from the widow of J. V. Bekitsha, pensioner.

from C. C. Stubbs, Inspector of Native Locations, Glen Grey.

from W. P. Erasmus, late teacher, Free State.

from D. Murray, South African Railways.

in support of the petition from Letta Veldtman Bekitsha.

gave notice of the following motion: That the Draft Standing Rules and Orders be referred to the Committee re Standing Rules and Orders for the purpose of inserting the following rule: After a question has been proposed, a member rising in his place may claim to move: That the question be now put, and, unless it shall appear to Mr. Speaker that such motion is an abuse of the Rules of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question: That the question be now put, shall be put forthwith, and decided, without amendment or debate.

I am afraid the hon. member is too late. The rules have already been adopted, save and except those to which exception has been taken.

Return of legal expenses paid by the Government since May 31, 1910, showing amount of legal charges paid by Government in connection with proceedings taken against the Government under the Immigration Laws since 31st May, 1910; and amount of legal charges paid by the Government in which the Government was unsuccessful.

moved the third reading of the Gill College Corporation Bill.

said he wished to move a small amendment.

Did the hon. member give notice?

No.

Then the amendment cannot be put.

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

said he had hoped that the Minister of Railways and Harbours would have seen the error of his ways and would have seen fit to signify that he would accept the amendment. It seemed to him (Mr. Chaplin) that the discussion on Friday showed beyond all doubt that the course which was advocated by his hon. friend was undoubtedly one which was in the interests of the railway service, particularly the men and, he thought, the country at large.

It seemed to him that the Minister of Railways and Harbours had based his defence upon very insecure foundations. (Hear, hear.) From a legal point of view, he never heard a more unconvincing argument than that which the Minister of Justice put forward. (Hear, hear.) The Act most distinctly referred to the services which it was contemplated that the Board should render, and he could not conceive how it was possible that the Board could render services unless it had servants by whom those services were to be rendered. He would say that, so far from the Government sheltering themselves behind the legal opinion, which, as he had already said, was most unconvincing, they should have done their best to fortify themselves with a legal opinion which would have justified them in taking advantage of the solution of the difficulty which his hon. friend proposed. It seemed to him that the Government by doing so would have rid themselves of a great deal of trouble. He thought the Minister would have done much better if he had this Board between himself and the railway servants. Considering the great advantage there must be, in particular to the men, in having the matter under the control of an independent Railway Board, which was entirely divorced from political considerations, he was considerably surprised at the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Georgetown. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Andrews) supported the Government in this matter. As far as he could see, the hon. member went to the Select Committee, and when this proposal was first brought forward by his hon. friend (Sir T. W. Smartt) the hon. member voted for it. Quite naturally, because he must have seen the advantage to the men and people employed by the Railway Department in having their affairs administered by an independent Railway Board. Then he supposed the hon. member came back to his friends and his friends said to him: “You have made a mistake; don’t you see if their affairs are administered by an independent Board there is no opportunity for us who sit on the crossbenches to put pressure on the Government of the day.” So the hon. member went back to the Select Committee and, when the matter came on again, he took up exactly the opposite position. Then he had to find some justification. He said he disagreed with the principle of having this Board. He said he had experience of the Board in the Transvaal. He said that the Board did not agree with him. If the hon. member expressed the same views as he did sometimes on those benches he (Mr. Chaplin) thought that, prima facie, that was an argument in favour of the Board. What did he complain of in connection with the Board? He complained that there was a suspicion of jobbery in connection with the Board.

I did nothing of the kind.

said that the Board lent itself to a suspicion of exploiting industrial interests.

That is your opinion.

continuing, said that the hon. member then proceeded to justify that imputation. He made some reference to the Witbank railway. He proceeded to say that he had heard, or that there were whispers, of something of that kind, of corruption, or a railway being made in the interests of people who had other ends to serve. He knew perfectly well what the hon. member was aiming at. He (Mr. Andrews) had made an insinuation against people who were not there to defend themselves. The people against whom this insinuation was made went to the law courts and won their case, and he must say that the hon. member had made a sorry case for himself when he had to come there and explain his inconsistency in. Select Committee by bringing in matters which were clearly shattered in the law courts of this country. (Hear, hear.)

said he was, unfortunately, not able to be in the House on Friday night, and he must say he was surprised at what took place, because he had thought this was a measure in regard to which it had been agreed on both sides to facilitate its passage He must confess that he went with the majority of the Select Committee on this matter. As for the legal opinion, he should like to see that opinion uncommonly—(Opposition cheers)—because clause 15 said that the appointment or removal of officers of the public service of the Union should be vested in the Governor-General-in-Council, unless the appointment were delegated by the Governor-General or by this Act. Well, if they looked to the clause which appointed the Railway Board, they would naturally believe that it was delegated by this Act to the Railway Board. That was the point that struck him, and no doubt struck the twelve gentlemen on the Select Committee. He regretted that they should have a wrangle over a question of this kind, over an Act which was purely administrative. He could quite understand that the Minister would not, and he did not think that Parliament or any people with commonsense, would wish to hand over to an independent Board, which could only be got rid of by extraordinary measures, certain appointments in the railway service. He thought those the Government should be responsible for, but at the same time, ordinary appointments, the clerks, the stationmasters, and people of that sort, he thought Should be made by the heads of their offices, recommended and appointed, he should say, by the Board. What he would suggest was that they should insert “may appoint, subject to the exceptions contained in the schedule,” and then make a schedule of certain appointments which the Government, who could be called to account by Parliament, reserved in their own hands. He thought that would be a way of meeting this, and that they should leave the Clause otherwise as it was passed by the committee. They were all anxious, as far as possible, to remove from party considerations, or if they liked to call them, Governmental considerations, the administration of the railways. He thought that this clause might very well stand over for consideration until the Minister could bring up a schedule to meet that view the case. He moved that the clause stand over for further consideration.

said he had intended to rise when the hon. member opposite (Mr. Chaplin) rose to speak on this clause. He did not rose to speak on this clause. He did not agree with the views expressed as to the law of the matter, and, if hon. gentlemen opposite would permit him to say so, they could not expect him to take the law from the Opposition He would not take the law from the majority on his own side of the House. He took the law from the legal advisers of the Crown, and if he departed from that he would get into a very serious mess. He was quite aware that it was not only a legal question that was involved in this clause, but that there were other considerations too. He had not dealt with those other considerations, because he intended to bring in a Bill to define the powers of the Railway Board. Continuing, the Minister was understood to say that he was well aware that the House was not unanimous in leaving the powers of the Board as they existed at the present time; some held the view that the Board would have less power than others thought it should have. If they attempted to deal with the powers of the Board in this Bill he thought there would be very little prospect of getting this Bill, which was of some importance, through the House this session. His opposition to the clause arose from the fact that he did not wish to interfere with the existing state of affairs. He would, therefore, move that the clause should stand over. He would also move that the clause dealing with the language question—clause 5—should also stand over.

said that unfortunately he was not in the House on Friday, but he had read the reports of the proceedings. He had read the reports—especially that portion referring to the Minister of Justice—three or four times, and he must candidly say that after reading the remarks of the Minister of Justice for the fourth time he had been no wiser. (Opposition laughter.) Of course, it might not have been the Minister’s fault. (Laughter.) It might have been the fault of the reporter. (Ministerial “Hear, hear’s.”) He understood the point to be this: the Minister of Railways and Harbours had agreed to that clause in committee, and the only reason why he dissented from that clause was because he had obtained a legal opinion. Of course old experienced members of Parliament knew that the conduct of business was sometimes carried on like an Irish or Chinese wedding. (Laughter.) There was always the gentleman who came m between. (Laughter.) There was always a good friend of the family—if it was not the broker’s man—(laughter)—who came to put things right, and the right hon. gentleman—and he must say that he quite understood his attitude, because he and the Minister had been associated for many years in Parliament, and when one made a slip the other was sure to come to his help—suavely, simply, and innocently said, “Let it stand over.” The point was not whether the clause should stand over. The point was whether the Minister of Railways and Harbours, who agreed to a certain clause in committee, should withdraw from that position because he had got a legal opinion. When they considered the simple question he could not see where the difficulty arose. Of course, he could understand that they could not ask the Minister to lay the opinion on the table. That was a thing they could not expect, because it was one of those papers confidential and peculiar to himself, and it was one of those things they could not ask him to do though he must say that his (the speaker’s) curiosity was excited. He must say that he should very much like to see that opinion. (Laughter.) Now, section 15 of the South Africa Act was simple and ’ clear and—

pointed out that there was a motion that the clause stand over.

said he intended to show why the clause should not stand over.

