from H. J. Steyn, praying that the patent for a cancer-remedy granted to him by the Government of the late Colony of the Cape of Good Hope may be extended.

from inhabitants of Lichtenburg, praying that Mr. M. Steyn, generally known as “the cancer doctor,” be allowed to carry on the profession of medical practitioner. (Four petitions.)

in support of the petition from H. J. Steyn. (Five petitions.)

from inhabitants of Lichtenburg, praying for a reduction of the hire of water-drills from £4 to £l per day.

from A. R. Robertson and 40,677 others, citizens on the Witwatersrand, directing attention to the prevalence of native crime, more especially of outrages on’ women and children, and praying the House to consider the desirability of increasing police protection, establishing of compounds for the natives and their women, and of establishing training schools for white and coloured female domestic servants.

On the motion of Mr. WYNDHAM, the petition was read by the clerk at the table.

in support of the petition from H. J. Steyn.

from J. H. Ward, late constable in the Rural Police.

in support of the petition from H. J. Steyn. (Three petitions.)

from B. B. Mutlow, mechanical engineer, who served under the Harbour Work and Railway Department.

in support of the petition from H. J. Steyn.

similar petition.

similar petition.

similar petition.

two similar petitions.

asked the Minister of Education: (1) Whether it is a fact that a certain Dunbar of the Education Department at Bloemfontein was suspended on or about the 15th December, 1911, and has since been reappointed; and, if not, (2) whether he has during all this time been drawing his salary; and (3) whether the Minister is prepared to lay all the correspondence and papers in connection with the temporary retirement of the above-mentioned officer upon the table of the House?

replied: The case of this officer is still under consideration, and has not yet been finally disposed of. It is not, therefore, possible at present to comply with the last part of this question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is true that Dr. Robertson (Graham’s Town) and Dr. Theiler have been inoculating cattle for gal-lamziekte with great success, and whether he is prepared to issue instructions to the Bacteriological Department to publish from time to time for the information of farmers the results of investigations now being made with regard to this disease?

replied: Experiments have been made to inoculate cattle against lamziekte, but they did not prove successful, otherwise the public would have been informed. All information concerning results of investigations is being published in the next issue of the “Agricultural Journal.”

asked the Minister of Lands whether the Government will take into early consideration the advisability of introducing a Tenants’ Improvements Compensation Bill?

replied: The Government has not as yet had an opportunity of considering the advisability of introducing such legislation, and can hold out no hope that it will be able to do so during the present session.

asked the Minister of Finance: (1) To what extent the credit of the Land Bank (Transvaal) is at the present time involved in any contracts entered into by the Central Agency for Co-operative Societies; and (2) whether the Central Agency has repaid the £995 it owed the Government in respect-of the first year’s working expenses?

replied: (1) The liability of the Land Bank (Transvaal) under current contracts entered into by the Central Agency for Co-operative Societies (on behalf of the Co-operative Societies and presently in force) is £65,758. These contracts, however, have already been executed to the extent of approximately £32,000. (2) There is at the present time a balance of £480 due by the Central Agency to the Department of Agriculture, and as all difficulties in the way of settlement have been overcome, payment of this balance should be made very shortly.

asked the Minister of Finance: (1) Whether Mr. Theunis Frederik Johannes Dreyer, who was appointed on the 7th November, 1910, as a director of the Transvaal Land and Agricultural Bank, is the same gentleman who was elected a member of the Union House of Assembly for the division of Losberg in September, 1910, but resigned shortly afterwards, when the Prime Minister was elected in his stead; and (2) what qualifications had Mr. Dreyer for this directorate?

replied: (1) The reply to the first portion of the question is in the affirmative; (2) this gentleman’s qualifications for membership of the Board of the Transvaal Land Bank are those which are ordinarily sought for in making such appointments, and include an intimate personal acquaintance with the conditions of the country in which the bank carries on its operations, and a sound knowledge of land values.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that public boxing contests frequently take place in the Orange Free State; (2) whether he does not consider it necessary to introduce legislation at an early date to minimise the immoral and injurious effects of these contests; and (3) if not, what does the Government intend to do in this matter?

