from Martha T. Pepler, teacher.

for the introduction of legislation prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor to aboriginal natives.

from V. A. Miller, teacher.

for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto.

from F. M. B. paterson Principal, Riversdale Girls School.

from the widow of W. M. van Gorkum, in his lifetime an official of the late Orange Free state Republic.

Tom Sishuba and native delegates of landowners and occupiers from the several locations or farms which form the ward Kamastone and Oxkraal, Queenstown, for reduction of quitrents now payable in respect of reserve plots.

from A. W. Templer, pensioner, Railway Department.

Return of average monthly expenditure of the Messengers of the Courts at Boksburg and Johannesburg during the past six months.

Regulations in regard to Grants-in-Aid of Agricultural and other Societies.

asked the Minister of Justice whether he is prepared to inform the House what police leasures he is taking to allay the reported alarm which prevails at Johannesburg, in consequence of the assaults committed by natives on white women?

said he had looked into the matter, and would assure his hon. friend that as far as possible steps would be taken to put as many police upon the Rand as could possibly be spared at the moment. Hon. members might rely upon it that everything would be done to give the necessary protection.

asked the Minister whether he could not see his way to accept the amendment of his hon. friend and omit what he believed was a monstrous proviso?

was understood to reply that the matter was very carefully considered by the Select Committee. The committee felt that there must be some safeguard for the public in case of a strike or some serious outbreak. He thought it was well recognised that the employees in the railway service were treated extremely well. He believed that they were treated better in this country than in any other. It was felt by the Select Committee that all reasonable precautions should be taken, and, with the exception of the hon. member for Georgetown, they agreed that the proviso should stand.

said that after the statement of the Minister he recognised that it was needless to appeal to the Minister or the members of the Select Committee, but he would appeal to the members of the House to consider this matter on its merits. There was no section of the House that deprecated strikes more than they did. By countenancing this legislation and embarking upon legislation which involved upon the men such penalties as were contained in this measure, they were doing a great deal to screw down the safety valve. Already in this Bill they had provided against desertion and provided a number of penalties, and the Minister said that the Select Committee did not think it right that the Government should contribute to fight against them. But this did not provide the men with any Government money whatever: it was simply money that they themselves had paid for benefits. The proviso meant that they were screwing down the safety valve to a very dangerous degree.

said that there was a different penalty to be applied to men who went on strike from that applied to men who were guilty of fraud or dishonesty. It was made a worse offence, so far as the penalty was concerned, to go on strike than to be a criminal. Not only did the Minister take power to put the striker in prison, but he took power to steal the money which the man had contributed.

said that they ought, when they talked about strikes, to go to the real causes. They would usually find, he declared, that the employers and not the men were to blame for the strikes. If this proviso were carried it meant that the railway employees would be absolutely denied the right of saying under what conditions they would work.

said that they had just heard a great deal of hysterical oratory about preventing the men from striking. There was, however, nothing in the clause as it stood that would prevent a man from going on strike. It simply provided for the protection of the public in such an important matter as the railway service that if a man desired to go on strike he should fulfil the ordinary conditions between employer and employed, i.e., give the customary notice.

said that the first part of the proviso was decidedly of a penal character. He thought it was very unjust indeed to say, as this proviso said, that they should be deemed to have retired from the service and no refund of contributions should be made to such servants. He thought it was absolutely unjust to retain contributions of money made by these men for a special and specific purpose in this way.

said he was one who did not wish to see strikes, but he did not feel that the clause was one he could support. He pointed out that under clause 18 they had a stringent measure against strikes. He did not think that the provision was just or equitable. It imposed an indefinite punishment and was a most objectionable clause. He did not wish to imply that he favoured strikes; he merely wanted to see justice done to the men. It was a new clause, an unfair clause, and one that should be dropped.

said it was essential that strike punishment should be severe and said he would like to point out that men knew the conditions when they joined the service. Besides, a man could give a month’s notice if he wished to leave the service

said he did not agree with his hon. friend, the member for Barkly. He understood that clause 18 was to deal with the case of an individual striker; this clause dealt with collective cases.

said that he did not believe in the policy of trying men en bloc. Even were 100 men alleged to be at fault, his view was that each case should be dealt with separately.

said he did not agree with the hon. member for Barkly. They were dealing with men who left their work for their own reasons, or who failed to perform their duties. They did so in order to hang up the country force the administration to agree to their demands. A strike was a state of war, and they had either to allow this state of affairs or else deal with the matter by handing it over to a court or board for fair and full consideration. He was sorry that the Government had not gone further. If a board could be appointed that would give the cases of the men full and fair consideration, he thought the country was entitled to refer these matters to the court instead of allowing an open war. They were not depriving men who desired to leave their employment of their liberty.

said that the last speaker had missed the point. The men did not lose benefits, but were deprived of their savings. If an ordinary man was convicted of a crime he was not deprived of his savings. The cause of a strike did not enter into the question at all. This clause was not based on equity and justice, for they were taking away a man’s money.

said that when this question came before the nominated Council of the Transvaal they were faced by the same difficulty—how to prevent strikes? There were two steps necessary to take—the first was to remove the grievance—(hear, hear)—and the second was to impose adequate penalties. Railway men had told him: “If you give us a reasonable way of settling our grievances a strike is out of the question.” (Cheers.) Hon. members did not realise how much had been done to put right the first consideration. In numbers of cases points had been gained for the men which formerly had been denied. The point on which he thought the Bill failed was the point indicated by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) in that the decision of the so-called Arbitration Board was not by law binding on the administration. But he thought the decision was going to be binding on the administration. It would be impossible for any administration to defy the ruling of a strong Commission. A mistake had been made in so extending the scope of the inquiry as to include all the conditions of employment. Had the scope been as originally proposed he would have voted for making it binding, but he did not see how they could ask the administration to accept the finding of persons who were not technical men. For instance, how could they expect Judges to decide in the case of a dispute on piece-work? He hoped the number of cases brought before Parliament would be reduced to a minim but the men would still retain that right. The Select Committee tried to the best of its ability to deal with the two points he had mentioned: the providing of proper machinery for giving the men redress of grievances and the imposing of severe penalties. He did not think there would be any possibility for the men to be allowed to have it both ways. They could not have the machinery for the redressing of grievances, and at the same time have the right to strike. The men said that if penalties were not put in the Bill they would be at the mercy of agitators.

Who appoints the agitator?

Himself.

I have never been in that class of business, but in revolutionary proceedings generally it is the man generally who has a pretty strong head of his own who forces himself on the community. Continuing, Sir Percy said let them take the case of a man who had been twenty years in the service, contributing all that time to funds. If that man had a personal grievance he could obtain redress in the way provided in the Bill but if it were a case of a group grievance there was machinery which was not perfect, but what he thought would work out very well. But if it did not the men could appeal to Parliament, A man who had 20 years’ service would think his grievance a very serious one before he risked his service by striking. (Hear, hear.) If he were right in that did not hon. members think that the machinery set up in the Bill would meet a very serious case of that kind? The men who had been in the service for twenty years had, presumably, been satisfied. If they suddenly became dissatisfied there must be some quick change which would also arouse the attention of the community, and something which the tribunal would deal with very attentively. This would prevent men entering upon a strike light-heartedly, and when machinery for redressing grievances was set up they would have machinery with which to deal with a strike and to punish strikers as hard as ever they could. No man in the Civil Service dare strike, for if he did would lose all his privileges and contributions. The position was one of great opportunity, for the country could be caught by the throat by strikers and strangled into submission. That was a position which no one who had the interests of the country at heart could possibly tolerate. (Cheers.)

said of necessity there must be some penalty for strikers. This decision of the law courts, in regard to the Taff Vale dispute and the liability of trades unions, was reversed by Parliament, which was more or less under the thumb of the Socialists and Trade Unionists. “Thank goodness,” continued the hon. member, “we have not arrived at that position in this country, and what we have to do is to stand out against it as long as we can.”

Quite so; as long as you can.

said in pressing this amendment, he felt all the time that hon. members in the House believed that they were advocating strikes. Let him assure hon. members that, personally, he and his hon. friends of the Labour party, as much perhaps if not more than other hon. members would be glad to see strikes as far behind them as many mediaeval institutions. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg entirely approved of the clause, and believed that the large proportion of the railway men themselves approved of it. Let him tell the hon. member that if the whole of the railway men approved of the clause he would still vote against it. (Mr. MADELEY: Hear, hear.) He could quite understand the positions of the hon. members for Pretoria East and Fordsburg. To his mind, they were identical. They said that if machinery were provided for settling disputes, then if the men took the law into their own hands and struck work they should be punished.