If the hon. member objects I am prepared to withdraw.

said that it was not a question of objecting. If the Minister wished to withdraw he (the speaker) could not stop him.

Do you want it withdrawn?

continuing, was understood to say that he was going to show the Minister why the House should decide upon the clause. (Ministerial cheers.) These demonstrations on the other side were not going to frighten him. The fact that the Minister had the majority behind him and could carry the clause if he liked, did not alter the rights or wrongs of the case. Their cheers would not alter public opinion, and public opinion should hear of it. Twenty years ago the Minister used to frighten him (the speaker), but he could not do so now. (Laughter.) Continuing, the speaker said that the appointment of servants was in the hands of the Governor-General except in three cases, and—

pointed out that there was a motion to allow the clause to stand over.

I am going to show why it should not stand over.

Yes, but the hon. member must not go into the merits of the clause.

said that he could not show why the clause should not stand over unless he went into the merits of the clause. He did not see how it was possible otherwise. (Cries of “Order!”) He did not think it necessary for hon. members on the other side to call him to order. He would not dispute the ruling of the Chair.

said that the hon. member could give reasons why the clause should not stand over.

said that the position was so plain and simple that the House could decide upon the matter at once.

The committee must first dispose of the motion; then it can consider the clause.

said that he would give reasons why the clause should not stand over. He pointed out that the House commenced to debate this clause at a quarter to ten on Friday night, that at a late stage the Minister said the matter had been sufficiently debated, and that the committee should go to the vote, and that it was only after considerable pressure had been exercised that the Minister allowed the adjournment. Now the Minister’s reason was that he wanted to bring in a Bill laying down the powers and privileges of the Board. They knew the state of the order paper, and he did not see how they could get through the work before the House before the middle of June. Ho thought that the Government had enough time to consider its position and place its policy before the committee. Was the House to be deluded into the idea that the Minister intended introducing such a Bill during the present session? No one could have pulled the chestnuts out of the fire in a better fashion than the right hon. member for Victoria West.

said he did not think they would save time if they adjourned the consideration of the clause, as each side had its mind made up. He repudiated the allegations made by the hon. member for Germiston.

directed attention as an old member, who ought to have been in bed early on Friday night, to the fact that the matter had been thoroughly discussed then The Minister of Rail ways then gave in, and agreed to report progress. Now, on the advice of the right hon. the member for Victoria West, he asked that this most important clause should stand over.

said that the member for Cape Town, Harbour, had taken up a good deal of time in saying what he had to say, although his opinions were really worth nothing. Long before he had seen his right hon. friend, he had determined to move this. At the same time, if he had received that suggestion from his right hon. friend, he would not have been ashamed to own it. He had moved this not merely because he had a majority to carry the clause, but he was very conscious of his position as Minister of Railways and his desire to keep them clear of partizanship. It was on account of having to consider this very closely that he had asked the House to agree to the motion.

said the influence of the week end was particularly miraculous. (Laughter.) This was actually the same case, word for word, that they put up on Friday. It had been pointed out that this question had been discussed at considerable length. He had asked for a certain legal opinion, which the Minister had stated he not only had verbally, but also in writing. He had also asked for other opinions quoted in committee by distinguished legal authority. The Hon. the Minister had his final hit at him when he said that “his personal associates were such that he could not accept their word,” which meant that he could not accept the word of the Minister. He did not doubt the Hon. the Ministers word, what he doubted was his memory. Last session the Minister would remember, he asked him about the Gaika Loop disaster. The Minister said then that the matter was sub judice, but that very morning he had dealt with it and had given a decision. They were entitled to get the assurance that they would get this legal advice. Although he did not say that the Minister was flouting Parliament, he certainly was fooling Parliament.

said that on March 29 a similar amendment was moved in the Select Committee. Twelve voted for that amendment and one (Mr. Stockenstrom) voted against it. On Friday the Minister came into the House, after consultation with the right hon. the member for Victoria West, and asked them to postpone discussion upon this clause. When they found that he was complicating this clause with clause 5, they had every reason to suspect that the real object was to get the matter discussed in caucus. If that were so he was going to oppose it. He objected to being made a party to that sort of legislation, and that was the second time that the Cabinet bound itself to a certain policy in the Select Committee, and when it found that its followers would not back them up they wanted to refer it back to the Select Committee. If he had been disappointed in one Minister it was the Minister of Railways and Harbours, and he had looked up to him as an old Parliamentary hand to give them lessons in manners. (Ministerial cries of “Order.”)

The hon. member must give the reasons why the clause should not stand over.

One of the reasons why the clause should not stand over is that the Minister by his manners has not induced us to agree to any further postponement. If the Minister sneers at me that fools can ask questions which a wise man cannot answer, I am entitled to reply to the Minister.

The motion was agreed to, and the clause allowed to stand over.

On clause 4,

moved to omit subsection (a), and to substitute (a) Every person who was employed by the Government of the Cape of Good Hope, or the Government of Natal, or the C.S.A.R. Administration, on the first day of January, 1910, shall be deemed to have been appointed to permanent employment in the service; and every servant employed by either of these Governments or that Administration since that date, or by the Governor-General or the Administration since the 31st May, 1910, and who has received a certificate of appointment to permanent employment from the General Manager, shall likewise be deemed to have been appointed to permanent employment in the Service.

moved that in subsection (a) the word “permanent” be omitted.

said that surely the hon. member did not intend that every temporary servant employed at that date should be a permanent servant?

said that often people were taken on in emergencies as temporary servants, and if that amendment were to be adopted all these people were to become permanent servants, which, of course, Was impossible. He hoped that the hon. member would realise that.

It only refers to employees in permanent service on that date.

Yes, I know.

Both amendments were negatived.

On clause 5,

moved that it stand over.

said that surely it was due to the committee for his hon. friend to explain why that clause should stand over. He could thoroughly understand his hon. friend moving to report progress and asking leave to sit again. Clause 5 dealt with how appointments could be transferred from temporary to permanent; and without a word the Minister moved that that clause stand over. If the committee did not know how temporary servants should be made permanent servants, how on earth could the committee go on with that Bill? There were certain subsections to that clause which his hon. friend had agreed to in committee which caused a certain amount of anxiety. It was making a perfect farce of that committee to withdraw the two most important clauses of the Bill without any reason being given whatever, and then to expect the committee to go on with the rest of the measure. They must know the authority who was going to appoint or transfer the railway servants.

said that the hon. member had said why he wanted that, and why he would not tell the committee; and that there were certain subsections he had voted for. He knew nothing of that, and the hon. member always had his ear to the keyhole. (Laughter.) The reason he had already given—but the The reason he had already given—but the hon. member had not listened to it—was that in subsection (c) the hon. gentleman inserted, or voted for inserting, what was neither grammar nor sense. Therefore a man knowing one language only would be admitted to the Service.

Why not?

