regard the findings and recommendations of the Select Committee as the Alpha and Omega of legislation, so that Parliament had nothing to do but ratify what the Select Committees did. This was not his view of the duties of Parliament. Why he urged his amendment was because under the provisions of the Bill, should two or more persons take up a farm in common under one lease from the Government, and should after two or three years one of the lessees wish to withdraw, the lease would have to be cancelled and the farm re-gazetted for disposal, and the remaining lessees would come in again on an equal footing with any other applicants who might apply. Surely the remaining lessee or lessees, who had perhaps put in two or three years’ work on the farm, should have the right to take over the full lease with the consent and approval of the Minister? It would be unfair to cancel their lease because one of the lessees had failed to comply with its terms whilst they had carried it out in full. Why should the lease be cancelled, the farm be re-gazetted, and a loss of two years’ labour and all they put into the land, when he or they were prepared to go on with the lease. He hoped the Minister would accept his amendment.

said there was a good deal in the amendment—(hear, hear, and laughter)—but the hon. member sought to put in the Bill what should be a question of administration. His object would still be attained.

said that where three men took up a farm on the borders of civilisation, and one of them, after working two or three years, because of illness, was compelled to give up, he thought that the other two partners should be allowed to go on working. Unless this was allowed they never would know when the farm was to be re-gazetted. Why should the Minister not have the power to say to these men: “All right, I am going to let you continue the lease, I am not going to have the farm re-gazetted, nor call for applications.”

said be could not agree that this was purely a matter for the administration. He thought the member for Waterberg was quite right, that unless the Minister had power to deal with these oases, the two men he referred to would have to make re-application. The lease granted to the three should be continued to the two. They should have a chance of being continued at any rate, unless the Minister thought otherwise.

referred to clause 33, which stated that persons could assign their leases with the consent of the Minister. “Would that not meet the case?” queried the hon. member.

did not think the clause mentioned would meet the case if a man failed to meet the conditions.

said it would be a dangerous principle to introduce, whereby the partners in a farm where the conditions of a lease had been broken, should have a right to continue without reapplying to the Board that granted the lease.

In conclusion the Minister said that in the ordinary course of life a man, if he was lucky enough to strike a bad partner, had to stand the brunt of it; here he was sufficiently protected.

supported the amendment.

The amendment of the hon. member for Waterberg was negatived.

The clause, as amended in Select Committee, was agreed to.

Clauses 38 and 39 were not put, in terms of Mr. Speaker’s ruling on 12th instant.

On Clause 40,

On the motion of the Minister of Lands, the Chairman put the addition to the clause proposed by the Select Committee, viz.: or may, in lieu of an advance in money and before or within twelve months after the allotment of the holding, cause work and labour calculated to improve the holding to be effected thereon out of moneys so appropriated, and in that event the cost of work and labour so effected shall be deemed to be an advance to the lessee for the purposes of this Act. Provided that: (i) The amount or value of the advances to be made shall not exceed fifty per cent. of the total capital expended by the settler on the improvement of the holding; (ii) the total amount of advances to any lessee shall not exceed five hundred pounds; (iii) the rate of interest upon any such advance shall be four and a half per cent. per annum payable as from the date of the advance; (iv) the advance shall be repaid with all interest due thereon within a period of five years from the date thereof, or within such extension of that period, not exceeding two years, as the Minister may in special cases allow; (v) an advance in money shall be paid over within three months after the same has been approved and, if not so paid over, the approval shall be deemed to have been rescinded.

moved, as an amendment: In sub-section (1), after by the,” to omit “settler,” and to substitute “lessee.”

asked the Minister what was the effect of the Bill, seeing that the two sections had been removed. What was the effect of prescriptive right that had not accrued or was accruing at the date of the Bill? Would the Bill have the effect of arresting the accruing rights?

said he deeply regretted the deletion of the subsections. There would not be the safeguard he had desired, and he hoped that the Minister of Justice would bring in a comprehensive Bill dealing with prescriptive rights.

moved, as a further amendment, in sub-section four, line 23, to insert “five” instead of “two” so that the extension allowed during which the advance might be repaid would be 5 years. He thought that would be an improvement, and encourage the settlers.

supported the amendment, and said that in the Transvaal a special Bill had to be passed in order to give the settlers relief in this respect.

suggested that the matter should be left to the Land Bank. It was proposed that they should have a special board to inquire In to these advances. It seemed a foolish thing, having got their Land Bank, to create another little department for lending money.

said he would explain the difference between the two loans. The Land Bank would get an application for a loan, look at the security, and look at the object in view, and pay the loan. Now, in this matter of settlement there was, to some extent simplified, an amount of more personal supervision than the Land Bank would ever be able to give. There was just that detailed supervision which he thought his hon. friend the Minister of Finance would agree with him could only be obtained if they had a superintendent and inspectors. As to the other point, the feeling in the Select Committee was that they should not give the settlers too long in which to repay advances. If hon. members thought that an extension of two years was too short, he did not think he would be violating any constitutional principle if he said that a year more or less would not be thought such a serious matter.

said the Minister was not obliged to give five years’ extension, but could demand repayment at any time. The Land Bank lent large amounts of money, whilst the settlers only wanted small sums.

said that when he woke up he found his hon. friend in the middle of a financial clause, and he looked round to see if there were any economists in the House. He found none; they had all gone; they had fled. (A laugh.) As the Minister went on he got thoroughly frightened. He pictured to himself a vista of a Minister of Lands in the future—not the present one of course—(laughter)—ladling out sums of £500 all over the country to desirable voters of the poor white class. It was an alarming prospect to this country. He supposed the right hon. gentleman had read such literature as there was on these credit banks, etc., in Europe. If not, he would recommend him to read “People’s Banks,” by Wolff. They were unanimous on one thing, and that was that this kind of spoon-feeding was the sort of thing that killed the manliness and energy of people of this class. (Hear, hear.)

said that many of these authorities were theoretical. (Laughter.) Hon. members would be aware that the right hon. gentleman had made an admission in that House that for forty years he had made a mess of land settlement. (Loud laughter.) Well, it was about time he gave some other Minister a chance. (Laughter.) One had to treat these men humanly, and not hold up text-books every time. (Cheers and laughter) There was a vast difference between theory and practice. The settler whom the right hon. gentleman would probably favour was the man who when he got a sovereign bought up all the text-books he could. (Laughter.)

pointed out that many members of the select Committee had taken up the same line as the right hon. member for Victoria West, who had “struck a right note that ought to be very carefully watched.” (Loud and prolonged laughter.)

said that it must not be lost sight of that when these settlers came on their farms, they were generally poor men, and not in a state to repay £500 in five years. He thought that an extension of two years was only reasonable, and should be allowed.

said that they had always supported the bringing of advances under the Land Bank. They had done so in connection with the Irrigation Bill.

said that many had experience of the uselessness of work done on the dockyard stroke, not only in South Africa but in other parts of the world. They could not hang a worse millstone round a settler’s neck than a loan of £500.

said that as to what the hon. Minister had said about him, he would like to ask him what failures had been made? He had said that land legislation in that direction had been carried out by Mr. Laing, and he had introduced it. However, the Minister knew all about it, and no doubt he had read of some of the results of that spoon-feeding in this country. Did he know that settlers had been settled on that basis by Mr. Arnold White on two occasions?