The difficulty was this, that any tribunal appointed to deal with strikes dealt with them upon what were now antiquated principles and precedents, entirely out of harmony with these new principles and precedents which were gradually being accepted all over the world. For this reason, even if the railway men were agreeable to this clause, it would not affect his judgment at all. Another point which he wanted to put before the House was that, in the event of the administration being pig-headed, because, although he believed the Minister was sympathetic, he could not watch every particular question, and if they acted as the administration did in Natal, and forced men into the position of striking, then in an eventuality of that sort, were the men not justified in their demand that the administration should also be punished. There were conditions under which he would advise men to strike, but if he had any influence with them at all if he found that they were contemplating striking, he would advise them to try other means of settling the dispute before resorting to a strike. The hon. member for Worcester had pointed out that strikes were very serious things, and should be dealt with severely. (Hear, hear.) How did he propose to deal with them? Was he going to tell men who had resorted to a strike that they were criminals? If they were to arrive at some international institution to abolish war, how happy the nations would be, and if they could arrive at some equitable and just method of settling strikes the world would be happier still.

said he had listened very carefully to the debate, but he felt that the hon. member for Barkly had not yet been answered. The Minister asked what would become of the fund if the men got their money back? Well, the hon. Minister knew something of the affairs of a certain assurance company, and he ought to know that if he submitted the point to the actuary he would tell him that the fund would become richer. The hon. Minister must know that the particular assurance company gave a larger proportion in surrender value than they do here. What was the position? Five hundred men came out on strike, a hundred of these men had been five years in the employment, and perhaps another hundred men had been employed for 20 years. The penalties in these cases would be unequal and illogical. The hon. member for Fordsburg stated that a strike could starve the country into submission, but if a man were told he would lose his position and his contributions if he struck work, was he not being starved into submission also? The country should be protected against any body of men having the power to stop the traffic of the country. All he rose to say was that he was prepared to vote for this clause, but he could not vote for a clause which penalised men unevenly and which made it possible that one person might be fined £250 while another might only be fined £10 for having committed the same offence.

said that they were dealing with a great national concern, and it did appear to him to be a reasonable thing that in a matter of this kind, as with the Army and Navy, strikes assumed an altogether different aspect from what they assumed in the ordinary industrial world. For such special cases he did not think there was any hardship at all in making strikes criminal, and he thought that hon. members on the crossbenches were working in the wrong direction in working against this clause. They contended that the men could not get redress, and that therefore they should be free to strike. He held that the men could not be allowed to strike, and therefore that Parliament was in honour bound to see that their grievances were redressed. He certainly did not despair of Parliament. Patience might be necessary, but he believed that sooner or later the House would insist that adequate machinery should be set up in order that grievances such as did exist to-day would be obviated. It appeared to him that the right attitude to take up on this question was to say that in this great national undertaking strikes were impossible, and they must appeal to the sense of justice of the House and even of men holding opinions such as those that were held by the right hon. the member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) to see that the men had a fair tribunal to hear their cases and to obviate those necessities which in the industrial world led to strikes. He thought hon. members on the crossbenches were doing no good to the railwaymen in suggesting that Parliament could not be trusted in the long run to take a fair view of the disputes which might arise.

moved to add at the end of the clause: “Save and except where they exceed five years’ contributions, when a sum equal to five years shall be deducted.”

said he thoroughly agreed with what had been said by the hon. member for Pretoria East, and also to a large extent with what had been said by the hon. member for Uitenhage, because there was not the slightest doubt that, in regard to a service on which the welfare and prosperity of the country largely depended, the employees of the Government who were engaged in that service were in a way in a position of peculiar privilege and responsibility. There was no doubt that in regard to pensions and other matters this country treated its employees in a very liberal way—(hear, hear)—and give them special privileges which were a recompense for the duties devolving upon them. The question arose, was it possible to allow men who were employed in this particular occupation, on which the prosperity and life of the country depended, to have their full freedom of action which everyone agreed must be allowed to employees in ordinary industrial firms? He for one thought it was not possible to do so, but the men themselves who were engaged in that employment should recognise that impossibility, which, he believed, they did. The hon. member for Jeppe had said that if all the railwaymen were against him on this point he would still be opposed to this clause. Hon. members on the crossbenches, he (Mr. Long) thought, were inclined to sacrifice the interests of those whom they claimed to represent to the mere theories or the political action in which they believed. He hoped that the men would see that they were in a position of peculiar responsibility and that they could not be allowed that freedom of action which they might have were they not in the service of the Government.

said that he and his colleagues were getting used to the good advice that came from all sides of the House. It came from the left, from the right, and from the crossbenches, and he and his friends were told what they ought to do. They did not know very much, but they flattered themselves that they knew their own business so far as politics were concerned. They were not seeking advice from anybody as to how they should conduct their political campaign. With regard to what the hon. member who had just sat down had said, he would say that they on the cross-benches went before their constituents with a certain programme, and they were elected upon that programme.

So is everybody else.

continuing, said that they felt confident that when they advocated in the House what they advocated outside they had the men with them. They did not thank hon. members for the advice that had been tendered. If their constituents were dissatisfied then they would give the verdict when the time came. But there were one or two points in connection with this clause that he would like to emphasise. There seemed to be an element of vindictiveness about this proviso. It had been said that there was no vice so bad as cowardice, and this proviso was dictated by fear. That was the origin of this proviso. It was the fear of certain circumstances that might arise that had prompted those in charge to bring forward this proviso. His hon. friend the member for Three Rivers had said that this proviso was contrary to the canons of justice. His hon. friends the members for Pretoria East and Fordsburg had made a strong point of the difference there was between private employment and employment by the State. The idea they seemed to hold was that while it was right for men in private employment to strike, men who did the same thing when in State employment did something that was wrong and wicked, and should be punished. He did not find that such was the state of affairs in Great Britain during the coal strike, which was brought about by private employers’ obstinacy. Gentlemen holding views identical with those hon. members to whom he referred cried out during that strike that such a state of affairs should not be allowed to go on, and that the machinery of the State should be utilised to make these men work so that the machinery of the State might not be hung up. The same state of affairs prevailed during the strike last year on the privately owned railways in Great Britain. Either it was wrong for men to work under unjust conditions, or it was not. What was the meaning of strike? A strike was merely the right exercised by a free citizen to say that he would not work under certain conditions. (Laughter.) It was right for a citizen to say that he would or would not work under certain conditions when he took the penalty upon himself. All this talk of agitators was quite beside the mark. If they studied the history of the Natal railway strike they would find that it was not a question of leaders there. As a matter of fact, the only trade union that took part in the business came to a decision on the matter after the men were out. The unorganised men took action before the organised men, and the capitalist Press said that the men were disowning their leaders, and in the case of the boiler makers of Britain a year or two back the men were blamed for not listening to their leaders’ advice.

said that the hon. member must confine himself to the clause before the committee.

said that he was only alluding to the matter for the reason that other hon. members had been allowed to do so. They were treating these men, he said, who were liable to go out on strike, worse than they would treat criminals. That was the outstanding point about this clause. Men who were convicted of a crime were treated in a less harsh manner than men who refused to work under certain conditions. The men were given a board that was not a board, or rather not a satisfactory board. They had been given a board in which they could have no confidence. This law not only punished men for refusing of work under conditions which they considered to be unjust, but also took away their compulsory savings. To him this looked very much like a guarantee fund. He did not hope to carry the proposal which he had placed before the committee but he trusted that hon. members would think very carefully about the matter before they came to a decision. He asked hon. members to eliminate the question of party and vote on the question as to whether it was right or wrong, just or unjust.

Was the hon. member a member of the Select Committee?

Yes.