I am going to move that this be omitted, and later will submit a clause, very carefully considered, which, in my opinion, will meet the circumstances of the case. You cannot carry on the railways unless you have a large number of people who know both languages. (Ministerial cheers.) I don’t want to spring it on the House, and if possible will put it on the paper to-night. The hon. member’s clause is nonsense and does not mean anything. I don’t want this question of Dutch and English raised again. I recognise fully that there should be many people on the railway who know Dutch as well as English. I cannot be a party to a clause which would lead to a great deal of misunderstanding and dissatisfaction. I am anxious to meet the hon. member if he will give me an opportunity of doing so, but if he says we must go on we will.

said that one of the reasons for placing a man on the permanent staff of the railways who happened to be on the temporary staff was that he should possess certain educational qualifications. In the Select Committee he moved the insertion of the words: “Provided that such educational qualifications shall not require a knowledge of both official languages.” His reason for that was that he was not going to make it incumbent on a man in the railway service, who was doing his work efficiently, that before he could get permanent employment he would have to pass an educational examination through the medium of both languages. Immediately after he proposed his proviso in the Select Committee the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Vintcent) moved an amendment as it now appeared in the Bill, the general consensus of opinion being that the words the hon. member moved were shorter than his (Sir Thomas’s) and conveyed the same meaning. Consequently he accepted the amendment. The Minister of Railways and Harbours then moved that the clause stand over for a considerable time, and when it again came up it was put to the vote. Eight members voted for it and five against, amongst the latter being the Minister, who raised the extraordinary argument that they should not deal with the matter until they saw the Public Service Bill. It would, added Sir Thomas, be fatal to the railway service unless it were made perfectly clear that when a man had to pass an educational examination he would not be hampered by being obliged to take it in the two languages, but that he could use either Dutch or English. A fairer arrangement it would be utterly impossible to get. (Hear, hear.)

said he regretted the Leader of the Opposition had objected to the postponement of the clause. The speaker had not so great a Parliamentary experience as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, but the hon. member should know that a motion to hold over a clause when moved by a Minister was usually accepted. That postponement was asked for in order to draft the clauses in an improved form, and against that procedure objection was being made. He was astonished at that. He expected help from the Leader of the Opposition in settling these difficulties. If paragraph (c) remained the Bill would never pass. The paragraph was misleading to a portion of the public, and was not intelligible to the ordinary individual. The Government wanted to make it so entirely clear that everybody could understand it. He had done all he could on Friday evening to prevent difficulties from arising. Many of the members on his side of the House had wanted to vote, but he had done his best to avoid a vote, and to get the matter settled amicably. On Friday evening they had talked about the steam roller, but it did appear to him as if the minority wanted to apply the steam roller to the majority. When a Minister requested that a clause be held over it ought to be agreed to.

said the Prime Minister evidently had not read the report of the Select Committee, for if he had done so, he would have found that this was not rushing the question, and that on March 29, after days of deliberation, the committee adopted the clause in the Bill by a majority of eight to five, the majority including the hon. members for Riversdale and Potchefstroom (Messrs. Vintcent and Neser). From the Prime Minister, it would appear that this was really the first time the matter had engaged the attention of the Government, and consequently it was not fair that the Opposition should not agree to the clause standing over One of the reasons for clause 3 standing over was that it dealt with the body appointing the railway servants. The next thing they would have was a motion asking that clause 5 stand over, because it dealt with changing temporary into permanent servants. The argument was so thin, however, that one saw through it at once. His hon. friend was in a difficulty, and wanted delay, but the Opposition was in a difficulty also. If these two important clauses stood over, it was utterly impossible for any member of that committee to give a proper opinion on the other clauses of the Bill, which were of a very vital character indeed, because a great deal would depend, he should think, in the view of hon. members, how they voted on subsequent clauses, as to who were the body to appoint railway servants and who were the body to control the examination for the transfer of temporary men on to the establishment. He, for one, would never be a party to its being made a condition of entrance that they should be able to pass a bilingual examination.

said that, while he very much agreed with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as to the undesirability of going on with the Bill while these clauses stood over, the hon. gentleman had not shown any reason why this particular question could not be adequately discussed if the clauses stood over. He had not heard any good reason brought forward why this clause could not be left over while they went on with the other clauses of the Bill.

said that the reason had been given by the Prime Minister, who told them that if this clause went through, which they had been asked to let stand down, they might as well tear the Bill up. After what the Prime Minister had said, he thought there was only one course open to them, and that was to report progress. He was not prepared to consider the Bill with this sword hanging over them, and he would suggest that they should report progress.

said that, as to what had been said by the hon. member for Jeppe, the reason had been given by the Prime Minister. No one would object to the postponing of this clause in the hope that they would have a more temperate debate, but the reason given by the Prime Minister showed them that it was no good. He had clearly stated that this Bill would be torn up if this clause were insisted upon. The clause said they had got the right to use either language. If they did not accept that, they must have bilingual qualifications. There was no earthly possibility of compromise on that point. If they were going to alter what was agreed upon at the Convention, they were going straight for the rocks. It was perfectly clear that the man who had equipped himself with both languages was going to get the best prospects of promotion. The chances would come to him.

That’s what we want.

That is not what is wanted here. What is asked here, as the Prime Minister said, is that you shall not even begin to get a chance at all unless you know both languages. (Ministerial dissent.) On commonsense grounds, is it possible? What is the good of fighting for this? It is impossible. Proceeding, he said that the intention of the Select Committee was to give people a fair chance to use their own language to pass their examinations. They would find among those who voted against this clause in the Select Committee several names of hon. members whom it was impossible to suspect of wishing to depart from the Act of Union or to enforce bilingualism. They voted on other grounds. They were entirely in sympathy with the idea of fairplay and equality all round.

said that while he was in sympathy with the principle, which he supported in Select Committee, he hoped the hon. member would listen to the appeal directed to him by the Minister.

said that a mistake was made in the minutes of the Select Committee in recording his name as haying voted against the motion which was carried the motion proposed by his hon. friend, who had just spoken. He (Sir T. Watt) voted with the “Ayes.” At the same time he would endorse the appeal made by the hon. member who had just spoken, because he thought this was a matter which could be adjusted.

said that he had not the advantage of being able to follow exactly the Prime Minister, but he had gathered from one of his (the Prime Minister’s) colleagues, that it was such a different reason from the reason given by the Minister of Railways, that he wanted to know whether the Government had made up their minds to refuse the principle set down on page 13. Were they going to insist that before a railway servant could be put upon the Government establishment he should have a knowledge of both languages?

No.

said the hon. members for Pretoria East and Fordsburg had given a wrong complexion to his remarks. Paragraph (c) as it was now phrased would mislead the people, and he asked for delay in order to provide the Minister with sufficient time to draft a paragraph which would satisfy both sides of the House. It was not fair to give a wrong version to his words.

said that he hoped in the decision of this question there would not be any question of sides, but that they would decide the question upon its merits.

said he understood the difficulty of the Prime Minister was this: as the clause now stood, it was read by some of those who supported him as if the person who only spoke the Dutch language might be required to show his qualifications in the English language, because it said “in the medium of either language.” He (General Botha) said that as the clause stood there it would not be accepted by his side. That clause, Sir H. H. Juta went on to say meant one of two things, that a man should be examined in his own language, i.e., if he spoke Dutch he should be examined in Dutch, and if he spoke English he should be examined in English, but he understood the Prime Minister to say that that clause would not be carried, because it might be read in a wrong way. He (Sir H. H. Juta) could see that it might be read in two ways. But he understood the Prime Minister to say that a person who only spoke Dutch might be examined in the English language. He hoped they would be told what was meant by the difficulty of this section.

said that if a man had knowledge of the Dutch language only, he never had a chance of getting into the railway service.

said that that was not in order.

said that if there was a genuine misunderstanding then it might be explained. The Prime Minister said that he (the speaker) and the hon. member for Fordsburg had misunderstood or misrepresented him. If he (the speaker) did so, then he would apologise. The Minister had not told them in which way the clause was to be altered, and whether the principle would be touched.

pointed out that in the Dutch version, if it remained as at present, the administration would decide the medium in which the examination would take place. If it were left as it was the administration would settle this point.

said the Select Committee agreed that the candidate should have the opportunity.

Is that the meaning?

That is the meaning and the intention. Was the clause standing over for the purpose of allowing it to be expressed differently or were the principles of subsection (b) to be touched?

said he always understood that the candidate would have the choice. But that was not the whole question. He did not know that they were wasting time about that.

asked why the Minister could not tell them the whole thing? What more was required? They were groping in the dark. Could not the Minister explain?

put the question, and the committee agreed that the clause stand over.

New clause 6,

moved a new subsection to follow clause 5, in the following terms: (6) “In the event of a servant not being satisfied with the result of the inquiry he shall have the right to appeal to the Appeal Board provided for in this Act.”

asked that this point should stand over until the committee reached the Appeal Board.

By leave of the committee the amendment was withdrawn.