In a country where the black man was the more numerous factor, they were going to put these men down, and expect them to turn into prosperous settlers. What he was going to say was that in this poor country they were going to see this money wasted, as it had been wasted in the Transvaal, to the extent of millions. They were going to pour more of their millions into this bottomless gulf, unless somebody was going to look after the Minister. Did they think that South Africa would have been settled if they had advanced money to everybody that went into the wilderness?

said he quite knew that the Minister was going to have great difficulty in successfully working this Bill, and that in its management he was going to have an enormous amount of harassing work, but there was no excuse for them shutting their eyes to the experience of other countries, and not knowing the principle upon which this was worked. When money was lent to these people, it should be lent upon business principles, and he would suggest to the Minister not to lend the money himself and work it from his own department. They were going to have a land bank in South Africa, and the land bank was the proper body to administer these loans. It would be the greatest possible mistake for the Minister to add to his own department what was practically a new department. The Minister having agreed to the loan, would inform the land bank of the conditions under which it was granted, and the land bank would see that the agreement was carried out. He would therefore move in line 1 to omit “out of moneys appropriated by Parliament”; in line 3, after “regulation,” to insert “recommended to the land bank the,” and after “advance,” to insert “of.”

said if the last speaker were better acquainted with the administration of a Land Bank he would not have moved his amendment. They must take care that the bank was not regarded as a benevolent institution. It lent money on good security, which a settler could not give, and it would be ruined if obliged to lend to settlers. He hoped the amendment would not be agreed to.

said he thought there was a slight misunderstanding. The proposal of his hon. friend (Sir E. H. Walton) was not designed to prevent any advance being made, because, obviously, if the clause stood without any direction to the land bank that they must advance without security, the land bank would simply reply and refuse. The idea was that the land bank having the machinery and having acquaintance with this work would be better able to do that business, and that the Minister’s department would be the security the land bank would require.

said that he could not agree with the last speaker, because if the Minister’s department was responsible for land settlement, that department should also advance the money. They could not go on giving money here and there, but must be prudent. Experience had shown that not everybody could be put on a farm with a big loan of money.

said that, as mentioned by another hon. member, the Government could come in and do the work themselves. He did not think that the right hon. gentleman should allow the clause to stand over for further consideration. As it stood, it was very risky business indeed. He thought the matter should be left to the land bank, but there would be some difficulty in the Cape, because there was no institution of the kind in that Province. He thought that the clause should stand over.

said to him the motion seemed to be quite clear. Hon. members did not seem to realise that unless they made these advances there could be no successful land settlement. He thought that the Government was amply secured. But he considered that if the land banks were brought into the scheme it would only tend to complicate matters. The Government was secured to such an extent that he had not the slightest fear of any trouble from such a source.

said that the question had been discussed from three points of view—first from the point of view as to whether advances should be made; the second as to whether the advances should be made by the Minister, and the third, the view held by some hon. members on his side of the House, that if these advances were to be made they should be made through the agency of the land bank. It had been argued that while there were land banks in the other Provinces such an institution did not exist in the Cape, but he pointed out that a measure consolidating the legislation in regard to land banks was before the House, and would, so the Prime Minister had assured the House, go through that session. The point was he thought that there should not be two departments of State advancing money for practically the same purpose, and said that if the machinery of the land bank was used the result would be efficiency and economy. On the point that the Minister’s department should do the work he agreed that such a system would lead to economy and efficiency. Considering the fact that a man only received 50 per cent. on what he had already spent, he thought there was sufficient security for the Government. He would support the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth;

said that he would like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central. The security of the land bank was the security of the department. The amendment was simply to avoid duplication. Mr. Jagger quoted figures to show what a large proportion of the advances made in the Transvaal and Free State were of the smaller amounts. Machinery was already in existence in three of the Provinces in connection with the land banks.

If a man went to the land bank in these circumstances he would have no security to offer.

He would have the security of the department.

This security he is now to surrender in order to offer to the land bank. He will have no security. It seems to me that hon. members opposite are arguing in a circle, and I am sure, if this amendment is carried, the land bank would say: “Of our own motion we would never advance you this money, because you have no security, but as the Minister of Lands directs us to do so, we will do so on his responsibility.”

Quite right.

What is the use of going to the land bank?

You have got the machinery.

said that if the money were the money of the Government, what was the use of this circumlocution in going to the land bank? The hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), had said the land bank had the necessary machinery to watch all that was taking place here. As a matter of fact, the land bank, taking the Transvaal, had practically no machinery. The object of this amendment would be to build up a big Government department in the form and under the name of the land bank. This bank would be an administrative institution, which it was not now. The land bank should never be that. They should treat the land bank as a purely business institution. There was no doubt that there would be a grave risk in regard to the advances made, but that should not retard them in pursuing a national policy. If the responsibility was vested in the land bank things might go wrong, but now they would be able to discuss the matter year by year. They should deal with the subject on the lines found advisable in other countries. In Australia a department looked after the settlers. By wise supervision it would be possible in a long course of years to recover the original outlay. He hoped that the amendment would not be accepted.

held that no preventable risk was being run under the clause. The machinery of the Land Department was far better than any other that could at present be utilised.

said that the Minister of Lands practically stood surety for any advances that would be made. But he thought that the clause should be allowed to stand over, for one point had struck his notice. In the event of a second loan of, say, £500 being applied for there was nothing to show that the original loan, say, of £1,000 had been used in a beneficial manner. It would be no harm to leave this matter to stand over for further consideration.

said the Minister had been speaking about spending enormous sums of money, and he told them that if they put the land bank in charge, they were going to ruin everything. He (Sir E. H. Walton) believed, however, that if they were not going to adopt the principle he suggested, they were going to insure failure both to settlers and to the settlement. He did think that the Minister of the Interior understood the principles that the right hon. gentleman had put before them. If the Minister, after the necessary inquiries, recommended to the land bank that the loan be granted, then the land bank would take charge of it. Land banks were for the purpose of lending money in a small way, and his object was to free the Minister’s hands and his department from this kind of business, for which he had no machinery now. Take the case of Denmark. He wondered if hon. members knew how much money was invested in these banks—something like £40,000,000. This was of enormous assistance to the people. It had rescued the country from comparative poverty, and made it a rich agricultural country. He would press his amendment.

said he might be ignorant of some matters, but he recollected that in 1906 the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, introduced a Land Bank Bill, which was a fiasco.

Perhaps they had no money.

Did you vote for that land bank?

Yes. (Opposition laughter.) I voted for the land bank, because I believed in the principle, but I did not vote for the hon. member making a mess of it. (Ministerial cheers.) Continuing, the hon. member said the object of the Minister was not to have a Land Settlement Bill hitched on to a land bank. These two matters should be kept apart. The man who went to the land bank should not have his case prejudged by the Land Settlement Board, and vice versa. The one scheme was to put people on the land; the other dealt with people who were already on the land.

said he thought that unnecessary concern had been shown about the terms of this clause. What was the position? The Minister of Lands was the creditor, and he had lent on all the property. There was the suggestion that the advances should be made by the land bank. But before the land bank made an advance, the land bank would have to apply to the Minister to see whether he would guarantee the advance that was being made. What would the Minister do? Before he made the advance, he would satisfy himself that the man concerned had made improvements. If the Minister therefore, had to send an inspector to farms, why should he not make the advances direct? From a business point of view, he failed to see why any objection should be raised to the terms of this clause.

said he thought that the amendment which stood in the name of the hon. member for Rustenburg was a dangerous amendment. His hon. friend wanted to allow a man ten years for the repayment of advances on stock. He (the speaker) thought that such an extension would be quite unnecessary. He thought that the hon. member should be satisfied with eight years as had been suggested by an hon. member on his (the speaker’s) side of the House. Ten years was far too long, and he moved that the word “two” be deleted, and the word “three” inserted, and thus make the full period eight years.

said that seeing that the money of the State was being advanced, he thought it was immaterial whether the money was advanced by the Minister or by the land bank. It was entirely a matter of machinery. He pointed out that in oversea legislation of a similar character, this matter was left to a Board, and not in the hands of the Minister concerned. Dealing with criticisms that had been directed against the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, the speaker pointed out that the Bill referred to was introduced during a time of great depression. Why could not the inspectors of the land bank carry out the duties which it was proposed should be carried out by inspectors under the control of the Board? He pointed out that if the land bank took control these matters would be adjusted on business principles. The contention of hon. members on this side of the House was that the machinery of the land bank was the best for the purpose.