He did not dissent from this clause, but allowed it to pass without saying a word.

said that what the hon. member had said gave him the inclination to vote one way in the House and behave outside in a different fashion. At the same time he did not think they should penalise everybody to the same extent. As to the alleged inequality of punishment he thought that the longer the men were in the service the more they would recognise their responsibilities and be less prone to be led away by hot-headed agitators. Continuing, he said that there was an hon. member on the cross-benches who could give some valuable information with regard to something of the sort at Kimberley. The men there did not know whether to strike or not, and some men were brought out from England. Among the party came three agitators.

said that the hon. member must confine himself to the clause under consideration.

said he was trying to show how the old men were affected in that case. He was, he submitted, speaking directly to the clause which was claiming the consideration of the committee. Continuing, the hon. member said a man with 29 years’ service was drawn into the strike at Kimberley. Together with a man of very short service he was dismissed and the former lost everything, but the company said they would take him back because he was an old and trusted servant, and they were persuaded that he had been led away. Personally, he felt that the man should have known more than to allow himself to be led away. The House ought to be prepared to stand by the right principle and say to the men: If you have a fair outlet for your grievances there should be no strikes.” They could not devise anything better than the proposal now before the House. The hon. members on the cross-benches had put up an argument which did not appeal to him as a lawyer, for they wanted a committee composed of partisans.

said it must be borne in mind that a railway man who went on strike would be injuring the whole of the country, so that put the matter in another light from that in which it had been presented from the cross-benches.

in reply to the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), said that he (Mr. Andrews) divided the Select Committee 29 times, and found himself in a minority of one on every occasion. When this clause was dealt with on the last day it was rushed through, and he did not think it worth while dividing the Select Committee on it. Instead, he decided to take the matter and thrash it out in Committee of the Whole House.

put the question that the proviso, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, and declared it was agreed to.

called for a division, which was taken, with the following result:

said that before the clause (47) was put, he would like to call attention to a very materia1 difference between the contributions to the pension fund in the present Bill and in the Public Service Bill, which was now being considered in committee. In the present Bill, the contributions were put in own on a basis of three per cent., while in the Public Service Bill they were four Ker cent. As far as he could see, the benefits were in favour of the railway servants, who only contributed three per cent as against four per cent by other branches of the public service. Of course, it was impossible without actuarial advice to know how the different funds worked out, but it was difficult to understand why one side of the Civil Service should contribute four per cent, and the other three per cent. Redid not intend to press the point just then, but he had gone through the clauses of the Bill, and he felt that if this clause were passed it was going to make the deliberations of the committee who were considering the other Bill very difficult.

pointed out that the position was the same in the existing Acts.

Well, if the Minister will alter the clause in the other Bill, it would save a lot of trouble.

said that the point was embodied in the existing law. There was a difference of one per cent between the two services. It was proposed in the Public Service Bill that they should pay four per cent., but whatever it was, they could not interfere with the existing law. He did not see why there should be a difference, but he could assure his hon. friend that the actuarial calculations had been placed in the hands of one of the most competent men in England. The main reason that this percentage was specified here was that it was the existing law. Although he did not quite know why there was this difference, he did not think it was possible to have the same regulations applicable to both services.

hoped the Government would go into the matter very carefully. His hon. friend the member for East London had raised a most serious position. They were now dealing with pensions in this Bill, and a committee was dealing with pensions and gratuities in another Bill. What struck him was this, that there did not seem any co-operation between the various departments. What they desired to know was that the fullest and most accurate calculations had been gone into, and that the fund was entirely solvent. Under all the circumstances, he hoped that the Public Service Bill would have this question gone thoroughly into, and he hoped the Minister would discuss the question with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Interior, so that the House might know definitely why one branch of the service should pay four per cent, and another branch three per cent.

said he did not want to bring up a lengthy discussion upon the Bill at the present time All he wished to do was to draw the attention of the Government to a very serious matter which he hoped would receive consideration.

On clause 59,

moved in line 50, after the word “Minister” to insert the words “and Committee of Management.”

expressed his disagreement with the amendment, and remarked that the same amendment was proposed in the Select Committee by the hon. member for Georgetown and rejected.

briefly supported the amendment, which was negatived.

On clause 62,

moved in line 31 to omit “the Consolidated,” and after “Revenue” to omit “Fund.”

said that the point of the amendment was that the deficiency, if there were a deficiency, in the fund was going to be made up, not from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, but from railway revenue. Had this law not been passed, the general taxpayer would have been responsible for making good this fund. He thought that the responsibility should rest with the general taxpayer. He did not see why the railway rates throughout the Union should be made to provide for making good any deficiency on this pension fund.

said that in the Cape they had one pension fund for the ordinary Civil Service and for the railway, and he believed in some of the other colonies also that was the case, but in the Act of Union the financial part of the railways was separated from the financial affairs of the country generally, i.e., they had two separate accounts. He thought it was only right that the railway, which paid the salaries of the railway servants, should be responsible for the pensions to be paid to the railway servants. That was all that was proposed. The hon. member said, what about the liability of the general taxpayer? He was just as much liable now. He guaranteed the fund just as much in one way as another.

He is a different person.

Well, I don’t know that he is a different person. Technically he is, but really he isn’t. I think it is quite right; you can hardly expect the general taxpayer to pay the gratuities and annuities of the railway service. They should be paid out of the railway revenue, just as salaries are paid out of the railway revenue. We pay a half contribution out of the revenue.

said it seemed to him this was a liability which was not properly attachable to the railway revenue. It was not a liability attachable to the Railway Administration as a railway administration. It seemed to him that in handing over the assets of the old Railway Administration the benefit had gone to the general taxpayer.

said he quite agreed with the attitude taken by the Minister of Railways and Harbours on this question.

said it would be just as reasonable to ask the railways to make good the loss on the harbours for the past 20 years as to make good this deficiency. The Union railways were not called upon to make good deficiencies that were really borne by revenue during the past 20 years. Here they had an accumulation of losses from past years, and the other Governments had been relieved of the obligation of making good the shortage in their fund. Now they came to the up-country patron of the railway, the man who did not reside at the coast, and said that for a period of ten years he should make good, out of his payment for railway services, services which he was not going to get. One-half of the population were being entirely exempted from having to bear their share of the liability for this.

said that at present he did not see how he could possibly vote for this amendment. He thought such a proposal was contrary to the provisions of the Act of Union.

said that, as a matter of accountancy, he did not see any other way. This was a liability of the railway service, apparently. The Cape Government had its own liability in regard to the pension fund, but so far as the railway pensions were concerned there was an actuarial liability. He thought the principle embodied in the Act of Union was that the railways should be taken over as they stood. If they were going to discriminate they would have to discriminate right through.

said he wished to point out to the hon. member for Potchefstroom that under the old Cape Government the railways were not distinct from anything else. Surpluses went into general revenue, while Government made good deficits,

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 65,

moved, in line 19, the deletion of the word “shall” and the substitution of the word “may.” The intention of the amendment was, he said, to make the fund voluntary. The men objected to the fund being made, compulsory.

said that if the hon. member had the experience of some members he would not talk as he did. It was considered that this was the best way of providing for widows who would otherwise be thrown on charity.

Widows of single men? (Laughter.)

Let them pay.

Why?

It will make better provision. The hon. member has not had any experience. He does not know. It will prevent widows and children starving.

said that the Select Committee had been opposed to the alteration, and pointed out that the principle existed in the law of the present day. In the Civil Service the unmarried men contributed. If they were not married they should be married. (Laughter.)

said he did not see the justice of asking a bachelor to contribute to the support of somebody else’s widow. He wondered what the bachelors of the House would say if they were told they had to contribute to the support of the widows of hon. members. (Laughter.) The Minister had advanced no sound argument in favour of the principle. There was a strong feeling against such a proposal.

Opinion is divided.

Of course it is. It must be so. He pointed out that a considerable number of the men made outside provision for their widows. He thought these men should have the right to say that they did not desire to contribute to the service fund. Whether the Government was right or not the feeling among the men was very strong. He thought the committee should support the amendment of the hon. member for Georgetown.

said the Select Committee had been most careful in seeing that the rights of the Cape men should be safeguarded on condition that the Cape men contributed to the Widows’ Pension Fund.

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Georgetown. Personally, he did not believe in compulsory thrift. Life insurance was a good thing, but there were not many hon. members who would advocate compulsory life insurance. The proposal contained in the clause was an unjust one, especially so in the case of single men who might have illegitimate children, who would not derive any benefit from the fund.

agreed that it was unfair to compel single men to contribute to a widows’ pension fund. He understood that the clause referred only to men who were in the Cape service prior to Union.

said it was absurd to call upon bachelors and widowers to contribute to the support of the widows of other men so that they should not come upon Government for relief.