On clause 8,

moved the deletion of the words “or misconduct” in line 46.

said he was driven to the argument that this would mean an increase of expenditure.

thought the Minister should have a clause defining misconduct, because misconduct might be serious or trivial, and if it were trivial they were surely not going to turn a man off when the time came for him to receive his pension. There ought to be some definition of misconduct, because it certainly did not seem fair that a man who served the country for many years should be told that he had been guilty of misconduct, no matter how trivial, and therefore would not get his pension.

said he would be very grateful to his hon. friend if he would give a definition of misconduct. He did not think it was possible to give a definition.

said he understood that the misconduct mentioned in clause 12 was not the same as that mentioned in clause 8. Section 12 did give a definition of misconduct with regard to discipline. If they wanted misconduct to apply to the whole Act then they should stick it in the first part of the Bill. The difficulty was, what did they consider as misconduct for a man to lose his pension? It would be very small satisfaction for a man to be told that he would lose his pension, but they could not define his misconduct. If the Minister would meet him upon this matter, he would only be too glad to help devise something to safeguard the interests of these people.

said if a man was being retrenched owing to reduction or re-organisation of the staff, then he thought they ought to leave out the words relating to ill-health or misconduct. He would ask the hon. Minister if he would not confine the wording of the clause “to retrenchment owing to the necessities of the case.”

thought the clause would be strengthened if they left out all the words from “and.” With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Georgetown, he did not think it was necessary because fraud, dishonesty and misconduct was dealt with in clause 46.

said he would like to know whether he would not classify fraud and dishonesty as misconduct. If so, it seemed superfluous to put them in the clause.

said he had drawn the attention of the committee as to whether the word “misconduct” should be there at all, because it would be seen that misconduct was dealt with in a subsection. He would ask that the clause be allowed to stand over until he had time to give the matter further consideration.

said he was prepared to withdraw his amendment to omit “or misconduct.”

moved that all words after “staff” down to “misconduct” be omitted.

moved in line 48 to omit the word “officer” and insert “servant.” The hon. member said that he did not see why there should be any distinction or discrimination between one section of railway servants and another in regard to retrenchment. The principles of discrimination was a wrong one, because one man happened to be paid by the year and another by the week or day.

said that, speaking generally, without reference to its effect, he would have no objection to the omission of the word “officer,” but it was the effect of it that was the serious matter. That had been very carefully considered by the Select Committee, and it decided, as it had almost unanimously—with the exception of the hon. member for Georgetown—for this reason—that in times of depression it would increase the amount to be paid by the Government—indeed it might increase it enormously.

ruled that the amendment proposed by Mr. Andrews, in line 48, to omit “officer” and to substitute “servant,” cannot fee put, as its adoption would involve an increase of expenditure.

asked the Chairman to reconsider his ruling. He said that the amendment did not involve any increase of expenditure on the railways that year or next year, but only in case of some contingency. (The MINISTER: “In case of retrenchment.”) The country might be run more cheaply if that law were not passed.

said that when the time came to put that clause into operation more expenditure would have to be incurred if that word were altered.

said that if it were not for that provision there would be nothing at all—no annuities or guarantees—to officers working under the Administration. He asked whether it was not necessary to report progress, and get further authority.

said that it was not necessary, in his opinion.

said that he would submit to that committee that it tied the hands of that House enormously if they were unable to make suggestions or move amendments on a Bill regulating discipline, because it was said that these would involve extra expenditure if carried. If that were the final ruling, would it not be better for that clause to stand over?

said that there were other amendments still to come, and they might stop moving them altogether if it were the ruling that these could not be accepted. Trivial amendments of that nature would not involve much extra expenditure, if any.

hoped that hon. members on the crossbenches would not persist in asking for a ruling. He asked whether it was not possible to arrange that men who had settled in this country should be given the some consideration as officers? It did seem unfair to discriminate against men when they had settled in this country, as certain of these men had.

said that every railway man would have to contribute to the fund.

Only the new ones.

What was now found in the Bill was the best solution they could find, under the circumstances, as to meeting the old servants. The pension provisions in the Union were far more favourable than in any other railway service in the world.

thought that that was not correct, and that there were services which were more generous to their men.

said that the discrimination made flesh of one and fowl of another.

moved that the subsections be taken seriatim.

The motion was agreed to.

In reply to Mr. F. H. P. CRESWELL. (Jeppe),

said that the expense of carrying out the proposal of the hon. member for Georgetown would be enormous. The artisans, as a class, were better paid than the officers.

moved that the clause stand over, in order to enable the Minister to obtain the consent of the Governor-General to the proposal of the hon. member for Georgetown.

said that the matter had very carefully been considered. The provision made was as liberal as the circumstances of the State permitted, and he could, not advise that any further gratuities be given.

said it was not so much a question of the amount as it was a question of difference of treatment. (Hear, hear.) The Minister of Railways had not told them why officers should have superior retrenchment conditions to other railway employees. He (Mr. Andrews) wished to know on what ground of equity a certain section of railway people, paid an annual salary, should have superior retrenchment conditions to the other section of employees? Unfortunately the committee was prohibited by the rules of the House from altering such a proposition; the House was absolutely helpless in the matter. At the same time, there should be uniformity of treatment.

said he had no sympathy with the social distinction sometimes drawn between officers and employees, but the practical reason for the difference in treatment was that in case of retrenchment the number of officers whose services were dispensed with was very small compared with the number of other railway employees whose services were dispensed with. The point placed before the committee was that a clerk on the railways, for instance, would have the utmost difficulty in finding re-employment, while an artisan in this country, as a rule, he would not say he could always find employment as good as on the railway, but he was in a far better position to find employment than a clerk.

said they were still in a most extraordinary position. It appeared that it was competent for the Select Committee to divide on this identical point of whether the word should be “officer” or “servant” under the recommendation obtained from the Governor-General, but they were told that it was out of order for the Committee of the Whole House to divide upon it.

said that the Select Committee really had no power to divide on this question until he got the consent of the Governor-General to the proposal. As he was not prepared to advise the Governor-General to assent to any increase of expenditure for this purpose, it was impossible now to divide the House on this question.

urged that the clause stand over.

asked whether it was any use passing a resolution that the clause should stand over for the Minister to come down with authority from the Governor-General when he had told them that he would not bring down this authority?

said that the hon. member for Fordsburg displayed a refreshing and childlike innocence, if he might be allowed to say so. Did he suppose for a moment that a motion of that sort would ever be carried in that House? The hon.member added that they wished to test the point whether officers and servants should be treated alike or whether they should make fish of one and flesh of another?

said he did not share the pessimism of the hon. member for Fordsburg, because he thought it was possible that even the Minister of Railways and Harbours, on further consideration, might change his mind.

said that in Select Committee they went into this, and the evidence brought to them was that if the alteration were made the expenditure incurred would be very great. It would be too serious an obligation to undertake. It was not a matter of sympathy with the men, but they were advised by the experts that they would be undertaking a very heavy risk which they were not justified in taking. It was true, he might say, that the men preferred to be all under one head.

said that they ought to have some figures to show whether the burden which would be placed upon the country would really be intolerable. It was by no means the experience in South Africa that artisans when turned out of employment found it easy to obtain fresh employment. If they retrenched artisans and provided them with no pension, it simply meant that they had to leave the country. It appeared to him that this clause, as it stood, was contrary to the interests of the country.

said that the question that puzzled him was where the increased expenditure came in. Subsection 8 said: “An employee shall receive such gratuity from revenue as may from time to time be prescribed.” His complaint on the second reading was that nothing was fixed in regard to the employee’s gratuity. Continuing, he pointed out that it did not follow that there would be an increase of expenditure. His complaint was that the ordinary man didn’t know what he was going to get.

remarked that he had ruled that this would mean increased expenditure.

asked whether the Minister would answer the question.

pointed out that the amendment meant increased expenditure, and said the whole object of the Bill was to treat employees better than they were being treated at the present time.