said he did not think that hon. members ought to be alarmed at the views which had been expressed by the Minister of the Interior, because he said exactly the same things when the Land Bank Bill was introduced into the Transvaal Parliament. When people in that Province came forward and complained that they could not get advances without security, the Government turned round and said that the Opposition in that Parliament made such a fuss, that it insisted on business principles being employed, and that the Opposition was responsible for all the trouble. The Opposition had to bear the brunt of it. But when the land bank was established and worked splendidly on business principles, Ministers got the credit for establishing the institution on such a sound basis. He thought that the Opposition in the Transvaal Parliament was entitled to some of this credit. Continuing, he said he did not believe that the Minister would make big advances without security. At the same time he did not think it would do the Minister any harm to have his business passed through the sifting machine of a business institution. The Minister had said that by the amendment they were going to nullify the whole Bill, but he did not say that no advances would be objected to if the Minister could justify these advances to Parliament. He thought it would be good for the Minister, for Parliament, and the country that these advances should be dealt with by the machinery of the land bank, pointing out that the land bank was not run at a profit, but run without loss.

said that his object was to make things safe, even from the business point of view. He pointed out that the responsibility would not rest on the Minister, who was only the final court of appeal, and that the Land Board was the best organisation to deal with these matters. The real responsibility of the whole business rested upon the shoulders of the members of the Board. In the event of a request being made for an advance the land bank would, in nineteen cases out of twenty, go upon the documents which were placed before it. The Land Settlement Board, however, would inspect the improvements, find out what the man wanted the money for, and the method in which it was going to be utilised. Therefore, he thought it best that these matters should be dealt with by that Board. Besides, the Board would be able to give that supervision which the land bank could not give. He maintained that in this way they would have the excellent supervision of the officers of the land settlement department. They did not want mere financiers lending out money, but real’ supervision, and the only way they could get that superintendence was in the way he suggested. They wanted to deal with these people liberally, but not extravagantly, and always on business principles. It had been said that the Minister should give security to the land bank, but he did not think that such a system could be called “business principles.” Why, judging by the remarks that had been made by hon. members, the land bank might be turned into a land settlement department. As to the machinery, that was provided in the Bill. On the other hand, the land bank had not got the machinery.

The amendments moved by Sir Edgar Walton and Mr. P. G. W. Grobler were negatived.

The amendment moved by the Minister of Lands was agreed to.

The amendment moved by Mr. Alexander was agreed to.

The Dutch version was amended.

New clause 41,

moved a new clause 41 as follows: “If any person to whom an advance shall have been made under the provisions of this Act, shall apply the money to purposes other than those for which it was supplied, he shall be guilty of the crime of fraud.”

said he thought the law would be sufficient as it stood to deal with cases of fraud. It was possible that a man might make a bona fide mistake in what he did.

said he thought the path should be clearly laid out, so that a man would know by the reading of the law that if he did this kind of thing he would be liable to be charged with fraud.

said he could not accept the new clause in its present form and he would suggest that the hon. member should reconsider the matter and introduce an amendment, if he thought necessary, at a later stage.

The proposed new clause was negatived.

The Bill was reported with amendments, the consideration of which was set down for Monday.

who on rising was cheered by the Ministerial party, said that the Minister of Mines in introducing the Bill explained that it was brought forward in the interests of the mining community and also from motives of humanity. In regard to the motives of humanity he could not quite agree with them. When they examined the Bill in its main principles they failed to find any provision for the stamping out of the disease. When the Minister said that the Bill was introduced for the benefit of the mining industry he thought that he had taken an extraordinary way of showing his fostering care of the mining industry, namely, by immediately placing upon it a burden of between half a million and a million pounds. This was a kind of fostering care which he thought the industry would decline to accept without making a fight against it. What had been the trend of affairs in other Ministerial departments? The Prime Minister had never attempted to impose a tax on the agricultural interests of the country for the benefit of the mining industry. He had spent hundreds of thousands of pounds to eradicate diseases amongst cattle, but not a penny had he put on the estimates to alleviate the distress amongst the miners. (Cheers.) By the Bill the Government had entirely shirked and shifted their responsibilities, and had placed them on the mining industry. But he did not think that the House would ever accept a Bill whereby the Government shirked its responsibilities. The Bill recognised that silicosis by itself was an occupational disease. That he thought was open to doubt; even the Commission’s report did not specifically say that it was. But he was prepared, as representing a small portion of the mining industry, to accept that it was an occupational disease in so far as it affected those miners at present working on the mines and who were suffering. If that was granted compensation would naturally follow. If not there should be no compensation. There was no doubt that the disease could be obviated in a great measure if the Government discharged their responsibilities. Ten years had elapsed before they appointed a Commission to devise means to alleviate the distress. If a Select Committee considered the Bill—and he hoped one would—they would, he thought, agree that it was an occupational disease, and generous compensation should then follow. He was not in agreement with the Bill in regard to the mode of contribution. The contribution was to be made by the men who worked in the mines, and who now contributed to the industry not alone their labour, for a certain wage, but also in many instances their lives. (Labour cheers.) He did not think that it would be fair to make these men contribute towards the fund. If the Select Committee found that they were paid more than an adequate wage in order to cover the risks they ran they should not be entitled to any compensation, because on account of the higher wage they should be enabled to save enough while they were at work to provide for themselves and their families. Whether they were paid more than an adequate wage was a point open to question and one that would have to be settled by the Select Committee. Why were the mines compelled to pay the contribution? Was it simply because they were the employers? Were they to be mulcted in the whole of the damages while the real culprits who had shirked their responsibilities escaped entirely? He thought the contribution should be divided between the parties responsible—as disclosed in the report—and the parties who received the benefit.

He said that the people who were responsible for the present state of affairs and were responsible for the future welfare of the people should not escape, and the whole burden should not be placed upon the mining companies. The right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. J. X. Merriman) had drawn a very harrowing picture of the state of affairs disclosed by the report. He did not wish to discredit that report at all, but thought that in many instances the conclusions, if in a measure just, had been rather exaggerated, or, to his mind, he could not place full reliance upon the extreme view the Commission had taken, for two reasons. One was that one of the members was Dr. Irvine, who also reported in 1902. He thought if they wanted to get a just report no man who served ten years ago should serve again, because he was likely to be biassed. (Cries of “No.”) Another reason was that some of the doctors on the Commission also examined patients for the purpose of compensation awards. Then again those doctors might have been unconsciously biassed and prejudiced. He was not minimising the value of the report or the amount of disease that was to be found; but, still, he thought there was a certain amount of exaggeration about that report which might have been different if absolutely independent people had investigated the matter. With regard to the harrowing picture drawn by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), he was sure that if he were to criticise and scrutinise it he would find the feature outstanding in it was tuberculosis. Now, could the mines ever be held responsible for tuberculosis? Tuberculosis supervened, it was true, and the man who suffered from silicosis was more susceptible to tuberculosis, but tuberculosis was the fault of the Government. The Government should have taken steps years ago to stamp out tuberculosis, but instead of that they allowed the importation of it into every part of the country. The miners did not get tuberculosis on the mines. They got it outside in places which the Government should have cleansed and purified, and therefore the Government was to a certain extent responsible and should contribute. Of course, the Government repudiated its responsibility. It had a fit of humanity; but they knew that a certain number of people did die every year; they knew that if a man went into the mines to work he was bound to die after a certain number of years. Now, if the Government was humane and wanted to stop it they should have taken proper steps.