replied: The Commissioner of Police for the Orange Free State reports that public boxing contests are not of frequent occurrence in the Orange Free State. There is no law forbidding such in the Free State at present. In the harmonising and consolidating of the criminal laws of the Union, due consideration will be given to the question in how far public boxing contests should be regulated.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether it is a fact that Civil Servants retrenched at Pretoria (a) are given railway concession tickets if they are proceeding to the coast en route for oversea countries; and (b) are not given such concession tickets if they are proceeding to some destination within the Union; and, if so, (2) whether the Government is prepared to take into consideration the advisability of placing those coming under (b) on the same footing as those under (a).

replied: (1) (a) No; except in special circumstances; (b) yes; (2) no; any change should rather be in direction of withdrawing altogether concessions occasionally granted to retrenched officials proceeding oversea.

asked the Minister of Justice whether his attention has been called to the case of Motorman Shaw, tried before Mr. A. C. Hadfield, on the 23rd April, 1912, from which it appears that the police have no control over the speed of tramcars in Johannesburg, and whether the Government proposes to take any action in this matter?

replied: I have inquired into the case referred to by the hon. member, and find that he is correctly informed that the police have no control over the speed of municipal tram cars in Johannesburg, and that there is no limit to the speed at which such cars can be run. In the harmonising and consolidating of the Police Offences Acts of the Union it is proposed to consider the giving of jurisdiction to the police in such matters.

asked the Minister of Finance whether he is prepared to submit for the consideration of the House at an early date proposals for the imposition of a tax, in the form of a deduction of a certain percentage on the takings, upon the promoters of all public entertainments at which entrance money is charged?

replied: I have no immediate intention of submitting any such proposals for the consideration of the House. I do not mean by this to imply that I do not favour the principle of such taxation, but I am disposed to think that enterprises of this description would constitute a more appropriate object for provincial taxation than for taxation by the Central Government.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether he is aware that under the new railway time-table for May the suburban train which used to pass through Observatory at 12.44 p.m., and reach Cape Town at 12.56 p.m., has been taken off: (2) whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that this prevents Cape Town workers who reside in the suburbs between Cape Town and Observatory, and whose lunch hour is 12 noon to 1 p.m., from going home to lunch; and (3) whether the Government is prepared to take into consideration the advisability of restoring the old time-table?

The train referred to has not been discontinued.

asked the Minister of Justice if the Government intend increasing the number of police at Kimberley, in view of the recent outrage and the present inadequacy of the police force on the Diamond Fields?

replied: The inhabitants of the town and district of Kimberley number 64,354. On the basis of the Estimates for 1912-13 provision is made for a police establishment (excluding the diamond detective department) of 126 of all ranks; this gives one policeman to every 463 of inhabitants. The towns of Kimberley and Beaconsfield contain 43,814 inhabitants; of these about 15,000 are in compounds, leaving a resident community of 28.814. The urban police number 113, thus giving one policeman to 387 of the total population, or one to 255 of inhabitants, less the inmates of the compounds. This strength is considered sufficient for present needs, and owing to probable developments in connection with the police and defence forces it is not considered advisable at present to increase the town police.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: What action the Railway Administration proposes to take in regard to (1) the recommendations of the Railway Grievances Commission concerning skilled labourer Brassey, machinist Andrews, boiler maker’s helper Roberts, wireman Hampton, skilled labourer Minnie, fitter Buloraig, labourer Bellingan, carpenter Maroney, meta machinist Ferreira, boltmaker Potgieter, boiler maker’s helpers Scheepers and Van Rooyen, labourer Muldea, wagon builder’s improver Straydom, craneman Gregory, traverser driver Quick, clerk Colley, and steel frame maker Goosen; and (2) the sleeper huts which according to the report of the Commission have been condemned by the Railway Medical Officer are obviously unfit for European habitation and are mere hovels, constructed of sleepers, without windows, and not ex feeding six feet in height, but in which it is said that whole families are compelled to live from absolute want of means to pay for better accommodation?