There is no limit under the section. He has the power to give the employee as much under section 8 as the officer under section 1.

replied, but his remarks were inaudible in the Press Gallery.

said that an annuity meant that the men would stay in the country, and a gratuity that they would leave the country. He found it difficult to follow the Minister’s argument that this was in the interests of the country. He would like to hear some figures on the subject.

declared that the Minister’s replies were unsatisfactory, and that the arguments which had been advanced by the hon. member for Uitenhage were unanswerable. He thought that if the Government took on a great number of men and found that retrenchment was necessary afterwards, the burden should fall on the Department. It was not in the interests of the country that men should be forced to leave the country.

pointed out that no new principle was being introduced so far as annuities and gratuities were concerned. They were looking after the interests of the men, but he had also to consider the interests of the State. The men were being treated more liberally in this than in any previous measure. He thought the interests of the men had been fairly considered.

said the Minister was departing from the very sound policy which had been laid down by the Government. Last year the Minister of Finance said that it was very inadvisable to dismiss men and then take them on again. That was what had happened in the past. He could not understand how there could be any saving in giving gratuities to men who would leave the country. It was wasteful from a financial point of view. It would be far better to give men annuities and keep them in the country. If necessary these men could be taken on again.

said it was more economical to give gratuities instead of annuities. If they were to listen to the hon. member the capital basis upon which the computation was made would fall to the ground and they would have to get greater contributions.

The motion that the clause stand over was negatived.

suggested, in line 44, to delete the words “twenty-five” for the purpose of inserting “fifteen,” and in line 46 to delete the word “fifty” for the purpose of inserting “forty-five.” Seeing that no employee would know what gratuity he would receive, and as it was unlikely to be a large one, he thought they ought to reduce the uncertainty as far as possible. If a man had been in the service for fifteen years, it was only reasonable that he should know what he would receive. A man after fifteen years’ service and aged 45 had little chance of getting other remunerative employment.

said he sympathised with the hon. member, and he was disposed to look at the matter sympathetically. He would go into it and see what extra expenditure would be incurred, and he would discuss the matter again. Further than that he could not go. If this was likely to increase the expenditure to any great extent, he was afraid he would not be able to do anything.

On clause 9,

in line 74, clause 9, moved to insert the word “or” between the words “ill-health” and “fraud.”

moved to omit all the words after “staff” to “misconduct.” The hon. member explained that this was a similar amendment to that agreed to in another clause.

moved, in line 28.page 16, to omit “such” and substitute “the.”

The amendments proposed by Mr. Orr and the Minister of Railways and Harbours were agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Dr. Watkins accordingly dropped.

In clause 12,

moved, as an amendment, in subsection (d), line 56, after “duty,” to insert “at the appointed time.” The hon. member said that the object was to avoid hardship. He said that there were men in the running sheds who could be called upon at any time of the day or night, and when so suddenly called upon they might not be in a fit state for duty.

said that by moving that amendment the hon. member would not attain the object he desired to attain. And then, again, what was “the appointed time”? He thought that they could not be too strict in their requirements for a man upon whom the lives and safety of many depended—(hear, hear)—and such a man should be strictly sober. The Railway Department was not harsh in dealing with the men, and there was a good deal of human nature about them. He did not think the punishments were unduly severe or harsh.

said that he agreed with the hon. member that the amendment would not attain the mover’s object. He asked the Minister whether he could not insert certain words, so that that object would be attained.

said that they ought not to punish a man under certain circumstances when he might have been having too much, and when he did not know he was coming on duty. He moved to add after “duty” the words “at the time appointed when released from duty.”

said that there were such vital interests in these men’s hands that when called upon they must be in a state to undertake their duty. He thought it would be putting him in an invidious position to ask him to vote for the proposition as it stood—when they would allow a man to go on duty at 4 o’clock, for instance, when not in a fit state, because his duty ought to have commenced at 6 o’clock, and when he was relieving a man who had fallen ill. If it was a question of inadequate pay for the risks undertaken, let them discuss that, but not mix up the two matters. He impressed upon the House the great responsibility which rested on drivers and firemen, on whom the lives and safety of many depended, and said that they could not be too strict. (Hear, hear.)

said a little sympathy should be extended to the men. (Cheers.) The case mentioned was not that of men who were systematically intoxicated, but who might happen to be found in that condition when unexpectedly called upon for duty.

said he could not vote for the amendment, as a railway official ought at all times to be sober.

agreed that a railway official ought never to get drunk. He hoped, therefore, that the amendment would not be accepted.

said that it would be unfair to dismiss a man for one lapse, but pointed out that hon. members opposite were under a misapprehension.

said it frequently happened that men were called upon to turn out at half-an-hour’s notice. If the Minister did not accept the amendment, he must be prepared to have an emergency staff. The House had no right to expect the men continually to be at the call of the Administration. It sometimes happened that even hon. members got a little merry. (Laughter.) Then there was no standard of intoxication.

said this was not a case of a man being intoxicated when called upon for duty, but when he reported for duty. The men were liable to be called upon at any time.

said a man who habitually over-indulged in drink had no right to be in the Railway Department at all. It might happen, however, that a man might have a jollification, say upon the occasion of a wedding in his household, and if he was called upon then to go on duty it would be exceedingly hard to punish him. Then it was difficult accurately to define what was intoxication.

said all these special cases had nothing to do with the general rule. To say that a man was not guilty of misconduct if he were intoxicated when reporting for duty was playing with words.

pointed out that the clause dealt with all the railway men, and not engine drivers only, as hon. members seemed to assume. There was an impression that the clause meant on duty, but really it referred to the condition of the men when reporting for duty. Hon. members were making mountains out of molehills. In the case of a driver being intoxicated when reporting for duty, the judge of his condition would be the shed foreman, who would thus be given dangerous powers.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that he would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour.

The amendments moved by Mr. Andrews and Sir H. Juta were negatived.

said that under this clause, as provisionally drafted, when a man became insolvent or assigned his estate, or got into debt, whether it was through his own fault or whether it was a case of unavoidable misfortune or one of misconduct, it was treated exactly as if it were misconduct. A distinction had been made in previous legislation between insolvency where there was fraud or dishonourable conduct and insolvency where there was business difficulty and no fraud or dishonourable conduct. He thought a distinction should be drawn between the two classes of cases, and he, therefore, moved at the end of the clause to insert “unless he can show that his insolvency, assignment, composition or civil imprisonment has been occasioned by unavoidable misfortune.”

said he thought it was desirable that people who were in the employ of the Government should keep themselves out of debt, but he quite agreed with the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, that this sub-section was very severe indeed. It seemed to him that the committee did not discriminate sufficiently or did not discriminate at all between a man who got recklessly into debt and a man who through no fault of his own got financially involved. Some of his constituents, who were railway men, thought that where a man could prove to the satisfaction of the Department that he had got into difficulties through no recklessness on his part he should have an opportunity of making a settlement with his creditors. He moved, in line 61, after “law,” to insert “Provided, however, that if such servant can prove to the satisfaction of the administration that he did not become wilfully or recklessly pecuniarily involved, he shall be allowed a reasonable time within which to effect a settlement with his creditors before being deemed deemed guilty of a misconduct.”

in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, mentioned a case which had come under his own notice of a railway man at Salt River, who, owing to the drop in the property market, was unable to keep up his payments on his mortgage bond, and who would have been forced into insolvency but for arrangements being made with the creditors to take over the property.

said he had been waiting for an opportunity of moving the amendment which stood in his name on the Order paper as follows: In line 61, after “law,” to insert “Provided that if the administration is satisfied that such embarrassment has not been caused or attended by any fraud extravagance, or dishonourable conduct, it may reinstate such servant in his former or any other inferior position in the service.” The hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, had anticipated him somewhat. With a great deal that the hon. member said he heartily agreed, but he would have preferred that the clause should have been deleted altogether. The amendment that he had to move was, as a matter-of fact, taken almost word for word from the Victoria Act. He hoped something would be added to this clause which would minimise what he considered to be a very great hardship upon a good many railway men. He could not see why the Administration should push its tentacles into the private life and the everyday affairs of the whole of the servants. They appeared to him to be deprived of taking advantage of the insolvency laws. So soon as a man figured in the Court he rendered himself liable. The whole thing was unjust; it was really a double punishment. He hoped that the Minister would carefully consider the amendment.

said that the committee took this matter into serious consideration, and pointed out that the committee had specially added the words “shall on the facts being proved against him,” might be dealt with as provided. He pointed out that the committee had been in sympathy with the man who met misfortune. Continuing, he said that he knew the case of a man who stood security, and who was forced to go insolvent, but was retained by the Department. That man was still in the service, and had told him (the speaker) that he was treated with every consideration. He pointed out that while they might sympathise, they must not forget the interests of the State, and should give the railway administration some discretion.

said that sometimes a man was to blame and sometimes he was not. It was not possible for a department to be more lenient in dealing with cases of this kind than the railway administration. In the cases that had come to his notice, the services of the men concerned had been retained; dismissals might have taken place in cases which happened before he took charge. He was quite prepared to deal with each case on its merits, though, personally, he did not know of a case where a man had been dismissed. Of the amendments that had been brought before the committee, he much preferred the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander was agreed to.