Why did not the Government take the bull by the horns and put a stop to this state of affairs? Surely it was their duty to stop this waste of life. They invited immigration. What for? To bring people here to die in the mines. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) said “Hear, hear,” but he was equally responsible because he wanted to fill the mines with white labour. Did he want to put them there to die? Anybody who advocated white labour for the mines was simply sending those men to their deaths. The Minister said that he would not have compulsory medical examinations. They wanted to stop the disease, and if they were a humane Government, they would have compulsory medical examinations; so that, if a man was infected with silicosis, they could stop him from working in the mines. That was a responsibility again for which the Government ought to be made to pay. They encouraged these people to go underground. Did the Minister of Mines think that the Government, if it had a conscience at all, by allowing men to go underground and by allowing men to die, could salve its conscience by saying “Go underground. You are going to die in a short time, but your widow will get £8 per month”? Then they had the people with high ideals about stopping work on Sunday. (Hear, hear.) Both sides seemed to agree that if a man should work on Sundays, and he got double pay, his physical construction would not be impaired. (Cries of “No.”) That was the position hon. members on the back benches and the cross-benches took up. How could they swallow this inhuman treatment which the Government was meting out to people, by allowing them to go underground, knowing they were going to die in the course of time? He would say, “Stop your nonsense about Sunday work.” The Government would say it was inexpedient to stop working these mines, because if they did that the mines would stop, and so it was for the welfare of the Union that they did this and not for the welfare of men and women. Was it a Same policy for the Government that for the sake of Union they should sacrifice lives in order to keep the Government going? What they ought to do was to sacrifice their policy and save human lives. He had shown the liability of the Government to contribute towards compensation. The miners had very good wages, some of them made from £40 to £45 per month, or from £25 to £30 per month. Compared with wages paid elsewhere, this would be considered princely, but was it an adequate sum for a man to bring up his family on the Rand? The general idea was to tax the mine owner, but there was no such person as an individual mine owner. They had a quarter of a million shareholders. The mines contributed £2,500,000. “Yes,” continued the hon. member, “they got that from extortionate coal charges, they got it from pass fees, claim licences, and profit taxes.” Continuing, the hon. member said it was a very short-sighted policy to attempt to crush this industry. He saw his friend the Prime Minister looking at him reproachfully. This competition for natives would never have occurred but for the Chinese being deported. (Laughter.) They had a large assortment of labour then at a very cheap rate. Had they put anything in its place? They had given them an opportunity of getting more natives, but they could have got more Chinamen. (Laughter.) Give them a permanent supply of native labour, then they could do away with competition, and the mining industry would be able to live. Again, no reason had been given why this flat rate of 75 and 25 per cent. had been adopted. He was entirely against this flat rate. He had a scheme himself just as the right hon. gentleman the member for Victoria West had a scheme. It was that there should be no contribution by anybody under the terms of this Bill. Let the Workmen’s Compensation Bill be altered, and two divisions put into it, one dealing with disease and the other dealing with accidents, and let the Actuary settle what proportion should be awarded in each division. Let him divide the contribution into three classes: the miners to pay a third, the Government a third, and the owners a third.

Dealing with the question of compensation, the hon. member said that if a man claimed compensation and it was found that he had transgressed the regulations then he should be penalised to the extent of one-third of his compensation. He pointed out that under such a scheme it would be to the interests of the Government, the companies, and the men to see that the regulations were strictly carried out. On the other hand, if it were found that a company had failed to carry out its share, by not supplying means for laying the dust and stamping out the disease, then the whole of the burden of paying compensation should fall on the company, and the Government should be freed from paying its one-third share. Continuing, he said that in making these calculations he gave one-third as an illustration. He did not say that such a system should be based on that calculation, for a basis could only be arrived at after careful study. Such a scheme would induce the companies to keep their mines clean. It would prove an inducement to the men to carry out the regulations, and thereby not endanger the lives of their fellow workers. Then again it would be an incentive to the Government to see that both companies and men carried out the regulations that were in force. He thought that by these means the disease would be stamped out in the course of time. Under the present Bill there was not the slightest hope of their ever being able to stamp out the disease. Primarily the House must understand that there was a certain amount of antagonism between the employees and the employers, an unnatural antagonism which had been worked up by agitators. (Hear, hear.) Under this scheme that would be done away with, because the Government and the companies would see that no humbugging went on. He was glad it had been suggested that a Select Committee should be appointed. He was pleased at what had been said by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth. That hon. gentleman said that he had an open mind on the subject and would be glad to do justice to all who were concerned. He (the speaker) thought that if a Select Committee consisting of members like the hon. member for Port Elizabeth were appointed that good results would accrue. On the other hand, if a member of the Government were appointed on that committee he would fight in support of his case. If a member from the cross-benches were appointed he would fight the case from his point of view. The result would be that such a committee would never come to any agreement on the subject. If these hon. gentlemen—members of the Government, members of the crossbenches and mining magnates—wished to state their case—well, they could give evidence before the committee. Unless they could come to a settlement he said that they would never have peace so far as the industry was concerned.

said that he was glad that the Minister of Mines had introduced that measure, and he could congratulate him on his Bill. He had listened with great attention to the interesting debate, but regretted that the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Langerman) had spoken as he did. He had made a belated appearance in the House—(laughter)—and had attacked all his supporters; and while the Opposition had, in the main, taken up an attitude which showed that they recognised the great seriousness of that problem, an hon. member on his own side had spoken in that way. He must say that he must vote against any proposal to refer that Bill to a Select Committee, because a Commission had already dealt with that problem and had done all they could to solve it; and he could not think that any other Commission would do any better. If the Bill were referred to a Select Committee, he was afraid that would only mean that it would be shelved, because they were now already half-way through the session, and many witnesses would have to be called. It was impossible to do away altogether with miners’ phthisis, although if they had adopted strict measures at the outset, it would not have proved so extremely serious, but to do away with it altogether was impossible. The only point of difference which there seemed to be was the basis of the contributions. He recognised the gravity of the position, and was convinced that they must deal with that matter that session. (Hear, hear.) He could not agree with the State paying pensions to those who were suffering from the disease; and he thought that if they had carried the first Bill, which had been introduced last session, the miners would not have had to contribute 30s.per month, as was now proposed, but only £1. However, that Bill had not been passed, thanks partly to the efforts of the hon. members on the cross-benches. Something must be done, and in that connection he must say he could not possibly agree with the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Langerman) when he called the mines “poor.” They (the mines) were certainly not poor, and they could afford to bear the lion’s share, and the State had already done much to relieve the sufferers from the disease, and the mines by building sanatoriums and the like. There must be a fund, that they must all admit, and he agreed with the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Theron) that the measure should be properly administered, which would, he felt sure, cost a very great deal. He felt that the miners themselves should also contribute to the fund, not that it necessarily followed that it should be on the proposed scale; and he thought that there should be a sliding scale, according to the pay of the miners. Unfortunate as that problem was, and sad as was the Jot of these poor miners, yet, after all, they were the only people who benefited as a result of that fund, and so they should contribute to a certain extent. He had every sympathy with these men, but thought it would not be just if they did not contribute. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Langerman) had also said something which he could not allow to pass, that the Transvaal Ministers had scuttled away from that problem, and that the affairs of the mines had now been left in the hands of the Cape Ministers. He regretted that the hon. member had raised such provincial feelings, and he, for one, would not consider that matter in such a way, but would consider it from the point of view of the Union—as he would consider all other matters. (Hear, hear.) He trusted that they would finish with that Bill that session, and put the Act on the Statute Book as soon as possible, so that speedy assistance and relief could be given to the sufferers from miners’ phthisis. (Hear, hear.)

thought it clear that the report of the Phthisis Commission had filled the House with dismay. From it many hon. members had learned for the first time that the disease had eaten into the heart of a large section of the community. They were all agreed that steps must be taken to prevent an increase of the disease, but opinions differed as to the best means to secure that end. One hon. member had come all the way down from the Rand to voice his views on the question, and, it appeared, to dissociate himself from the attitude of the Government—the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Langerman). He had stated that he had found at least one member who had an open mind on the matter,, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. Walton). The hon. member had said that if he were convinced that the miners on the Rand did not receive extra pay on account of the extra risks they ran he would support the Labour party’s view, that the men should not contribute to the Compensation Fund. The right hon. member for Victoria West repeatedly referred to the “princely salaries” which the miners on the Rand were drawing, and had on each occasion been contradicted from their benches. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth had stated that if it were shown that the underground workers did not get more than the surface workers he would accept that as proof that they were not paid anything extra for the unusual risks they ran. To prove that the underground workers did not receive more he would quote from the Mining Engineer’s report for the six months ended December, 1910. It was an accepted fact that the average wage paid to the men on the surface was 20s. a day.

For white men?