replied: (1) The Grievance Commission’s recommendations are being carefully considered, and the Administration’s decision in regard to a number of cases will be intimated to complainants at an early date. Grievances in regard to inadequate pay are principally due to the absence of a proper system of grading and regular methods of promotion. Where employees are not receiving maximum rates (for the class of work performed, increases will be granted to competent men, and necessary departmental action is being taken along these lines. Where an employee is drawing the existing maximum, and that maximum is reported as inadequate, the value of the work is being investigated in connection with regrading of the whole service, which is now being actively carried: out. (2) Recommendation of the Commission in this respect is receiving urgent attention and a sum of £25,000 has been provided on the Capital and Betterment Work Estimates now before the House for improving existing quarters occupied by, and providing new quarters for, white labourers

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is prepared to appoint a veterinary surgeon for the neighbourhood of Modder River (Griqualand West) to assist the stock farmers of that area in combating cattle diseases?

replied: At the present time, in view of the numerous demands which are being made upon the services of the veterinary staff of the Department in connection with the spread of. East Coast fever which has already necessitated the transfer of officers from other Provinces to the Cape Province, it is not possible to make any promise with respect to the stationing of a veterinary surgeon in the neighbourhood of Modder River.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in connection with the extermination of scab, it is not possible for his Department to recommend for general use throughout the Union one or more dips which after tests have proved the most effective; and, if so, whether the Government will supply farmers with such dips at cost price or at a reduced price?

replied as follows: There are so many dips for the eradication of scab that have been tested and approved after years of practical experience that I do not think it necessary for the Department to conduct more tests at present. Lime and sulphur or lime and soda are probably the cheapest and most effective of dips, but there are also many other good dips which can be obtained at moderate prices. I am also of opinion that satisfactory dips can now be obtained by farmers in practically all parts of the Union, at reasonable rates, through the ordinary channels of trade or co-operative societies without the intervention of the Government.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether he is aware of the very serious delay which steamers are experiencing at Durban in obtaining supplies of coal for bunkers and cargoes in consequence of the shortage of trucks; and (2) what steps the Administration have taken and are taking to enable the detained steamers to get their full supplies, and to prevent steamers being delayed at Durban in future?

replied that he was aware that there was delay and he was also aware that it was inadvisable that steamers should be delayed at any port calling for coal, and every effort had been made to obviate the delay as far as possible. There were three reasons why there was delay. One was that the mines did not put out enough coal, the second was that they detained trucks unduly at the Point, and the third was that there were insufficient trucks. Now, he wanted to give the House a few figures. He did not want to perpetrate a joke, but this seemed to be a “burning” question, this question of the insufficient supply of coal at Durban. The estimated output of the mines in Natal very seldom corresponded with the actual output. In the week ending April 6, 1912, he would take the actual output and the tonnage available to convey the coal from the mines. The daily average for that week was an output of 9,675 tons, and the average of trucks available gave 12,243 tons. In the following week—April 13, 1912—the daily average output was 9,017 tons, and the daily average tonnage available was 11,868, or 2,851 more tons than the average daily output. In the week ensuing—April 20, 1912—the daily average output was 8,978 tons, and the tonnage available was 9,797, while in the week April 27. 1912, the average daily output was 7,632, and the daily tonnage available was 7,330. Of course, it often happened that they had a larger output than there was tonnage available, but he was giving the average for the week. Then, he would like to point out that the detention before delivery was taken of this coal at the Point has at these times of stress been an average of about four days. If the trucks had been empty, and they could have gone back immediately, they would have been able to cope with the supply of coal, and practically there would have been no need for additional trucks. In normal times the average detentions of trucks at Durban were 17 to 21 days, that was the period during which the coal remained in the trucks. Those were the people who complained that the railway was treating them badly, whereas it was largely due to their own fault.

Don’t you charge them demurrage?

No.