With leave of the committee, the amendments proposed by Mr. Wessels and Mr. Andrews were withdrawn.

moved the deletion of the words “without the written sanction of the general manager” in sub-section (4), and said that the administration should claim all the time and energy of the highly paid as well as all the time and energy of the men in the lower grades of the service. There were cases where these highly paid men carried on business, used railway labour and stores, and when the men below them complained, the latter were punished while the former were given more power. He knew of several cases, and he could furnish names if they were required. He considered that it was not fair to business people, and he quoted the case of a man who used to work for a firm during the day and be employed on the railway service of an evening.

opposed the amendment. It was impossible, he said, for the poor whites to live on what they earned from the railways. Those people maintained small farms so that they could increase their income. If they accepted that amendment, those people would be prevented from cultivating small plots of land, and that was against the interests of white labour.

wished to know the precise value of the clause. Besides getting what they could from the men in the way of work the Government wished to debar them from any other activity. Provided the organisation of the service was such that a man gave value for his wages in work it did not matter a button what he did outside.

The amendment will prevent a man from doing anything.

said he would move to omit sub-section (f).

said that the amendment of the hon. member for Roodepoort seemed to go against the people on the railway. They would be in a worse position. As regards the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe it was quite logical from his (Mr. Creswell’s) point of view. But let them see how it would work. In the first place, in the ordinary Civil Service, and every Civil service he knew of, a man was required to give all his time to the service in which he was employed. He was required not to carry on any other business. There were a number of people on the railway now who kept fowls, sold eggs, and in some cases they sold milk. The railway department did not interfere at all in that kind of thing. Stationmasters sold coffee. No objection was raised in any case to his knowledge. The Administration looked at it in a common-sense way. But if a stationmaster ran a little shop he would find it difficult to devote the necessary time to his station. Probably he would fail at both, and his duties as stationmaster would be the first to suffer.

said that he objected to the Minister singling him out as the “fifth” member.

I did not do it intentionally.

went on to say that though he was an Independent he would not have been one had he accepted large sums of money that had been offered him. His object in moving his amendment was mainly to put an end to favouritism, a sort of left-handed but very effective nepotism. The clause would give to the General Manager a right that they should not allow him. At the same time he thought that the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe would be more effective than his own, so he withdrew his.

said that the restriction was not confined to the railway service, but also applied to the Civil Service. A little time ago a stationmaster who was carrying on pig farming was found to be neglecting his duty, and he was called upon to choose between that and his position in the service. He gave up his position. Ought they to allow that sort of thing?

Punish him for neglect of duty.

said that the Minister’s remarks almost proved his contention. When a man was not carrying on his duty efficiently the Administration had the right to intervene. Had he taken up with that man because he was carrying on pig farming or because he was not discharging his duties efficiently?

pointed out that there was a sense of unreality in the clause, because there was nothing to prevent a man’s wife from carrying on a business.

thought they ought to delete subsection (i). His hon. friend travelled on the railways, and would know that tipping was general upon them. Of course, what he believed the department wished to deal with were the more serious points for some special favour.

said the clause did not refer to ordinary cases where people were only too glad to show their appreciation, out rich people sometimes wanted special facilities for which they were able to pay and held out inducements to get special accommodation to the inconvenience of other people. Sometimes in a pretty full train, a man had held out inducements so as to get a compartment to himself. This led to a great deal of trouble and inconvenience, and it was such cases as these that they wanted to get at.

Mr. Creswell’s amendment was negatived.

moved to insert the word “corruptly” before the word “accepts” in in the first line of the sub-section.

said it appeared to him that if they put in the word “corruptly” it would apply just as well to the man to whom they paid 1s or 2s. for carrying a portmanteau. Railways were not managed by lawyers, but by common-sense people. Of course, they would not prosecute a man for taking an ordinary tip. He thought it best to leave the clause as it was.

pointed out that there was an intermediate case to those mentioned. A conductor might get a tip for doing nothing special, but simply for being polite. In the ordinary course a man was not likely to be prosecuted, but another official might have a spite against him, and might inform the authorities, then prosecution might follow.

hoped his hon. friend would not press his amendment. The danger did not lie in small tips but in large tips. If they put in the word “corruptly” the onus would be put on the department to prove corruption.

said the difficulty was to get hold of them.

said cases had been brought to his notice where very special favours had been got by tipping. He remembered at one time when there was great pressure upon the railways that only those people could get their goods forward who were prepared to give inducements.

Mr. Alexander’s amendment was negatived.

moved to insert “other” instead of “otherwise” in sub-section (i).

Agreed to.

On clause 15,

moved that “one half” be inserted after “of” in line 36, the effect of which would be that half the emolument would be withheld. The hon. member said that he thought that the utmost a man should be penalised before he was found guilty was that half the emoluments should be dropped, but not the whole. If the man were found innocent the whole of his emolument should be returned to him.

said that there might be a case where a man had defrauded the railway. He might have embezzled and taken a large sum of money, and it might be some time before his case was decided. Were they to go on paying such_a man half his emolument all that time? He was prepared to adopt “may” instead of “shall”—which he thought at first had been moved—as that would leave it to the Administration, and they could consider it; and if it were a case where they could allow a man half his emolument they would, no doubt, do so.

Mr. Duncan’s amendment was negatived.

moved in line 36 to alter “shall” to “may.”

said that before a charge of misconduct could be proved a man’s emolument would be dropped, and he had his family to provide for, perhaps. Were they never going to make any advance on ordinary grounds of equity? He wondered what such a man, who was charged with misconduct, was going to do in the interim.

said that he quite agreed that there were cases where the emolument should not cease, but to say that should be the case in all such cases was going a bit too far.

said that having regard to the large numbers of employees in the service of the Railway Department, he thought that the numbers of cases of fraud and the like were very small indeed. (Hoar, hear.) A man might be found guilty of a technical matter, and would lose his emolument while waiting for the inquiry to take place. He thought that the Minister should make an exception in cases of fraud, theft, and so forth, and put in something specially to deal with those.

The amendment to insert “may” instead of “shall” was agreed to.

moved to insert the following new sub-sections, to follow sub-section (2), viz.: (3) if the servant denies the charge an inquiry shall be held in the manner prescribed in section 7. The servant shall be entitled to be present during the whole of any such inquiry. (4) Any servant who may be aggrieved by the result of any such inquiry may appeal to the Railway Board by letter addressed to the General Manager. If the Railway Board considers it necessary to take further evidence on the matter the appellant shall be notified of the time and place fixed for taking such evidence and shall be entitled to be present.