There was some hope for themselves when the next general election came round. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he said that the report showed that machine stoppers on contract received 28s. 7d. per day; the daily paid men, of whom there were 260.were earning 21s. 3d. a day. For hand stopping, by contract, the pay was 24s. 9d. to 670 men, while 1,132 on daily pay received 18s. 9d. per day. The average wage of skilled workers on the surface was a pound a day, and 1,132 men were down below earning 18s. 9d. a day. No hon. member was entitled to object to the pay these men were getting unless he was willing to undertake the same work himself. The right hon. member for Victoria West had referred to the shaft sinkers, of whom 89 were shown on the list as earning 44s. 9d. a day—89 out of a total of 10,000 men working underground. He would not mention the mine managers, two of whom were, he believed, getting £10,000 a year. The men on shaft-sinking were driven to the utmost by the managers in attempts to break records. Two hundred and eighty-nine of the shaft-sinkers on contract were paid on the amount of ground they broke; but they had 119 shaft-sinkers getting 23s. 7d. per day. He thought it was not fair for the right hon. gentleman to take 89 men out of 10,000, and quote them as an average set. There were 26 engine drivers receiving 21s. 3d. per day, 11 electric winch drivers earning 16s. 7d. per day, and 100 others earning 12s. 10d. per day These were down below, and according to the report of the Commission, were all liable, and, in fact, bound to get this disease. Down below they also had 60 fitters, earning 19s. 8d. per day, and in the mill on the surface 42 fitters, earning 19s. 11d. They came under the Miners’ Phthisis Bill, and would have to contribute to the fund. But, perhaps, if he gave another comparison, it might make the point even more clear. They had working down below 449 learners, at 7s. 3d. per day, and they were contracting miners’ phthisis. They were mostly working drills. There was one mine in his constituency where there were no fewer than 20 machines being run, under the supervision of one miner, by learners, who were getting 5s. a day. There were 139 skilled white labourers getting 7s. a day. They had in the mill, on the surface, 296 learners getting 7s. 6d. a day. The learners on the surface were actually getting more than the learners down below. In the cyanide works, they had 150 learners getting 7s. 6d. per day, and in the workshops, 50 learners getting 8s. 3d. per day. He thought he had said enough on that score to prove to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton) that the men working down below were not getting anything extra for the risk they ran of contracting miners’ phthisis. On the contrary, some of them were getting less. And, further, these men not only ran the risk of miners’ phthisis—they ran the additional risk of accident. A rope might break while they were in the skip, there might be an overwind, and they were always open to the risk of being “blasted” while using the high explosives used in the mines.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

continuing, said he would make one further comparison. There were two trades, one which was followed on the surface and one underground. This was to prove that men did not receive anything because of the danger they ran from miners’ phthisis. There were 1,086 timbermen working on the mines, at an average rate of pay or 20s. 8d. per diem. These men ran extra risks quite apart from miners’ phthisis and apart also from the other risks he had mentioned. These men ran extra risks by reason of having to work in shafts while skips were running up and down within a few inches of them. They were in constant danger of death. On the surface they had 1,163 carpenters, a trade approximating to the timbermen, who were earning practically the same wage, and, therefore, it was clear that the men working down below did not receive anything extra on account of the danger they ran of contracting miners’ phthisis. The question of rates of pay did not concern the matter one whit. It had been argued by the hon. member for Germiston, and also by the hon. and Æsculapian member on the other side, that the men should contribute because miners’ phthisis supervened upon tuberculosis. Tuberculosis occurred in a great many cases, but that did not prove that miners’ phthisis was not an occupational disease. (Hear, hear.) Members of the Commission distinctly stated that this miners’ phthisis incapacitated men from working, quite apart from tuberculosis. Their contention was that if they made the employer pay the compensation to the men who contracted the disease they were going to prevent the disease. Hon. members on both sides of the House were under the impression that all that was required was insurance for the men against the time when they were laid aside. That was not the real point. He would say that the men who were laid aside as the result of an occupational disease should be treated as if they had insured against accident, and should receive compensation for it. It was pointed out pretty clearly by the Commission that this disease was preventable, and they on the cross-benches said that it was preventable; but not by the men. The men could not prevent the dust: but the mine owners could. It was all a matter of £ s. d., and he would say to the hon. member for Beaufort West, who advised them not to be hysterical, that in diagnosing a case any doctor must look for the cause. While some members were effervescing superficial wisdom as though they had taken a mental seidlitz powder, and were still gassing and frothing, these men were dying. The lives of these men could be saved, and therefore it was murder. He was going to show them how much those responsible for the management of the mines did try to prevent the disease. During the last recess he was shown the drawings of an invention by two gentlemen in Johannesburg. It was a patent exhausting machine which would create a vacuum and suck away the dust as it was created. With an interval between two shifts the whole of the dust could be removed. It had not been tried, and his contention was that the mine owners would not give it a trial; and the reason was because the installation of the plant would cost £25,000 on the largest mine on the Rand, and £9,000 on the smallest. The Minister owed something to the miners, and he should insist upon an installation of machinery if it would keep the dust down. Two or three members talked about the benefits which this country as a whole derived from the mining industry; and there seemed to be a very curious idea as to what constituted the mining industry. To those members the industry means shareholders’ pockets. But to those on the Labour benches it means the shareholders’ pockets to a certain degree, and to a very large degree the men engaged on the mines. The profits formed a very small proportion of the benefits this industry gave to South Africa. He would show how the industry was eating its way into the life of the people. Fifty-seven per cent. of the miners were married, and he supposed had children. Whatever the cause, men who were suffering from a disease of the lungs naturally predisposed their children to lung disease. (Cries of “No,” and laughter.) Well, it was said that heredity played a large part in the matter. The hon. member quoted extracts from the reports of the Magistrates and Inspectors of Reserves in reference to the prevalence of pneumonia amongst natives who had returned from the mines. Proceeding, he said that to show that this phthisis was the fault of those in charge of the men he would like to draw hon. members’ attention to the conditions obtaining at present on several mines that he was personally acquainted with.

It was frequently argued, in the course of the debate last session, that the men were careless, particularly in the direction of not using water. At the City Deep, it would have been seen, the manager had recently been fined £50 for not having an adequate supply of water to that particular mine. He (Mr. Madeley) knew a mine on the East Rand, a vertical mine, 1,760 feet deep. From the bottom of the vertical an incline was run, which was 993 feet long. There was a cross-cut off that, rising one in 1,500 feet; along the cross-cut there was a connection drive, which had been cut in 600 feet, and had not been joined up, and, therefore, was of no particular use as far as ventilation was concerned. Off this connection drive there was a 560 feet drive north and south of that, just started. Men were working in this tail end at such a tremendous distance from the shaft, without any ventilation whatever, without any connection with the surface, without one single drop of water. There was another mine on the East Rand where, at one particular level, there were five men working. They had water supplied in this particular case from a ½in pipe. The supply was so “copious” along this pipe that the first and second men in from the shaft had to shut off their water in order to allow the other three men to get any at all, and even then the fifth man only got a trickle. He knew another mine on the East Rand in which a man was working in a drive 900 feet in, with no connection drive, no winzes, no ventilation, and no water.

Give us the name.

I will give you the name in private. Proceeding, the hon. member said he knew a miner who had worked on the Mines on the Rand. In not one single case had they any water supplied. The argument was used last session that these men did not use sprays. At that time he and his colleagues argued that these sprays were worse than useless. The Minister, in introducing this Bill, had borne out that statement. He had stated that sprays were useless. It was also argued that the men did not use respirators. He had seen these respirators used. The wearers had to be very careful in order to prevent this fine dust from getting on to their lungs, and the damp air caused a crust, practically like cement. Continuing, he said the point he wished to make was that the miner should not be made to contribute towards his own compensation, but that the whole of the amount should come out of the working costs of the mine, then the mine owners would be compelled to take measures for preventing the disease. He had shown that a large number of these men were getting as little as 7s.per day. The amount which these men had to pay was 15s per month. All because of that miserable pittance which the hon. Minister was prepared to grant them for the term of one year. But there were worse cases than these, where miners actually came out in debt. They had been told of one man who had earned the magnificent sum of 2s. 6d., and another the still lesser sum of 1d. How, he asked, could men like these be expected to make provision for his own compensation? The hon. member laughs, from which it is evident that he knows nothing about the subject. The only way, he maintained, to bring about a cleaner state of the mines was to make the mine owner solely responsible for the existence of the disease, otherwise he was convinced that a contributory scheme would never accomplish this. It had been said that the miner, if not held partly responsible, would fail to take any precautions. But how, he asked, could they take precautions when there was no water down the mines? What the owners could do would be to see that everything was damped before the miners came to work. The disease could be combated, but only by making the mine owners pay compensation for the lives they destroyed.