It is the law in the Cape.

I come from a Province where we do not look upon everything done in the Cape as being the only right way of doing a thing.

said throughout the Bill the rights of Cape contributors were safeguarded, so that they could not complain when they were held to their obligations.

said he had been keeping pretty quiet on the Bill, because there was a general opinion among the railway men that, on the whole, the measure was a satisfactory one. He could assure the Minister, however, that the whole feeling of the railway service was against compulsory contributions to the Widows’ Pension Fund.

It is the law to-day.

said there was a desire on the part of many men in the fund to withdraw from it. A pension fund was all very well for officials drawing large salaries, but when it came to an artisan contributing to one it was absurd. He had known widows receiving from £15 down to £6 a year, which was absurd, while the average was only £20 a year. What use would that be to a widow with four children? It would have paid the husband far better to have joined an insurance company or a benefit society.

That is what they don’t do.

said these contributions had been a sore point with the men for many years, and the widows were dissatisfied with the small amounts they received after their late husbands had been contributing for years. It would be better to break up the fund. He hoped that the House would accept the amendment.

said there were two classes of men affected by this clause, those who had contributed prior to May 30, 1910, and those who came into the new pension fund after May 30.

pointed out that under the clause 27 men would have an opportunity after three months of coming in, and if they decided upon coming in they would have the same privilege as people who had come in before.

directed attention to the point that last year the Minister had decided that he would allow this permissive word to go into the clause. Before that he had stated his intention to allow the other Provinces to remain outside this pension fund, and to make it voluntary as far as the Cape was concerned. If the Minister carried the point to its logical conclusion, he would have to insist that everybody should have to contribute to the pension fund of the Union.

said he could not understand why anyone should suggest that a man should not pay into this fund simply because he was not married. He pointed out that in their Education Acts a man had to pay for education whether he received benefit or not. He hoped the House would pass the clause, seeing that the benefits were so great and the contributions so small.

said they were quite willing to agree to compulsory insurance involving the nation, but not for a system that only involved a portion of the nation, whether Government servants or not. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) had referred to their position under the Education Act, but that was a State Act.

said he would like to know if this fund had a surrender value, and if a man could withdraw a portion of his contributions if he left the service. He believed that was the case hitherto, but that privilege did not appear in the present Bill.

put the question that the word “shall,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, and declared the “Ayes” had it.

called for a division which was taken with the following result:

moved, in line 13, to omit “fifteen” and substitute “twenty,” which provided for the restriction of the clauses of the Bill in respect of which the laws mentioned in this clause should not be in conflict.

said that if the amendment proposed by the hon. member were made it would exempt certain officers from the discipline provided for in this Bill. That, of course, would be wholly unworkable. One could not have one set of regulations for one set and another for another set of men.

said his object was that a man should come under the disciplinary clauses of the Act under which he joined the service.

said he could not accept the amendment. The railways could never be run on those lines.

said the House had endorsed clause 22, which said that the men should be subject to the laws of their Provinces, and the laws under which they joined. If the Minister now said the House was wrong then it was a different matter.

said the arguments advanced were logical. He thought the Minister should consider the point.

said he would like to know the exact effect of the clause. Was there any clause in the Act safeguarding the rights of men ejected by clause 144 of the Act of Union?

said it was quite clear that there was a mistake and that the clauses were in conflict.

said he could not have different disciplinary regulations for different classes of men. He thought the difficulty might be met by deleting the words in lines 9, 10, and 11, and inserting the word “such.”

said that the amendment moved was different to the amendment on the paper.

was understood to say that he went by the order paper.

moved that the clause stand over.

The Committee allowed the clause to stand over.

New clause 84,

moved that the following be a new clause to follow clause 83, viz.: “All gratuities and benefits to persons who on the thirty-first day of May, 1910, were in the permanent employment of the Administration and whose services have been dispensed with prior to the commencement of this Act owing to a reduction in, or re-organisation of, staff or for other good cause, are hereby confirmed and approved: Provided that all such gratuities and benefits shall have been duly authorised by the Administration before being paid or awarded: Provided further that returns of all payments and benefits under this section shall be laid upon the tables of both Houses of Parliament within fourteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session.” He said that after Union they tried to treat all men who were retired or retrenched in the same way, but it was found impossible to deal with these men under existing laws. The Cape and Natal had a scale under which the services of men were dispensed with. The only colony that had a Superannuation Act and regulations was the Transvaal, and that scale was adopted. One hundred and three officers received gratuities amounting to £4,070. That meant a very considerable saving to the State of four or five times that amount. In addition four or five persons were pensioned. It was felt that there was necessity for legal authority for doing what had been done. He would therefore move to add at the end of the new clause: “Provided further that returns of all payments and annuities under this section shall be laid on the table of both Houses of Parliament within fourteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session of Parliament.” In dispensing with the services of the men he had referred to they were treated as far as possible on the lines laid down in the Transvaal Act. In making those retrenchments they had saved a very large sum indeed—something like £20,000 to £35,000.

said that when that clause was before the Select Committee he maintained that it was not a clause which it was within the province of the committee to put into the Bill, and that before the clause could be dealt with by the House the title of the Bill must be altered. A Bill dealing with questions of superannuation and discipline was not a measure into which an indemnity clause should be inserted. The clause indemnified Government from the consequences of certain actions which were illegal until they were approved by Parliament. He did not say that the Minister had done wrong in paying these gratuities, but that he had erred in paying them without going through the legal form of obtaining a Governor’s warrant.

That is exactly what we are doing.

The Minister should provide for these payments in his ordinary Appropriation Bill. It is utterly impossible for the committee to condone certain actions without any of the facts having been laid before it.

I withdraw the clause.

How can the committee be expected to deal with an indemnity clause condoning irregular actions without having all the facts before it, so as to be able to judge whether those actions were right or wrong? I do not say that with the slightest intention of asserting that my hon. friend was wrong in making these payments. All he had to do was to ask the House to make provision for them in an Appropriation Bill. It is not fair in a Bill of this character to introduce an extraordinary provision which I have never seen introduced into a Bill of this sort before, to condone certain actions without the facts being laid before us. I hope my hon. friend will withdraw the clause and introduce it in the proper place.

It is only a question of procedure. I will move that the clause stand over.

The motion that the clause stand over was agreed to.

New clause 85,

moved that the following be a new clause, to follow clause 85, viz: “85. All appointments and removals of servants to or from the Service made by and with the authority of the Administration on or subsequent to the 51st day of May, 1910, but before the commencement of this Act, are hereby confirmed and approved, although they may, in some cases, have been effected prior to the consent of the Governor-General being obtained, or even without such consent.”

That clause contains exactly the same principle as the clause just dealt with.

moved that the clause stand over.

The motion was agreed to.

On clause 84,

moved that the following be a new paragraph in sub-section (1), to follow paragraph (u), viz.: “(r) The procedure to be followed in the election by members of the fund of representatives to be members of the committee of management.

asked that the clause stand over. When +he Minister asked that clause 5 stand over he said he would put an amendment on the paper. Sub-section (e) of clause 85 gave the administration power to make regulations with regard to the educational qualifications necessary to qualify a temporary servant from becoming a permanent servant. So that under that clause they again raised the point that was raised under clause 5. It would save time if it stood over.

I must say that I cannot quite see how this would affect that question. The regulations must be in con formity with clause 5. But if the hon. member wishes I will let it stand over. (Ministerial cries of “No.”)

I have no desire to press my point.

If we pass the clause now it will let the Government make what regulations it likes.

I propose to submit a new clause dealing with this very question. Do give me credit for dealing quite fairly.

I do.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

moved that clause 84 stand over.

hoped the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, would give his reasons for desiring the clause to stand over.

said he was sorry he had not heard the mustering bell. (Laughter.) That was the reason he had not been in the House earlier. (Renewed laughter.) He certainly hoped the House would not accept the motion.

The motion was negatived.

moved that the paragraphs under subsection (1) be taken seriatim.

The motion was agreed to.