The hon. member said if a man were charged with misconduct, there was no inquiry at all; there should be an inquiry, and the man should have an opportunity of being present.

said if a man were dissatisfied with the result of an inquiry, he could appeal to the head of his department, and then to the General Manager, and there was nothing, as far as he (Mr. Sauer) knew, to prevent a man appealing to the Minister, so, perhaps, the Minister was not so hard-hearted as some people thought. But if he had personally to inquire into every trivial case, there would be chaos. The amendment would dislocate the railway business to a very large extent.

said it was contrary to all the principles of law and justice if a man were not allowed to be present when an inquiry was held into his case The man should have the right to cross-examine the witnesses.

asked if anyone believed that the General Manager or the Minister dealt with these cases; they were dealt with by a clerk. There should be an appeal in the first instance to the Appeal Board in the event of dismissal or reduction only.

said a great many appeals did not require any fresh evidence at all, but if fresh evidence were called, then the man concerned should have the right to be present. (Hear, hear.) A man should not be judged on evidence he had never heard.

said he did not want men to be tried in their absence, but if there were an appeal and there was fresh evidence of which the man had no knowledge he would acquaint him with the fresh evidence, and if he (Mr. Sauer) thought it was necessary that the man should be present he would be summoned. But if they said that in all cases the men must be there the men would take advantage of that to have a holiday trip, and the carrying on of the business of the railway would be made exceedingly difficult. The man should have the right to see the officer who dealt with the case in the first instance, and to see all the evidence, but to say that in all cases he could be present at the inquiry if he wished would lead to difficulty and expense, and he did not think it was warranted.

It is only in cases of serious misconduct.

A man might be fined 2s. 6d. for that, and then he might insist on an appeal to the Board in Cape Town, and insist on my bringing him down. The amendment would lead to a great deal of abuse, and men would be appealing simply because they could get three or four days’ holiday.

said the Minister overlooked the fact that this meant a tremendous thing to the men. A charge might be made against a man which might practically ruin his career, and surely he had the right to be present when the case was being determined. If a real Appeal Board were provided quite outside the administration it mattered little whether the man was present at the first inquiry or not.

said that in order to meet the case of the Commissioner he would move as an amendment: To add at the end of new sub-section (5) proposed by Mr. Duncan, “at which evidence is taken, and he shall in addition be entitled to cross-examine witnesses.” That would enable an accused person to be present and also to cross-examine witnesses.

regretted that the Minister could not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg. When a man was accused he should be given every opportunity to defend himself, and the rejection of the amendment would be unfair.

said he also took this amendment to mean an inquiry by the Board, which he thought would involve an amount of expense and delay. It did not appear to exclude cases where the punishment was slight, even if the charge were one of serious misconduct. What struck him (Sir Percy) was that the amendment would not be in conflict with what the committee did. It might get consideration from the Minister if it had certain alterations. In clause 7 the first words were “Before any servant in permanent employment is dismissed the service or reduced in rank or emoluments.” It might be amended to provide that he should have the right to claim an investigation of the Board. It was a more public trial at which he would have the right to be present. It seemed to him it was reasonable where a man was liable to be dismissed and to forfeit his rights or be permanently reduced in rank or emoluments he should have an open trial, not necessarily by the Board but by a tribunal—the District Superintendent—which was trying him, so that he might hear what was said and could answer the charges made. It would not mean bringing a man down from, say, Durban or Bechuanaland.

It was in cases of appeal.

I know there is that difficulty. Proceeding, he said it seemed to him that it was unworkable in that it was unjust. He hoped something could be done to meet the spirit of the amendment.

said his amendment would not alter a single iota. All the machinery was in existence now. His complaint was that a trial was held merely by favour of the Administration, and the servant had not the right to be present. Then with regard to appeals, he quite saw the Minister’s point that if a man was fined 2s. 6d. it was absurd that he should appeal to a Board sitting a thousand miles away. He was prepared to limit sub-section 4 to a man who had been dismissed or fined, say, £10 or more.

said he did not want to say he would not accept the amendment. He was anxious that there should be a fair trial, and if hon. members would consider the matter and draw up a clause he would then see what he could do. (Hoar, hear.) The hon. member would admit this was a very intricate and technical Bill, and they might by altering a clause or word in one place affect sections in another. So he was slow in accepting amendments; but if hon. members would go into it and give him an amendment he would see if he could accept it. He was anxious that the men should have a fair trial, but he did not want to do anything prejudicial to the Administration.

said that if he accepted the course suggested he could only bring it forward at the report stage.

I don’t mind if the hon. member wishes the clause to stand over; I will allow it. (Hear, hear.)

The clause was ordered to stand over.

New clause 14,

thought it would save time if they decided whether they were to have an Appeal Board or not, and what kind of Board they would have. He therefore moved, that the following be a new clause to follow clause thirteen, viz.: 14. (1) A permanent appeal board shall be constituted, and shall consist of a chairman, who shall be a magistrate of senior rank, two members nominated by the administration, and two members elected by the employees, who shall sit only when appeals by employees are being dealt with, and two members elected by the officers, who shall sit only when appeals by officers are being dealt with; (2) the elected members of the board shall hold office for three years, and shall be eligible for re-election; (3) the appeal board shall hear and decide all appeals which may be made to it under section fourteen, and its decisions shall be binding on the administration and the appellants; (4) the appeal board shall for the purpose of trying any such appeals have the power to summon witnesses and to examine such witnesses on oath, and any member of the appeal board is hereby empowered to administer such oath; (5) the appeal board in deciding appeals submitted to it shall take into consideration any underpayment or overwork of employees or any omission of the Administration to provide a sufficiency of staff or equipment for the performance of-the duty in question which may be proved against the Administration; (6) the appeal board shall hold its sittings at such railway centres as may be required, and as may be most convenient for the hearing of appeals which may be made to it from time to time. It seemed to him that the object of the Minister and Government was to have a contented service. In order to have that, they had got to satisfy the legitimate demands of the employees, and if there was one point on which they were unanimous and emphatic, it was the need of an Appeal Board. The one thing lacking in the present system under which the railway men worked was an independent tribunal before whom they could bring their disputes. The men claimed that they should be tried by their peers.

They were asked by the Minister to trust him. They did trust him. They believed that if every grievance could be brought to his notice, and he had time to investigate it, he would do justice according to his lights. But that was a physical impossibility. The same applied to the manager of the railways and any other high official. These things were all managed by the various grades of petty officials. The hon. member claimed that, the institution of an Appeal Board would result in a diminishing number of cases., because those before whom these matters came in the first instance would be careful to examine minutely and thoroughly into every case that came before them.

said that he thought it ought not to be impossible for the Minister to accept the suggested clause moved by the hon. member for Georgetown in substitution for the proposal submitted before the Select Committee by the General Manager of Railways. He thought, however, that some provision should be made so that in case the appeal went against the person who brought it he should be made liable for some portion of the costs.

said he hoped the Minister would see his way to accept an amendment on the lines advocated by the hon. member for Georgetown, so that the men would have an Appeal Board in which they had confidence.

said that experience in Natal had shown the necessity of a Board of Appeal and the character it should possess. He pointed out that the Board which was appointed in 1904 stated that its recommendations were never carried out, and that there was too much interference on the part of officers. Later on a Board was appointed which consisted of a judge as chairman, two representatives of the general community, two representatives of the men, and two representatives of the Government. He pointed out that if the Government appointed an independent Board, the Minister would reach the ideal which he desired—a contented service.

said he hoped the amendment would be accepted because it would do justice to the men. There was no doubt that men were thwarted and unjustly dealt with, and he had been asked to support the proposal made. It would enable the administration to conduct business with less friction.

considered that the new clause was so wide that it would tend to hang up the administration. The latter might be the idea of hon. members on the cross-benches, but hon. members on his side wanted to give the men a fair opportunity of appealing on grievances of sufficient importance. He thought the suggestion made matters worse.

said that this amendment merely established an Appeal Board, and it was competent for the hon. member later to restrict the matters that should come before it. This Board would be quite outside the department controlled by the Minister. That was what the men wanted, and would provide the only real security.

supported the last speaker. The Board would give great satisfaction to the men.