said he had not intended to take part in the debate only he had been given to understand that an attack had been made on his administration—a patriotic attack, no doubt—(laughter)—by an hon. member sitting behind him, who in the course of his speech complained, amongst other things, that as a result of his (the hon. Minister’s) administration, the mines were debarred from getting a sufficiency of native labour. He wished to read the following telegram to the House. “From the Director of the Government Native Labour Bureau, April 17.—The natives employed on mines and works in the labour districts of the Transvaal as at March 31, 1912, was 230,277, and the increase over the previous month was 7,500. The former figure represents the largest labour force ever employed on the mines and works in the Transvaal labour districts. The position as regards the supply generally is very satisfactory, a large number of mines being full, while others have actually more natives than they require.” (Loud cheers.)

said he wanted to make it clear why he did not think it wise to bring this question under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The hon. member for Springs was under the impression that by making the employer liable it would do away with the disease. In Great Britain the original idea of making the employer responsible started with a man named MacDonald, and the first thing the employer did was to contract out of the liability. In order to prevent this a Bill was introduced into Parliament, but it was returned from the House of Lords in such an emasculated condition that the Commons refused to accept it. Another course open to the employer was to insure. So it was to-day the employer found it less expensive to insure against his liability than to take preventive measures. A law was passed that every mine should have two shafts. It was not laid down that mines with only one shaft should pay compensation.

rose to a point of order, and asked whether the hon. member should not address the Chair.

The hon. member will please resume his seat.

said that the result of that provision was, he believed, that every mine had two shafts. The question, which was a difficult one, should be dealt with from three points of view, first, compensation to the men who had already contracted the disease; secondly, insurance in respect of those men who might contract the disease in the future; and, thirdly, prevention of the disease in the future. He had always maintained that the men should make some contribution towards the compensation fund. That should not apply to the men who had contracted the disease in the past. The Government were, however, bound to see that the mines were in a healthy state. In 1887 the Coal Mines Regulations Act was passed in England, and amongst many useful provisions that it contained was one that the men themselves should have the right to nominate inspectors. He thought that could be followed in the mines on the Rand. The hon. member for Germiston had made a useful suggestion, namely, that the air in the mine should be tested, and the quantity of dust in it ascertained, and in the event of the amount exceeding a certain figure the mine should be penalised. During the elections he (the speaker) had supported another theory, namely, that the Board, on which the Government and the employers and employees would be represented, should have some say in determining the proportion of the contribution to be paid by the mines and the men. He still thought that would be a wise provision. It would enable them to make the shareholders of mines whose atmosphere was highly vitiated pay a larger contribution. He thought that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee and deprecated the notion that it should be made the opportunity for long platform orations. The sooner the Bill was before the committee the better. (Cheers.)

said it was with diffidence that he rose to speak on a subject so technical, and he only did so as he was opposed to some of the provisions of the Bill. He would express the views of a farmer. The question arose which principle was being adopted in the Bill—the principle underlying the Workmen’s Compensation Act or the principle of insurance? Apparently regard was being had to both. Where the native was concerned, the principle of the Workman’s Compensation Act prevailed, because he did not contribute to his own compensation and was therefore more fortunate than the white miner, who was asked to contribute, and was, consequently, treated on the principle of insurance. When the provisions of the Act were applied to the man already afflicted they took the form of compensation but when applied to the man not yet afflicted they took the form of insurance. Why should the man who took every precaution and used every preventive measure to prolong his life pay towards the compensation of his more careless comrade, and, when he himself eventually became afflicted, receive less than the whole of his contributions amounted to? Last year’s contribution by the State was regarded as a self-imposed penalty for not having taken steps at an earlier period to prevent the disease. He argued last year that the mine owners should pay 90 per cent. and the State 10 per cent., as the State shared to that extent in the profit of the mines. As the administration of this Act would cost the State an amount equivalent to at least 10 per cent. of the compensation to be paid, he thought no further contribution should be paid by the State. It was, of course, the State’s duty to see that the regulations were carried out in the mines. He thought every doubt was removed by the Commission, and they had shown that this was an occupational disease, and therefore he could not for the life of him see why this was not a disease that should be compensated for under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. He thought that if a miner took every care of his health—how could they expect him to contribute towards the case of a man who was negligent and careless of his health? He knew of no compensation Act where a man had to pay towards his own compensation. The strongest argument against that was the most unjustifiable. It was said that because an injury was done by an industry—the goose that laid the golden egg—they should do an injustice to a hard-working body of men. He never heard a more pernicious argument. He hoped the House would not be led away by that argument. The House should not forget that those fundamental moral principles upon which a young nation’s life should be built cannot be sacrificed to material interests. The hon. member for Bloemfontein gave a suggestion that if the full onus was put on the mining industry the industry would reduce the wages to meet the expense; but if that were to put three-fourths of the compensation to be paid on them, would they not do the same thing? He thought that showed the necessity for a minimum wage being fixed by the Government. The hon. member for Jeppe said that the natives were comparatively better treated than the white miners. That was undoubtedly the case, and it was because the natives were treated on the principle of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, whereas the white miners were not. But the white miner endeavoured to keep all the sympathy to himself. A short time ago he was down a mine, and saw natives working with rock-drills. As soon as they saw him they put their respirators up, and the gentleman who was conducting him took the spray and started spraying the face of the rock. When he asked where the white man in charge was, he was told he was a contractor, and was somewhere else. He thought they should look after the natives as well as the white men. He was told that they could not afford the time spent in spraying the quartz because it was contract work. Last year they were told that the men gambled with their lives; but someone had to do the work if the gold industry was to be carried on, and if the mine-owners, shareholders, and employees were to directly benefit by the industry, and consequently he thought that the suggestion thrown out by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. J. X. Merriman) was the correct one, and that was that every individual interested in the mining industry, from the manager down to the office boy, should be made to contribute something. But if the workman was to contribute, what guarantee had he that the present rate of wage would be continued, and, therefore, he thought it was time that the wage should be fixed by legislation, so that no reduction could be effected. He thought the Government should not spare any expense in having the mines properly inspected, and if any miner broke the regulations he should be penalised by a heavy fine, but after the second offence he should be discharged from the mine and not be allowed to work underground again. After due consideration, he thought the principle only of the Workmen’s Compensation Act should prevail here, and that the mines should contribute the whole of the compensation. It was no good saying that they were going to injure the industry if they were going to injure a vast body of men, and, therefore, though in agreement with the principle of the Bill, he could not vote for any clause that made the miners pay contributions.

said it seemed to be the general opinion that something should be done to remedy this disease, and, after the speeches that had been delivered, the discussion seemed now to centre round the question on whose shoulders the burden was to fall and in what proportion. As pointed out by the hon. member for Fordsburg, there were really two divisions. These were those men who had contracted the disease badly and those men who only slightly contracted the disease or who were likely to contract it in the future. These two conditions must be dealt with on entirely different lines. Take the case of those who had got the disease badly and who had no chance of recovering; it was not fair to make the men who were working now contribute to this. It seemed rather hard to say to the mines that they must pay additional compensation. They must bear in mind that the State had a very large interest in this industry. Then with regard to contributions, he would direct the attention of the Minister to the amount of money due to the State from the bewaarplaatsen. As far as he understood, the amount due altogether from bewaarplaatsen was about £2,000,000. According to the tables laid down there was already an amount of £172,486, half of which, at any rate, belonged to the State, while the disposal of the other was in abeyance. If the State would say that they would take this amount and any amount that might accrue in the future to provide for compensation in the case of those men who had badly contracted the disease, then he thought that would be wise policy. As regarded the other class he mentioned, that should be dealt with after the nature of insurance. It was perfectly fair that in this case a man should contribute something, say, one-fourth by the men and three-fourths by the State. With regard to the amount of the contribution as set down in the Bill, he would like to inform the Minister that it seemed to him to be set down in a very crude form; for this reason, that he only contemplated taking a contribution in two forms, but he did not take into consideration the amount of wages received. The rock-drillers, who received from £35 to £40 per month, contributed only £1 10s. per month, while the learners, who worked beside them and who received only £7 to £8 a month, also contributed £1 10s. Other men who received from £23 to £25 per month only contributed 15s. Therefore there was no regard shown to the amount of wages a man received. Again, if they levied the contribution according to the method set down by the Bill it would be to the interests of the mine owners to work with less white men, for the simple reason of reducing their contributions. Therefore the method as set down in the Bill was neither fair nor sound, and the best plan would be to levy contributions upon the whole of the wages.