On paragraph (a),

then moved the following amendment: To add at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection 1, the words: “Provided that the citizen rights of the servants shall not be curtailed.” They found that all through this Bill the ordinary avenues of expression of the men were blocked. Unless they prevented any possibility of the citizen rights being taken away, the Bill would be a menace. They failed to see why a railway servant should not be tallowed to join a political association or to write to the papers, or to voice his opinions. He could not see how any action such as that should be considered contrary to discipline. These rights had been exercised in Natal for years past. It seemed to him that this curtailment of the political rights of railway and civil servants might be extended even further. There was a time he remembered when in the C.S.A.R., railway men could not only take part in a municipal election, but could stand for town councillors as well. This privilege had been taken away. The men were discouraged from entering into any organisation such as trades unions. He granted that they still had the vote, but perhaps the next step would be to take the vote away from all public servants. The Government seemed to be desirous of classifying their Civil Servants as helots, who had only half political rights or no political rights at all. The right hon. the member for Victoria West had deprecated the State controlling spheres of labour, but it was becoming more and more the custom an modern society for the State to undertake these functions. Therefore, there would be more and more a tendency for larger numbers of persons to be disfranchised. He had raised this point, not because he believed the Government would accept his amendment, but for the purpose of ventilating it.

pointed out that in clause 84 the first paragraph stated that “the Administration may, subject to the approval of the Governor-General, make regulations not inconsistent to the Act.” He could not see in the Act any interference with railway servants or that it was the intention of the Government not to recognise to the full their rights. If that were not the case, then the Government would have introduced a similar clause to that which they introduced into the Civil Service Bill. He supposed if it had been the intention to make a similar provision to that which they found in the Public Service Bill in regard to the railway service there would have been a clause introduced into the Railway Bill, and the Government would then have had power to make regulations in that direction. He hoped they would have a declaration of policy.

said that, except in Natal, the railway servants had the right to vote as the servants of what was called the Civil Service had. In Natal they took part in elections the same as ordinary citizens. Recently he issued a circular in regard to the political rights of railwaymen. They were not going to take away the right of these men to vote. All that was proposed was to have all over the Union a uniform practice, and that was that railway servants all over the Union, including Natal, should have the same right, viz., that they could vote for members of Parliament, but that they could not make speeches and exercise their rights—well, he would not say “rights”—but express their views the same as ordinary citizens—(hear, hear)—and he did not think that ought to be. If they once had that, he did not know what was going to become of the railway service. If it were granted to Natal it would have to be granted to all the railway servants and all the public service. He thought it would be very bad for the railway service if it were allowed. They knew what had been done in America, where the public servants had the right to act as if they were not in the service. In Natal during the last election there were two members of the railway service who stood as members of Parliament. He must say that he did not think they could discharge their duties as railway servants and at the same time go about canvassing and prosecuting their candidature for Parliament. He then intimated to them that they must either resign from the railway service or they must discontinue their candidature. Mr. Sauer quoted from a statement as to the practice in Victoria in regard to the public service to show the restrictions placed upon members of the service taking part in elections or political affairs or bringing influence to bear upon members of Parliament in reference to matters affecting the service. That, he pointed out, went very much further than they did in this country. He could not see how they could give one small section of the railway service a privilege which the larger body of the railway service had not got, and a privilege which any member of the Civil Service, whether he were the Magistrate of Durban or Cape Town, or the Under-Colonial Secretary or the Chief Secretary in the Treasury, had not got. It was, he would add, a mistake to say that they had deprived the men of their political rights.

said that the Commissioner did not tell them what happened to the Government that brought in the regulations as to the Public Service in Victoria. He believed that that Government had very short shrift at the ensuing elections. He was at a loss to know, as there was nothing in the law which permitted the Minister to curtail the full citizen rights of the railwaymen in Natal, how it came about that he had issued circulars which deprived men of their political rights. He submitted that the Minister had taken a very prejudiced view of this matter all along.

pointed out that there was a difference between railwaymen in private employ and railwaymen in Government employ, because the latter, if they had full citizen rights, would be taking part in the selection of their masters. He was one of those misguided men who did not believe that Public Servants should even have a vote. That, however, was a counsel of perfection. He was not in favour of interfering with such privileges as the public servants had today and he should support the amendment of the hon. member for Georgetown, although, as he had said, he was strongly against the principle of men voting on the question as to who should be their masters.

said that he had been hoping that they would have the support of the hon. member for Pretoria East and the hon. member for Fordsburg. He was not, however, quite sure about the hon. member for Fordsburg, but he certainly thought they would have had the support of his colleague. Continuing, the hon. member said the fact that a man was a railwayman was no reason why he should have not only a vote, but should be able to give expression to his views from the platform and solicit the co-operation of other men in those views. Why should he not exercise that privilege like the farmer or the miner? He could understand the hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. gentlemen who had to do with large industrial corporations siding with the Minister on this matter, but he could not understand other hon. members, who held strong democratic views, denying these rights to the men. He would point out that railwaymen were something else besides railwaymen. They made their homes here and surely had as much interest in the country as the constituents of any hon. member of that House. It was no use giving them the vote and nothing else. The vote was only half the battle they must have the chance of expressing their views. In spite of his regulations the Minister knew that Civil Servants held their own political views and, as far as they were able, persuaded other people to share their views.

said he did not think that the hon. member for Georgetown had put a clear amendment before the committee It was useless without a definition of citizen rights, and the hon. member for Georgetown gave the phrase a meaning which he did not attach to it, and which the judges would also not attach to it What they wanted was a substantive amendment, giving the men political rights. If a clause of that character was brought forward he would support it, because he did not believe in “boxing men up.” He pointed out that no curtailment of existing political rights was practicable, because the only existing right held was the vote, which was especially recognised by the Constitution, and which nobody proposed to take away. He came to the conclusion that there was nothing in the amendment. He thought it should be withdrawn and a new section proposed.

said that he could not support such a childish and preposterous proposition. What private employer would allow one of his men to go about electioneering?

At night time?

Don’t talk about night time. Continuing, he said he thought that to draw pay for one thing and to do something else amounted to dishonesty. If a railway man wanted to get to Parliament let him throw up his job and he would be free. He thought that if his hon. friends on the cross-benches were employers of labour they would hold very different views on the question. He pointed out that these men could do anything they liked after hours.

Why not put it here?

If he wants to stand for Parliament then—

Who is suggesting that?

That is the suggestion, or the amendment means nothing at all. Continuing, he said he thought that the hon. members who claimed to represent the working classes were really the greatest enemies of the working people. He thought that if they were acting in the best interests of the men they should go to work a little more carefully. He pointed out that in the past more than one railway man had taken an active interest in political affairs, and yet nothing had happened.

They might easily get into a position in which a Government might say: “We will support the men who will support us.” That was exactly the thing they wanted to avoid. They had an admirable service, and as far as the Cape was concerned it was a service of which they might legitimately be proud. The men had not been allowed to become active partisans so that they had not become connected with any political party, and every Government had felt equally responsible for the welfare of the men. The amendment was opposed to the best interests of the service. (Hear, hear.)

said that in the constituency he represented there was a very large sprinkling of railway men, and two or three of them who gave evidence before the Select Committee told him that they were intensely surprised at the patience with which the Select Committee listened to them. Every amendment of any importance that these men suggested was attended to in the Select Committee and embodied in the Bill. These men had submitted a list of amendments that they desired, but one or two of the amendments suggested by hon. members on the cross-benches were carefully omitted from that list. When the Bill came out of the Select Committee he sent a copy of it to these men, asking them, if they desired any further amendment, to send him word. A fortnight had now elapsed, and he had no word from them, and therefore he was bound to take it that their silence implied their consent. He thought the hon. members on the cross-benches ought to be very well satisfied. Parliament had an idea of what was right and what was wrong—(cheers)—and hon. members on the crossbenches could not expect other members of the House to take their guidance or their actions from them. (Cheers.) What was the meaning of citizens’ rights? No authority such as the railway administration could take away one iota of rights from the men. He could not support the amendment. (Cheers.)

said citizens’ rights were defined in the Public Service Bill, which prevented a member of the public service from becoming a member of any political organisation and directly or indirectly taking part in political matters otherwise than by recording his vote. He supported the amendment, and he objected to any Government depriving any citizen of his rights by regulation. (Hear, hear.) He protested against any attempt to deprive men of their rights by regulation and not by way of a clause in the Bill.