But you ought to.

was understood to say that his hon. friend, he was afraid, did not know what he had to deal with. Proceeding, he said he had suggested to them that if they were to release the trucks, he would give them a rebate; but he thought there must be a good many Scotsmen amongst them, because they said to him, “Give the rebate first, and we will release the trucks afterwards.” During the time there were these complaints there were 10,000 tons available in Durban. If they graded the coal whenever a ship came into port, it would be available. The companies sold to particular ships, and coal delivery had to wait until the ship came in. During the last week or fourteen days they had great complaints for not delivering coal to ships that had not even arrived. He had returns showing that the output of coal in Natal was practically stationary. During the past three months the railway carried nearly 27,000 tons more than in the corresponding period of last year. With the heavier engines employed, they had reduced the time of four days to 23 hours There was a sort of impression that the railway was utilising a number of trucks, which ought to be employed to carry coal from the Natal mines to Durban, for the purpose of bringing coal down from the North to Cape Town. (Hear, hear.) Somebody said “Hear, hear.” What was the position? The quantity of coal that had been brought from the North to Cape Town in three months in trucks which would have been empty did not exceed the output of the Natal mines in one day about 8,200 tons having been brought down.

What about coal from the Transvaal?

Transvaal and Natal together amounted during the three months to about 11,000 tons. The great quantity of coal that is now brought to Cape Town is by sea. The fact is that Cape empty trucks when they come down bring coal at a cheap rate. I hope the hon. member will just bear in mind the quantity that has been brought down from Natal and the Transvaal in three months—11,000 tons, that’s all. Proceeding, he said that this coal was brought down in trucks that would otherwise have been empty. He admitted that in a few instances these trucks were rather a long time in coming down, but instructions had been given to remedy that. He thought these figures went to show how much better they were carrying coal than they did before Union, and better than they did last year. These were the reasons, and not the least was the detention of trucks at the Point. He was very anxious to assist to enable all the ports to take as much coal as possible. The coal that came to Cape Town for bunkering purposes came mainly from Natal, so that Natal coal owners derived an advantage therefrom. The bunkering trade of Cape Town had increased very rapidly. The Harbour Advisory Board had interviewed a number of captains of ships, who stated that if they could not coal here they would not go round to Durban. He was afraid there was a feeling in some quarters that Cape Town had taken something away from Durban, but as far as he could make out there was no reason for that. To him it was not a matter whether Cape Town, Durban, or East London supplied the coal, but he wanted to enable each place to give a ship coal at the port that was most convenient to the ship. He would continue to do all he could to meet the requirements of Durban, and he hoped that the people who were very largely responsible for the difficulties would assist in giving delivery of that coal within a reasonable time. (Hear, hear.)

said he wanted a fuller reply to his second question.

The hon. member cannot debate a question.

asked the Prime Minister: (1) What steps have been taken by the Government to encourage and assist diamond cutting factories in South Africa; and (2) what are the intentions of the Government regarding the oft-expressed desire of the community in favour of the establishment of such an industry in South Africa?

replied: (1) The question of the establishment of a diamond-cutting industry in South Africa has been under the consideration of Government for some considerable time, and inquiries have been made in regard to the diamond-cutting industry in Europe and the methods under which the trade is carried on. (2) On the whole the result of these inquiries has been discouraging on account of the great difficulties which appear to exist, owing to the complicated character of the trade as it is carried on in Europe as well as the difficulty of obtaining first-class cutters for this country, and it is not at present possible to state what the ultimate intentions of the Government in regard to this important matter will be.

Papers relating to arrangement by Transvaal Government with mine owners with regard to supply and importation of native labour.

Return showing the-number of male adults, as defined by the South Africa Act, in the Province of the Transvaal according to the Census of 1911.