They had got to take what, upon the whole, was the fairest. Stress had been laid upon the giving of some rebate to those mines who took the best precautions against this disease. That was possible, but, on the other side, they had the whole of the men engaged in this industry on the side of the Government in putting down this disease.

What about the traders on the mines?

What have the traders got to do with it? They are no more interested than the public generally. Proceeding, he said he ventured to think that, at any rate, the suggestion he had made met the case as well as anything that had been brought forward. At first he had been opposed to the State making any contribution, but he had been forced to the conclusion that the State would have to contribute towards those miners who had been incapacitated, because it was not fair that the mine-owners should bear the whole of the cost. Therefore he felt that the proposition which he made, taking it all round, most fairly met the case. (Hear, hear.)

said he desired to associate himself with those who were discussing this question with evident earnestness; those who had made up their minds that the best possible solution should be arrived at. He did not think they should indulge in hypercriticism, or that they should need any party action, but that they should regard themselves as the mouthpieces of the entire nation. He noticed in this debate they had departed from that standpoint to a very large extent. He would like to compliment the Minister on having introduced any Bill at all. The task was simply a tremendous one, and the more one read and thought, and the more closely one investigated, the more was one convinced that the task was sufficient to stagger the determination of the bravest and the ablest man, and he did hope that every hon. member would do his very utmost to assist the Minister, to assist the Government, and to assist generally in the solution of this most momentous matter. Of course, if they were in the ideal Socialist state, the whole thing would be settled with a stroke of the pen. Each sufferer would receive a large cheque upon an unlimited bank. However, they were under a system of industry that had been established upon a certain basis, rightly or wrongly, and the natural resources of wealth were to-day private property. He thought they were indebted to the Commission for the very valuable report they had drawn up. The members had devoted themselves to their task with great energy and devotion. He thought the whole House had agreed on two points. The one was that the evil must be arrested. It was agreed that it could be arrested, and he thought they all agreed that the evil must be put a stop to, and that at a very early date. There were three primary causes. The first was the miners’ occupation, which was unhealthy and dangerous. The second was that compensation must be provided for the suffering men; and the third point was that compensation must not, and he would say could not, come from the pockets of the people who were to-day smitten with that terrible disease. It was the deepest conviction of the miner on the Rand that they should not be asked to contribute at all.

Rather than submit to what they were called upon to submit to, these men would commit suicide. “I would do it myself,” added the hon. member; “rather than submit to a condition under which men have been, and in which they will be placed, I would very much sooner use any knowledge I may have and put an end to the whole thing and shame those who are left behind, if possible.” Proceeding, Mr. Haggar said that they had heard a good deal about the wages earned by these men. The authorities all recognised that wages must be considered in relation to their purchasing power. Once more he would say that the purchasing power of wages on the Witwatersrand was not 50 per cent. of the purchasing power of wages in other countries where they had similar troubles. The hon. member went on to speak of the fumes from the use of dynamite as one of the causes of miners’ phthisis, pointing out that the Commission found that these fumes were injurious, and one of the primary causes of the disease. The hon. member for Yeoville, he remarked, had left the impression upon the House that all the men who were supposed to die from phthisis really died from tuberculosis. He did not know whether that was the hon. member’s view, but, at any rate, he would remind the House that the report of the Commission contradicted that view.

Continuing, he said even the most careful diagnosis was not always satisfactory. Less than two years ago he was condemned to death. (Laughter.) He had been told that he was suffering from tuberculosis, and could only live three months. Did he look like it? (Laughter.) Did his lungs indicate that? (More laughter.) He would not say the State should contribute, but he would appeal to his Socialist friends on the other side of the House.

Who are they?

would prefer to say they were driven to the work by force of circumstances. Miners were accused of carelessness, but he maintained that only men careless of their life and personal interests would undertake the work.

If these men exhibited the same bravery on the battlefield monuments would be erected to them. The Minister should put his heart into it to see that the mines were made as healthy as any in the world. He had been told that with a proper Board of Trade half of the mines would be closed down. He believed that every man ought to insure, for instance, a married man, for the sake of his family. The healthiest miner could not insure. There was only one way out, for the Government to introduce a national scheme of insurance. He believed that compensation should be paid—something more than a miserable pittance, £8 a month, and £6 of which would go for rent. Recently a case had come before a Johannesburg Magistrate, in which it was stated that the accused, who was charged with the theft of £100, received a salary of £16 a month, and the Magistrate said that he could not come out on that. He had faith enough in hon. members to think that they would do their best to meet these men. Where the responsibility was the money should come from. But that might be strongly opposed. If there was to be only one contributor only, it should be the mines. It was no good saying that they could not afford it. If it meant that they could not make an adequate provision without the State he urged hon. members opposite to withdraw their opposition. It might not be the ideal thing but these were not ideal times. He hoped that everything would be done by all parties to remove this terrible blot. Putting aside hypercriticism, let them determine to have the best measure possible, and they could then return to their homes feeling that they had done their best. (Hear, hear.)

said that when he read the Commission’s report he was somewhat anxious as to the position of the natives, because he noticed that the time at the disposal of the Commission was inadequate to permit of a full inquiry into their position. There was a glimmer of hope at the Commission’s recognition of the serious position in which the natives were placed. He represented a district in which there were a large number of native labourers who went down to the mines, and from what he observed he gathered that their position was a serious one. He was satisfied that a large number of natives contracted the disease and returned every year to their homes, and no notice was given of them. He was pleased that the Minister had been able to provide for these natives by taking over the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. But there were one or two points even in that respect to which he wished to draw attention. He was surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Tembuland in that he was not satisfied with the amount of compensation to be paid to the natives. He thought that the amount of £20 given for partial incapacitation was fair, as was the amount of £50 for permanent incapacitation. The position of the natives was much more serious than that of the white men, because the white man could understand the report of the Commission, while the native could not. In his own experience natives did not realise the consequences of the disease; they put their illness down to witchcraft. When they were seriously attacked they immediately went home, and no compensation would be asked for. If a native who contracted the disease went home, why should he not claim the same compensation as if he had remained on the Rand and died there? (Hear, hear.) With regard to rock-drillers, again, each rock-driller had from 10 to 14 natives, and this would show how great must be the proportion of the natives who contracted the disease. There was another point. Section 14 provided for the medical examination of persons seeking employment on the mines. That meant necessarily Europeans, but no mention was made of a medical examination of natives. Of course, he would be told that natives were medically examined beforehand, but that examination was not for the purpose of discovering miners’ phthisis. He submitted that a native should be examined in the same way as a white man. This examination was most essential, and he considered that no native should leave the mine until he was so examined, not so much as a matter of compensation, but to warn him of his physical condition. He had heard it stated that there were not many natives suffering from this miners’ phthisis, but cases were difficult to trace. He submitted that the inspection with regard to the natives on the mines was not sufficient, and that these men were not advised of their condition as they should be. When he saw the provision in the Bill in reference to natives he came to the conclusion that the Government had the welfare of the natives at heart, because it would have been an easy matter to have put their case aside for a period. But what provision was made for the native who happened to die of phthisis? There was no provision for the native in a case of that sort, and that was quite clear from the terms of the Bill. Why not? Surely if they paid a man who was touched by the disease they should compensate the heirs of the man who died? He hoped that the Minister would see that the suggestion was reasonable, and take it into consideration.