was glad that the matter had come up before the “strike clauses. Something of the kind was most urgently needed, and had actually been recommended strongly by the General Manager, as would be seen in the appendices to the report of the Select Committee. At the same time the men said they considered this the most important feature of their recommendations. He trusted that the Minister would be able to meet members in this respect. In the report of the Grievances Commission he found that out of 31 Uitenhage cases dealt with 19 had been found good. If there was anything like that proportion throughout the service it showed the necessity for some such body. The Commission was not biassed, for it had decided against the men in one case, contrary to the legal opinion obtained by the Minister. The Commission was inclined not to give judgment in favour of the men without ample proof. In many cases men had been suffering grievances for many years. He would call attention to one injustice. In the year 1903 an engine driver was punished for the serious offence of being drunk on duty. He protested that there was no case of the kind. For all that he was de-graded, and for nine years he had been suffering from de-gradation and loss of pay. All through that time no redress was forthcoming. At last the case was looked into, and the committee recommended that he should be re-employed at the first opportunity. He had suffered quite unjustly. There was no machinery to prevent a flagrant injustice occasionally happening. Considering that the General Manager was prepared to accept something of this kind, he trusted that they would see their way to set up a body as proposed. He did not think, however, it would be wise to go as far as the hon. member for Georgetown desired. They should allow the men to bring their case to the Appeal Board without any restrictions, and the Appeal Board should have the power of fining the men in case of frivolous appeals. As regarded the other point, he personally had no objection to making this Appeal Board the last court of appeal, but he had realised that there was little chance of that being accepted, and he also thought that careful consideration should be given to the objections of the Railway Board. They should make the Appeal Board an appeal from the General Manager or heads of departments, and the Railway Board should report to Parliament in all cases where it differed from the Appeal Board. He accordingly moved that the following be a new clause: 14. (1) There shall be an appeal board consisting of two persons nominated by the administration, two persons elected by the employees and a chairman, who shall have been a magistrate appointed by the Governor-General-in-Council; (2) the members of the appeal board shall hold office for three years, and shall be eligible for re-election on re-appointment; (3) No member of the appeal board shall be dismissed except by a vote of both Houses of Parliament; (4) in the event of the death or retirement of a member of the appeal board, whether nominated or elected, a successor shall be nominated or elected, a the case may be, and shall hold office for the remainder of the period for which his predecessor was appointed.

said that an Appeal Board constituted on the lines laid down by the hon. member would be taken as an insult by the men. It would be absolutely futile. Unless the decisions of the Appeal Board were to be accepted as final, the Board would fail. If hon. members wanted a contented service, if they wanted an Appeal Board to do anything good at all, they must be satisfied with it.

said that he recognised that that was a very important matter to the railway administration and the personnel of the railways, and it was a matter to which the Select Committee had given great consideration. He would just like to say, in passing, that the Select Committee gave the fullest attention to the representations made by the railway employees who had given evidence before them, and he thought very much benefited from the evidence given. The Bill of last year had been amended by the Bill which was now before the committee, and it certainly had gone in the direction of giving more liberal treatment to the railway employees. The members of the Railway Board, the General Manager, and others were examined, and the committee had come to the decision which would be found in clause 14. Under that section an Appeal Board had to be provided for by giving the Railway Board the power to deal with such appeals. Now the hon. member said, as he understood him, that the men did not regard the Railway Board as sufficient, and that they wanted a quite independent body; quite independent of the Railway Administration. It had also been suggested that the General Manager should have assistance in dealing with appeals; the following had been suggested, and he would move it now: on page 20, in line 10. The effect of it was to enable the General Manager, when he heard a case, before it went finally to the Court, to have the assistance of two officers and one employee, of the same grade the appellant belonged to. He should have the assistance of some persons in the neighbourhood acquainted with the circumstances and the work of the man. It would make a recommendation to the General Manager, and he would give his decision: if there was dissatisfaction with that decision, there would be a final appeal to the Railway Board. That was the decision the Select Committee had come to. There was a want of confidence on the part of the men, as the hon. member had said, although that was a strong word to use—there was a feeling that they wanted something apart from the Administration to deal with their grievances, and they felt that the Administration was naturally biassed; and he thought that there was something in that. When they had got a Board appointed from the men that would also naturally be biassed. He did not want to appear to deal with the motion in a hurry. He had to consider the efficiency of the service, the right of appeal, and the treatment of the men. He would therefore move that the clause stand over. He was quite conscious of the fact that a great deal depended on the settlement of this matter in a manner acceptable to those concerned. (Hear, hear.)

The amendment was agreed to.

gave notice that when the clause again came under consideration he would move: That employees shall have the right to be heard at an inquiry affecting the terms and conditions of their employment, either personally or through the officers or representatives of any association to which they may belong.

Does that mean the Church? (Laughter.)

On clause 14,

moved: On page 20, line 10, after “Manager,” to omit all the words to “decision,” in line 12, and to substitute “The General Manager shall then submit the case to a board appointed by him, and consisting of two officers and one employee of the grade to which the appellant belongs. The board shall review the case, hear such further or other relevant evidence as may be tendered, and report as to their finding to the General Manager, who shall thereupon give his decision.”

moved: To add at the end of the clause: “Employees shall have the right to be heard at any enquiry affecting the terms and conditions of their employment, either personally or through the officers or representatives of any associations to which they may belong.”

moved: That the further consideration of this clause stand over.

Agreed to.

On clause 15,

moved to omit the words at the end of the clause, “or to both such fine and imprisonment.”

If you do not give that option, the men might have a very much longer period of imprisonment.

said the clause was very fully discussed by the Select Committee. He hoped the committee would do nothing which would in any way endanger the safety of the public. The clause said that if a man were intoxicated, and the safety of the public was endangered, he might be sentenced to a fine or to imprisonment, or to both. He did not think that was too serious a power to put into the hands of any magistrate in dealing with a case in which the lives of the travelling public were endangered. (Hear, hear.)

asked the Minister if he did not think that twelve months’ imprisonment, or a fine of £50 separately, would be sufficient deterrent? Bearing that in view, did not the committee think that the two combined savoured of vindictiveness? Twelve months’ imprisonment was sufficient. (A MINISTERIAL MEMBER: “No.”) The working-classes had a certain amount of honour, and they felt imprisonment as much as members of that House did.

said he quite agreed that a working-man would feel imprisonment as much as anybody else, but he still held it was advisable not to take it out. They had to remember that the Court must have some discretion. He did not think their Courts were harsh in giving punishment. As a rule, they gave nothing like the maximum, and he believed the hon. member was crying for what was not necessary. This offence may lead to very serious consequences. They should set their faces against drunkenness on the railway.

said he would like some lawyer to explain the lines in the clause laying down the penalty.

thought the hon. member for Springs was under a misapprehension. In almost every law an imprisonment or a fine or imprisonment with a fine was laid down. The provision in this Bill did not mean that only railway men should be subject to that, or that railway men had less honour than other men. It was an ordinary provision laid down in all laws.

said they did not mean to minimise the seriousness of the offence, but he would point out to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort that punishment for one year was not light, and if they were also going to deprive him of his position and his money it was very heavy.

said the Magistrate had the option to give a fine or imprisonment. The Minister had made it perfectly clear. Another point was that he could not understand why a ticket examiner should be included.

Move him out.

Very well, I move to omit “ticket examiner.”

said that any servant was included, so he did not see why they should only delete ticket examiners. The appeals which had been made to him to withdraw had not had much effect. He still thought there was some vindictiveness in the penalty. It was a very heavy punishment for a railway man. The same law could not apply equally to all citizens.

protested against the insinuations made by the hon. member for Georgetown that discrimination was made against a certain, class. They hoped, he added, to be fair to all.

said he did not think the punishments provided in the clause were severe considering the character of the offences dealt with. He did not know whether the hon. member for Georgetown had ever had the experience of travelling in a train in charge of a drunken engine-driver. (Hear, hear.) Such things had happened in this country.

said that every Statute dealing with criminal offences gave the courts discretion. Of course, criminal statutes throughout the world might be wrong. (Laughter.) No more serious offence than that referred, to in the clause could be imagined. He pointed out that if a train went off the line and people were killed an engine-driver could be imprisoned for life on a charge of culpable homicide. He submitted that two years was a most lenient sentence for a serious offence. He pointed out that the clause was for the protection of the travelling public. He hoped the amendment would not be accepted.

said that he gathered that the last hon. member was actuated by a spirit of vindictiveness. An hon. member talked of “class against class,” but he should base his remarks more upon principle.

disagreed with his hon. friend that two years was a trifling period. He felt that the matter could be left to the discretion of the judge.

said that for some time past there had been no guards, only ticket examiners.

The amendment moved by Dr. Watkins was agreed to.

The amendment moved by Mr. Andrews was negatived.

moved to report progress.

This was agreed to.

Progress was therefore reported, and leave given to resume in committee tomorrow.