hoped the amendment would not be carried, for this reason. He was very anxious to see the Act of Union tested in a court of law, and if the amendment were defeated the Constitution would be so tested, and he would do all he possibly could to see that it was tested, because the rights of the various Provinces existing prior to Union were safeguarded by the Act of Union. The present clause came in conflict with that. In 1909 the Natal Parliament gave the railway employees full liberty and full political rights. If the clause were carried to its logical conclusion there would be no voters left in the country, for if the railway administration were allowed to deprive its men of the full rights of citizenship, other institutions—large and small—would do the same.

thought the hon. member for Maritzburg (Mr. Orr) took an exaggerated view of what could be done by the Minister. The only way in which the Government did draw the line was not to recognise the men’s society. He did not agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir E. H. Walton), who went too far when he said that the demand was ridiculous. He (Mr. Jagger) was connected with an institution which allowed one of its servants at the last election in Cape Town to stand for Parliament, and his doing so never interfered with his work. The amendment was not in the interests of the men themselves. If they were allowed to take part in politics, the position would become as bad here as it was in America, and if the men’s political opponents came into office they would try to weed out those men who belonged to the other side. Promotion would then go according to the men’s political leanings. From his conversations with the men, he gathered that the bulk of them did not want these rights. (Cheers.) He did not believe for a moment that the mining magnates would interfere with their men in this matter.

said that the term citizenship was a delightfully vague one, and some correspondence had taken place in the “United Empire” on it, to which the Minister of Education had contributed an article, and he might later enlighten them as to what true citizenship was. There was no doubt that the Constitution could be repealed, and section 152 of the Act of Union made provision for it. Sub-section (d) of section 53 said that it should not be lawful for a member of Parliament to hold an office of profit under the Crown; and if the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Georgetown (Mr. Andrews) were accepted, it might be taken to repeal the Act of Union. He thought they were embarking on a very dangerous principle, and before they voted for it they must know what the intention and the scope of the amendment were. The Minister of Justice might give them a clear exposition of it—(laughter)—but he was not there at present, unfortunately.

said that for over fifty years the railway employees in Natal had enjoyed full political rights; and so far as he knew, there was no harm in it, and no exception had been taken to it. (Hear, hear.) If that clause were passed they would be deprived of those rights, and they could not expect the Natal members to vote for that. In Natal the men had always behaved themselves as men should.

said that he wanted to point out, firstly, that they were not by that amendment forcing every railway servant to take an active part in politics, but to enable him to do so, if he wanted to; and, secondly, the hon. member’s (Mr. Jagger’s) own statement was a refutation of his argument, because he had said that he would not dream of interfering with the political freedom of any man in his own employ; and he refused to believe that the hon. member would be any the less liberal-minded to the railway servants if he were in the place of the Minister, and these servants exercised their rights. As to what the hon. member for Queenstown (Sir W. B. Berry) had said, his hon. friend (Mr. Andrews) had not said that they were not paying any attention to what hon. members had said, but that if they advised them (the Labour members) how to carry on their political warfare, they were obliged for the trouble taken but it had very little effect on their action. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton) had described their amendment as preposterous and childish, but they thought that these terms were more applicable to the hon. member’s own arguments.

said that facts did not bear out the logical issue of what the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had said. He was prepared to admit that the United States had been wiped off the map. (Laughter.) He had vet to learn that politics in Natal were more chaotic than in the Cape or the other Provinces, and there the railwaymen had absolute freedom in these matters—they were allowed to preside at meetings, allowed to speak and take an active part. There had been a time when the Government had prescribed a man’s religious faith, and unless he belonged to a certain Church he had not been allowed to hold certain positions. He was ready to admit that that Bill was a (great advantage, but when a man had done a satisfactory day’s work and kept his contract, the railway authorities had no more to do with his private actions afterwards than with his religion. Two hundred and fifty Indians in Durban had votes, and if that clause passed they would have greater rights than their white railway employees, who had their rights secured by charter.

said that he hardly saw his way to vote for the amendment, because it was far too dangerous to work. There might be times when in the interests of the State they should step in and say that the men were going too far with their political activities and if they wanted to stand for Parliament they could leave the service. If the amendment were passed the result would be that the railway service would become a political service. He did not think that they need be driven to the conclusion that, unless that amendment were passed, all their political rights would be taken away. He had not heard any evidence that the exercise of the full rights of the Natal men had led to any trouble—(hear, hear)—and if that were so, he did not think the Legislature should arbitrarily step in and take those rights away. It was time to step in when some particular servant exercised his rights in such a way as to give trouble to the Administration, and he hoped that the Administration would exercise the very greatest discretion in curtailing the rights of the railwaymen. (Hear, hear.)

said that he intended to support the amendment. At the time of the referendum in Natal on the question of Union he had stated that under Union they would have more rights than in the past—and now there was already an attempt to deprive these men of the political rights they had enjoyed in the past.

said he had no intention whatever of supporting the amendment, because it was not brought in at the right place. If the hon. Minister chose to insist upon continuing his previous action of regulations by means of circulars, public opinion would deal with him as it had dealt with him in the past.

said the hon. member for Fordsburg had truly said that the privileges which the Natal railwaymen enjoyed had given them some ground for complaint that their political rights were being interfered with. But that was not the case in the Cape. For instance, take the case of his political friend the member for Woodstock, whose opponent was very largely supported by men who were employed at the Salt River Works. Political activity had been curtailed to a very small extent, practically not at all. The substance of all political rights was the right to vote, and that was much better than getting upon a platform and making a political speech.

There is also the right of selection of candidates.

continuing, said that the selection of candidates might be a very important thing, but as far as the Cape went there had never been any difficulty in the selection of Labour candidates. In every form of political activity it was the vote that was the most important thing. They might approach a man of business and ask him to come on their committee, but he might say that he was unable to do so as it might affect his business. All this talk about the liberty of the public, as opposed to the liberty of the Civil Servants was very much a matter of theory instead of practice.

said he had listened to the speeches made by the hon. members on the cross-benches and was very much surprised to find that they were now so anxious to give one section of Government servants political privileges, when, by referring to Hansard, he found that last year they objected to the same privileges being granted to Field-cornets and to their acting as political agents. He thought it would be an absurd thing to prevent a man from being a political agent if they allowed him to stand as a candidate.

characterised the speech of the hon. member for Jeppe as extravagant. What the Government was endeavouring to do was to prevent these railwaymen from supporting party candidates. His experience had shown that the railwaymen had always been able to vote in the past for whomsoever they liked.

said that a large portion of this session and also of last session had been spent in an endeavour to keep the railway service and the public service outside the political arena. He hoped this amendment would be thrown out. The members of the railway service, he thought, had as much political freedom as they desired.

said that civilian rights were the foundation of political and civic liberty. Why should those rights be withheld from the railwaymen? The political rights of many of his constituents were being restricted to a certain extent, and he should support the amendment, though possibly it might have been better to adopt the course suggested by the hon. member for Uitenhage.

said that the Natal members no doubt felt that the political rights of railwaymen in Natal were being curtailed to some extent, but the Natal members must go a step further. They must have those rights extended to the other three colonies where they did not exist at present, and extended not only to the railway service but also to the public service. (Hear, hear.) Now, recognising what human nature was, if they expected the Minister responsible for the proper conduct of his department, elected because he belonged to a political party, to be able to do justice as between those who were taking an active part on one side or the other, they were expecting a little too much of any man. He could not understand what was now asked for. If the men were to be deprived of a right, what was the right they were to be deprived of? The right of standing as a member of Parliament? Nobody had a right of standing as a member of Parliament at somebody else’s expense. He believed it was to the advantage of the country to have each class represented by a member of that class.

Just one?

I believe that the member should be representative of that class. He went on to say that he believed that working men ought to be represented by working men. But, of course, they had got to provide means the same as other people did. If the railwaymen wanted a railwayman to represent them, they must get a man who had relinquished his position on the railway. How could they expect the Government to keep a man’s place while he was fighting an election?

We don’t want that.