said there was one thing in connection with the debate that had taken place that had received very scant consideration. It had been said that the wages paid on the Rand were very high, and that these miners were bribed to sacrifice their Jives. Not only were the wages paid high, but they were now going to say to them that when they contracted the disease, they would be compensated. But in the report of the Commission there was a very strange omission. It was a very strange omission when one came to consider that for every white man who worked in the mines there were eight or ten natives employed. He could not think that no mention had been made of the matter for the reason that it was not worthy of mention; was it because so few of these natives caught the disease that the matter did not require consideration? Although the natives were not referred to in this special report, they had a very interesting report and some very interesting evidence from the Select Committee on the Native Regulation Bill, which sat last year. One witness—a very large employer of native labour—said “I never run my natives more than six months at a time. If I did, they would get miners’ consumption. I tried to run them longer, but I found it would not wash. If you run them longer, the death rate goes up.” Later on he said: “I never run them for more than six months. I never make a contract for twelve months, because it would kill them.” Then Dr. G. A. Turner stated: “The white men stick to their work month after month, but the native goes off for a rest after working for six months.” The mortality rates in respect of phthisis amongst natives employed on the mines in the proclaimed labour districts in the Transvaal were as follows: During the first month of employment, 3.2 per cent.; first and second month of employment, 6.9; second and third, 7.6; third and fourth, 7.7; fourth and fifth, 6.8; after six months, 64.0. That was a tremendous leap.

Miners’ phthisis?

Yes; this is a statement showing mortality from phthisis amongst natives employed on the mines

Ah, but not miners’ phthisis?

Of course, I am not sure. The table I read out is distinctly stated to be phthisis. Pneumonia is dealt with in another table.

Proceeding, the hon. member asked did this not show very distinctly the direction in which relief could be obtained from the set of circumstances with which they were confronted? If they did not wish to encourage miners’ phthisis amongst black and white, it seemed to him that they must regulate these men who were allowed to work underground. If they made it impossible for a white man to work underground for more than six months at a time, it was his firm belief that he would get no more miners’ phthisis than the native did at the present time. It followed that, if they made a restriction of this kind, they would require twice as many white men in the mines as they had at present. But that was hardly any business of theirs. He considered that, with the comparatively high wages that these white miners earned, they could better afford to work for six months in the year and then rest for six months then they could afford to work all the year round for three or four years and then finish their days on £8 a month. (Hear, hear.) The Bill as it stood at present without any clauses dealing with this point so far as the prevention of disease was concerned, was so much waste paper. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent the men practically from committing suicide by remaining in the mines under the present conditions. In regard to the incidence of the burden of compensation, he was of opinion that, as the State shared in the profits, the State should pay a full share of the compensation. He advocated that the State and the mines should pay half and half; at all events, he would advocate no payment at all by the men. (Hear, hear.) He considered that the State should pay a full share of the compensation so long as it took a share of the profits. The State now drew £800,000 a year as a direct share of the profits of the mines, and during the last four or five years had drawn close upon five millions of money as a direct contribution from the mines. In regard to native workers in the mines, he thought it would be well, considering the ignorance of these people, that they should not be allowed to work down the mines for greater stretches than six months at a time. An omission from the Bill, which seemed to him to be a very strange one, was that no reference was made to the damage done to men’s health in the driving of tunnels. Continuing, he thought the State should contribute, seeing it participated in the profits to a substantial extent. Nor did the Government take any risks for the 10 per cent which it drew as did the shareholders. He quite agreed that no one showing signs of tuberculosis should be allowed to go down the mines. The only way to prevent men killing themselves was that they should be periodically examined. The member for Jeppe held that the mine owner should be made solely liable, and that if this were done it would stop the disease. But the same argument could be used just the same towards the State. By the same rule, if the State contributed it would force the Department of the Minister of Mines to be more careful in the necessary inspection of mines. If this were done he believed the condition of the mines would be made as healthy as possible.

said as one who was not at present interested in the mining industry, but who had been for twenty years, perhaps it might be useful to contribute an opinion or two. He might say that in the course of two elections he had managed to maintain those same opinions, and had not found them to be unreasonably received. He regretted the question had been made the object of a campaign in which strong feeling had run high against those who employed these men. A political turn had been given to the question by fixing the blame on the side of those who until a little while ago were, like everybody else, unaware of the seriousness of the disease. He had listened to criticisms coming from the cross-benches, which criticism he did not think were fair. If it were said there were inhuman employers who had not taken proper care, he could agree with what they said. Such employers had been a curse to those who had tried to do their best, and these latter would gladly welcome legislation. What he complained of was that there was a criticism from the cross-benches which had been aimed against the employer. The member for Springs said he had got a remedy. That was to throw the liability on the employer. That was not a constructive suggestion. He did not, however, wish to say anything that would cause friction, because he believed the question was going to a Select Committee, where he hoped some constructive suggestion would be made that would solve a question of extreme difficulty and perplexity, and it was with that view he wished to avoid saying anything that might irritate. There were three points which he would like to draw attention to, which to him seemed of vital importance: (1) That the present proposal would directly discourage the employment of white labour, notably that of white married men; (2) that it does not aim at the eradication of the disease; and (3) that there is no differentiation made between the good manager and the bad manager, therefore, the manager or employer of a mine who desires to make serious efforts to eradicate the disease has no encouragement whatever as against the one who makes no attempt to keep the disease out of his mine. He hoped the committee would be selected from broadminded and disinterested men, so that a solution might be arrived at entirely apart from the party divisions of that House. (Cheers.) He regretted that some of the Transvaal members had left the House, because he wished to remind them of what occurred when the cry was raised against the employment of Chinese labour. They were accused of not using machinery up to date, and even the Government joined in by endeavouring to find improved machinery for the mines. To-day it was suggested that the use of this machinery should be prohibited by law. He wondered wherever this unfortunate industry was going to find salvation. (Laughter.) Employers were asked one day to find better machinery and the next there was talk of abolishing it. He mentioned this because it might be of use to those who were going to take part in solving the difficulty. What was once thought to be quite right was now condemned as being entirely wrong. If the scheme had been started 35 years ago he believed that there would have been no miners’ phthisis. They were now trying to meet the difficulties of 25 years, not literally, because many of the men had not survived. There were two divisions of this subject, the compensatory and the preventive. That was where he thought the Bill failed. The compensatory provisions could be discussed and adjusted. The preventive suggestions were wholly insufficient, and must be brought up by the Select Committee. Something must be done to eradicate the disease. It was not essential to the conditions on the mines and could be removed. He had listened with some pain to a disquisition by an hon. member who confessed having been down one mine for 20 minutes. There was never anything so hopeless. To attempt to direct public opinion upon that experience was very deplorable, especially when there was competent opinion and advice at hand. Attention must be directed to the preventive measures. The case for the Government contribution had ’been most ably put by the right hon. member for Victoria West, who like an artistic story-teller had left the last point to the imagination. There was no question about it if they had to go beyond the men directly concerned and the mines they must go to the State. He had to refer to another statement made by the right hon. member for Victoria West, whether he really meant them to understand that it was difficult to have a State contribution he could not say, but he had a doubt. He proposed that a share of the fund should be derived from the bewaarplaatsen, the ownership of which was in dispute. To his mind the State would have to recognise the accumulated heritage of past years. It was not just to place that upon the present employers and it was not at all wise, because the case could easily be met. Because people wakened up to their moral delinquencies and shortcomings that was no reason why they should seek to place the burden upon other people. He did not think it was a just or right thing to turn upon a man and taunt him with bringing the disease upon himself and tell him it was his own fault. Where a man was able to do so, then let him contribute something. If they were going to impose upon the learners, the men who earned only £7 or £8 a month, a contribution of 30s. or 35s. a month, it would be an injustice which no words could describe. These learners were contributing their share by learning their trade. They were taking up a training which was full of danger for them all. He supported strongly the idea that the Bill should go to a Select Committee and he hoped hon. members would really do their utmost to find a solution for the question which they all realised was one of extreme difficulty.

moved the adjournment of the debate till to-morrow.

Agreed to