What do you want? Continuing, the hon. member said that when he was fighting elections he had very little time for doing anything else. He maintained that it was not in the interests of the service, and that it was not in the interests of the men themselves. As for standing for the Town Council, well, he did not see any harm in that, but how were these men going to do two things? How was a man debarred from selecting candidates for whom he wished to vote because he was not allowed to give expression to his views from a public platform? A man, perhaps, who played up to the Government did so at the expense of his own colleagues; he bid for the favour of those in power at the expense of those with whom he was working. He had maintained the same attitude all the way through, and he stuck to it because he believed that it was neither to the interests of the men nor the country. The man was victimised in the end. No Minister, he did not care how well-intentioned he might be, would be able to save a man against ill consequences.

said that for the reasons that he supported the hon. member for Jeppe last year, in regard to field-cornets, he would vote against the amendment.

said he was not convinced that the amendment was either foolish or preposterous. As a plain man not given to quibbling, and a man who was not a legal man, it seemed to him that citizen rights meant that a railwayman should have the rights in the service that he would enjoy were he not a member of the service. The hon. member for Uitenhage had sheltered himself behind the argument that the amendment was not explicit enough, and though he agreed with the principle—which most hon. members seemed to understand—was going to vote against the amendment. The debate had proved that hon. members understood what was the meaning of the term citizen rights. The hon. member for Pretoria East had been straightforward, and had not sheltered himself behind the argument that had been advanced by the hon. member for Uitenhage. Hon. members seemed to assume that because the men would be given citizen rights they would be forced to use those rights. What was meant was that the men might exercise the right to speak in public, write to the press, or take any other active part in politics if they wished. If a railwayman wished to exercise a right which every other citizen enjoyed why should he not be given permission?

They were’ told that American methods would creep in if railwaymen were allowed to take part in politics, but that right was given in Natal, and as to America no particular disaster had overtaken America through it. As to what had been said by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Fawcus) the Government and the Minister were the servants of the public, including the railwaymen. They did not recognise the Minister as a master; the Minister was simply carrying out the will of the people of the country. With reference to a remark by the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick), why should a man leave his employment if he stood for Parliament? A man had a full right to spend his leisure as he liked, and if he had the right to attend political meetings he had the right to take part in their proceedings and to assist in the selection of candidates, so long as this did not interfere with his duties. Unless this were so, the electors would be compelled to select their Parliamentary candidates from a very small section of the community. It would be in the interests of the State in the long run that the men should not only vote, but take part in the selection of candidates, and to stand for Parliament if they wished.

said that in 1899 the Natal Parliament, on the motion of Mr. Tatham, rescinded a regulation which stated that no person receiving a salary or wages from any department of the Government, and whose whole time was paid for by Government, was permitted to take part in the choice, nomination or election—apart from actual voting—of members of Parliament, or to identify himself with any political proceedings. The amendment of the hon. member for Georgetown meant the giving back to the men of these rights.

The amendment of the hon. member for Georgetown was put and declared lost.

called for a division, which was taken with the following result:

moved that it stand over.

supported.

Agreed to.

On paragraph (o), old paragraph (s),

moved the following proviso: “Overtime shall in no case be paid at lower than time and half on ordinary working days, and double time for Sundays and holidays.”

The amendment was negatived.

On par. (u),

moved that paragraph (u) stand over.

Agreed to.

The new paragraph proposed by Mr. Fremantle was agreed to.

New clause 35,

moved that the following be a new clause to follow clause 84: “Whenever fines are imposed under this Act with or without the alternative of imprisonment it shall be lawful for the Court to suspend the sentence for such a time and upon such conditions as it may deem fit in order to enable the person convicted to pay the fine at some future date.” The mover said he moved this from purely humanitarian motives. It was simply to give the Magistrates the power to exercise their discretion in allowing a man time to pay a fine. This was a principle that had been found to work very well elsewhere.

said he might agree with the view put forward by the hon. member, but this was not the Bill where the principle should be introduced. There was another Bill under the charge of the Minister of Justice where the hon. member would have an opportunity of moving his amendment. He hoped, under the circumstances, the amendment would be withdrawn.

said that in view of the statement made by the Minister, and believing that he would have the support of the Minister of Justice in moving this clause when his Bill was before the House, he would withdraw it for the present.

said there were certain clauses standing over. He did not propose to take clauses 3 and 5 that evening, and moved that they stand over.

It was agreed that clauses 3 and 5 should stand over.

On clause 13,

said that he proposed to withdraw the amendment which he had on the paper and to move on clause 14 to insert a new sub-section (2) as follows: No servant in permanent employment who is charged with serious misconduct and who denies the charge shall be dismissed from the Service or reduced in rank or emoluments without an inquiry into the charge being held in manner prescribed. The servant shall be entitled to be present during the whole of such inquiry and shall be afforded an opportunity of showing cause against the dismissal or reduction. The officer reporting the misconduct may not take part in the inquiry except as a witness.

Mr. Nathan’s amendment was also withdrawn.

On new clause 14,

said he could not accept the new clause moved by the hon. member for Georgetown. It would be seen that provision was made in old clause 14 in reference to the matter dealt with in the hon. member’s proposed new clause. There was an Appeal Board provided, and sub-section (5) showed how a person who was charged with an offence was to be dealt with. He (Mr. Sauer) had given notice of an amendment to this that would give the General Manager powr to associate two persons with himself, one of them an employee, in order to hear appeals. He supposed also there would be nothing to prevent an aggrieved person from appealing further to the Minister. It was felt that the provision made here would be ample.

said it was unfortunate that this matter should be discussed at such a late hour of the night, for there were two sides to the question. The committee had been jaded by hours of consideration over the Bill and he thought that this important clause might stand over.

said he would like to meet the hon. gentleman, but he was afraid that he could not do so.

said he had moved his amendment with the hope that the idea would be accepted by the Minister. Even if the Minister were not prepared to enlarge the functions, of this body, he thought it would be wise if the men could have their own elected representatives on the Board.

said he agreed with the principle of a Board of Appeal, but did not like the machinery provided in either of the amendments. If there were constant appeals it did not tend to create a feeling of responsibility in the head officials. All this Chain of appeals would not be satisfactory, and there should be only one Board of Appeal on which the men should have one representative. Once the Board was set up it would be found to work satisfactorily.

said he had always felt that there was a multiplicity of appeals. On the other hand he felt that there was something in the contention that the employee should be elected by the men. He did not know, however, that as far as the actual decisions of the Board would go that that would make very much difference, but it would give more confidence—(hear, hear)—but at that stage he was not prepared to accept the amendments. He would ask the committee to pass the clause as he had proposed it, and then he would be prepared to consider if it were possible at a later stage to effect some alteration in the direction he had indicated. He would consider the matter, but he could make no promise, and at a later stage he might move an amendment in the direction he had indicated.

said it would be very unsatisfactory to pass the clause on the off-chance of the Minister proposing an amendment at a stage when they would have no opportunity to discuss it. It was not fair in so thin and tired a House to continue the discussion that night, and he suggested that progress be reported The subject was an important one—perhaps the most important in the Bill. Hon. members had expressed themselves as being most anxious to prevent a strike, yet when a means to avoid that possibility was advanced the Minister would not accept There was barely a quorum in the House The hon. member was proceeding to count the members present, when

called him to order.

said they were discussing the most important clause in the Bill and they were not in a fit stare to discuss the matter.

again called the hon. member to order.

moved that progress be reported and leave asked to sit again.

said the Minister had made a proposal to meet the proposers of the amendments, and if they wanted to do anything in the direction of getting some amelioration of the clause, the suggestion of the Minister was the only way in which that could be obtained, for hon. members must know perfectly well that the Minister had full power in that House to pass the clause as he desired. Hon. members should adopt the suggestion of the Minister, who said that he would consider the suggestion.

said that the hon. member who had just spoken did not seem to realise the great importance of that clause, as far as they (the Labour members) were concerned. He did appeal to the Minister to allow progress to be reported. The clause was exceedingly important, and the whole essence was that they should have an appeal board quite outside the administration. More importance was perhaps attached to that clause by the railway servants than to any other matter in the Bill.

asked the Minister to reconsider his decision, and appealed to the Minister to give a free and full discussion to that matter, and not force it through at that late hour. They wanted a measure, he said, which would have the full confidence of the men.

said that it could not be said that he had not been patient or unwilling to listen to the discussion on the clauses of that Bill. He had, it must be remembered also to consider the business of the Government—(Ministerial cheers)—and, important as the Bill was, there had been much discussion on trivial points. If they postponed that matter until the following day they would have speech upon speech. The majority, against which hon. members on the cross-benches seemed to have so much objection, would exercise its right, and they would pass the clause. From a practical point of view, he thought more would be obtained if they accepted his suggestion. He did hope that after the long discussion they had on the Bill they would take the rest of the Bill now. There was much more to be done, and they were getting late in the session.

withdrew his motion to report progress.

said that they were not going to be dictated to by the Minister as to what their duties to their constituents were.

hoped his hon. friend would accept the statement of the Minister, and although he regretted that the Minister did not see his way to accept the motion for further discussion, in view of his statement, however, they must take the temper into consideration, and although he hoped to see the matter further discussed, he would withdraw his amendment.

said he did not feel disposed to follow the example of the hon. member for Uitenhage. The Minister had made some concessions, but they did not affect the principle of the Bill. They had seen Boards of the Transvaal in connection with the Industrial Disputes Prevention Act where the men had equal representation with the employers, and where they had a so-called impartial chairman, and the result had been nothing. How much more so would that be the case when the proportion was three to one. What they wanted was an Appeal Board in which the men could have confidence. What was underlying the objection of the Minister to such a position as this? Did he want the powers of a Czar? He (Mr. Andrews) did not intend to withdraw the amendment, and he proposed to divide the House upon it.

urged that the clause should be allowed to stand over, so that the Minister would have an opportunity of telling them exactly what proposal he intended to put before them. If a division were taken that evening he should be compelled to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Georgetown.

The new clause moved by Mr. Andrews was then put, and the CHAIRMAN declared that the “Noes” had it.

called for a division, which was taken with the following result:

then moved to insert a new sub-section (2): (2) No servant in permanent employment who is charged with serious misconduct and who denies the charge shall be dismissed from the Service or reduced in rank or emoluments without an inquiry into the charge being held in manner prescribed. The servant shall be entitled to be present during the whole of such inquiry, and shall be afforded an opportunity of showing cause against the dismissal or reduction. The officer reporting the misconduct may not take part in the inquiry except as a witness.”

Agreed to.

moved the deletion of sub-section 3. The mover said that any fair-minded man must see that there was something a little bit vindictive in this. A man might be charged with endangering the lives of passengers or fellow employees, say, in connection with some shunting operations; he was tried and acquitted, and yet the Administration said it was still going to punish him. Everything was done to place unfettered power in the hands of the Administration and the employees were at the mercy of those at the head of affairs. It was no good telling him that they were treated with justice, because the underdog always suffered. It was unfair, un-British, if he might use that word in the House, to put such a thing as that in the Bill. Who was to say the man was guilty? It was iniquitous to put such a thing in.

said that surely the idea was not to try a man again for something for which he had been found not guilty in a court of law. He thought the Minister might give the committee an idea if that sub-section was i necessary.

said that it was necessary, and was a very proper law. Men might have been acquitted in a court of law, and they could not be kept in the service. Always the greatest care had been taken in these cases.

said that, according to the Minister, the courts of law were useless, and a man who had been pronounced innocent by the court of law might be found guilty by the Administration. They were living in the twentieth century, and that was what the Minister told them!

moved a verbal amendment in the Dutch text, and took exception to the remarks of the hon. members on the cross-benches. He denied the allegation that the Minister had no sympathy with the railway men. He (the Minister) had given the fullest proof of his sympathy. Of course, in accepting his wages, the workmen had to submit to certain conditions.

supported the amendment. Sub-section (3) gave the right to a foreman to bring a charge against another in order to get him discharged.

said that the administration ought to have power to deal with a case where a man had been acquitted of a technical offence when they had knowledge which went to prevent him from remaining in the department.

said that he felt unhappy about this clause.

It was passed in committee.

said that he did not want to go back on what he did in committee. On the case put before them in the Select Committee he did not see why, even if the paragraph were not there, the man should not be dealt with under the disciplinary clauses. He would rather lose the chance of punishing a criminal. It would undeservedly appear as though the administration wished to set itself up above the law.

also appealed to the Minister to show some consideration. He thought it better that six guilty men should escape than one innocent man be punished.

said he saw great difficulties in the way of dispensing with a man’s services. He had a case in mind where a driver was charged and acquitted, but the administration was in possession of evidence of such a character that it would make it criminal for him to allow that man to drive. He was acquitted

On a technicality?

No—I can’t say.

Why wasn’t that evidence before the Court?

said that sometimes a great deal could not be put before the Court.

could not see why section 7 could not deal with this matter. The sub-section had an ugly look, and if it could be done without it should be done without. Under no circumstances could he vote for a section of that kind unless it were proved absolutely to be necessary. Was the case to which the Minister referred not a Cane one, and had he not dealt with it without this power?

suggested the insertion after “criminal charge” of the words “owing to the technical rules of Court as to admissibility of evidence or otherwise.” This would cover those cases in which the administration was in possession of evidence which, through some technicality, could not be produced in Court.

said an accountant might be tried for embezzlement and found not guilty, but at the same time it might have been shown that he had been grossly careless, and a quibble ought not to exempt him from punishment for a dereliction of duty. He would like to see what was a blot on the sub-section amended, so as to make it quite clear that a man acquitted on a major charge should not get a clean sheet when, if he had been charged with dereliction of duty, he would have been found guilty. He thought the clause could be amended to make the legitimate intention of the administration perfectly plain.

said that he would think it over.

said that he and other members of the Select Committee were under the impression that if a man were acquitted he could not be proceeded against again under the minor charge, and they had been influenced by the case referred to by the hon. member.

The amendment in the Dutch version was agreed to.

put the question that sub-section (3), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, and declared that the “Ayes” had it

called for a division, which was taken, with the following result:

moved to omit the words “except in cases of inefficiency” from the new sub-section 4. The mover stated that this simply seemed to be a desire to penalise the men.

The amendment was negatived.

The amendment proposed by the Minister of Railways and Harbours was agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Haggar was negatived.

The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 34,

moved the omission of the proviso at the end of sub-section (1).

put the amendment proposed by the Select Committee, in line 64, to insert “except as provided in paragraph (a) of this sub-section” and in line 66, to insert “or in section 82 of this Act.”

moved: In sub-section (2), lines 62 to 66, to omit all the words from “and” to “Act.” The committee, he said, was told the other night that it was to have further information from the Minister, but it had not been forthcoming. It was a case of take it or leave it, and the “steam-roller” would be called into use. If the committee wished to do justice, it would vote for the deletion of the sub-section, but if it regarded party only it would follow its leader without regard to the justice of the case.

said that the insecurity of the position of the men in the Transvaal was that the law might be altered. He thought the Minister had given a promise that he would consider the matter.

said that he had given that matter consideration, as he had promised. In the Transvaal, only the people who were working on the trip system were allowed to contribute on overtime, and the right was one which could be taken away at any time. It had not been safeguarded under the South Africa Act. If the trip system had been abolished that right would have lapsed. Without any legislation at all, the administration could have abolished the trip system.

said that the men would be only too glad to have the trip system abolished.

said while the trip system existed the men must be allowed to have their rights. The Minister wanted to retain the trip system if it proved to be advantageous to the administration, and at the same time deprive the men of their rights.

said that when the Transvaal came into Union with that Act in force, that Act remained in force under Union until repealed. He quite agreed that the administration could at any time abolish the trip system, but that section applied to the trip system, and said that while it was in force something else would apply to the trip system. (Labour “Hear, hears.”) He hoped that the Minister would accept the amendment.

said it was such things as this that were creating an impression in the minds of the men that it would have been better if Union had not taken place. What would hon. members on the opposite side say if these rights that were being taken away belonged to Cape men?

said these men did not possess a right such as was contemplated when the South Africa Act stated that “existing i rights” would be maintained. His difficulty about it was that it created a lot of inequality and injustice, because it was said why should one pay one man overtime and not another? There was no doubt that it operated very unfairly, and he was surprised that they had admitted such a thing in the Transvaal. If that clause passed he was prepared to make it clear that those who possessed that right at the time of Union would have those rights maintained. (Hear, hear.)

The amendment of Mr. W. H. Andrews was negatived.

On clause 44,

accepted the amendment which had been moved by Mr. Andrews.

The amendment was agreed to.

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