Papers referring to curtailing of legal rights of railway men to be placed on the fixed establishment.

said that last week the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle)-asked whether there was any objection to railway employees becoming members of political organisations. He did not quite know what the hon. member meant by “objection,” but it was against the regulations, and he did not intend to alter them. It was the same regulation that applied to ordinary Civil Servants. The answer was in the affirmative.

moved that the petition from W. A. Carrington and 187 others, inhabitants of Douglas and Herbert, praying for the construction of a line of railway from Belmont to Douglas,, presented to the House on March 29, 1912, be referred to the Government for consideration. The hon. member said that the Cape Government had authorised the-line in 1906, whereupon a survey had been made, but nothing further was done. Perhaps the Minister thought the line would not pay, but he would point out that along its route there was a rich salt pan, which produced in eight months 3,200,000 lbs. of salt. The owners of the mine had laid down expensive machinery, and were prepared to transport 400,000 sacks of salt annually by rail, and to pay 10s. per ton for it, so that alone, for a distance of only 25 miles, would produce £20,000. There was not an abundance of salt in the country, and every year large quantities had to be imported from Germany. The district was also very fruitful, but owing to the lack of transport large quantities of fruit were allowed to rot every year. The district was specially suitable for irrigation and development, but the companies who owned ground there could do nothing owing to lack of transport. The old policy of the Cape Government of asking for a guarantee before building a branch line was, in his opinion, wrong, and one which he hoped would not be followed by the Union Government.

had much pleasure in supporting the motion, because he happened to have intimate acquaintance with that part of the country concerned, and knew its capabilities. In the Cape Parliament, also, when the line was first contemplated, he believed that it would be of great value to the great hinterland of the West, and he believed also that the line would eventually pay.

With regard to the salt pan, he had occasion to investigate it, and believed it was the best salt pan in the country, both as to its quality and its quantity. In his opinion it was certainly the best and purest salt produced in the country. As to the capabilities of the pan, it was stated that at least 400,000 bags of salt per annum could be produced. When this matter was before the Cape House the line determined upon was a two-foot gauge, and he believed the people concerned would be satisfied with that at the present time, although he was not authorised to say so. Some time before that a great deal of money had been expended in the making and maintenance of the hard road to a certain width. It certainly seemed to him that the project of making this railway deserved consideration, and he hoped it would be given.

in seconding the motion said he could not understand why the line had not been built long ago, seeing that consent to lay it had been given in 1906. He hoped the line would appear as an item in the Bill to be brought forward to authorise new railway construction. He understood it was under consideration whether the line should not go further than to Douglas. He thought it wrong always to ask first what the population of a certain district produced. ’ They should first lay the line, and then see what the people could do. Without means of transport it did not matter what the people could produce. He trusted that Douglas would speedily get its railway.

said the railway had been sanctioned by the old Cape Colony five or six years ago at a cost of something like £87,000. Unfortunately this money had been taken by the Government and allocated to other purposes. He knew that large sums of money had been spent in the district on the anticipation that the railway would be made. There was a settlement also where the Government had put a good deal of money into, and that should also be taken into consideration. It was no use putting up these irrigation settlements unless they gave them facilities for getting the produce to market. He hoped that very shortly the Government would take these lines into consideration.

said although he did not want to oppose his hon. friend, still he would like to oppose every line that was asked for until they got a comprehensive plan of what was before the country. This piecemeal building of railways was most wasteful. No doubt this was a good scheme, but there might be other schemes undoubtedly better. What was wanted was a report of the Railway Board with map showing existing line, improving lines, feeding lines, developing lines and gambling lines, under different classes, so that it could be seen how they could repair the mistakes which had been made by the different Provincial administrations and what proceedings they ought to take with regard to the beneficial opening up of other parts of South Africa.

supported the motion, and referred to the improvement in conditions which had taken place owing to the lengthening of the railway line in the direction of Eendekuil and to Graafwater. He hoped the railway would be continued to Kakamas. He did not agree with the hon. member for Pretoria East that the Government should first wait until their whole railway plan was ready. They must develop the whole country by means of railways. The people in the north-western districts would be prosperous if only they could get a railway there. He therefore hoped the motion would be agreed to, and that other districts of the country without railways would also be provided for

said that he was not going to adopt the attitude of the hon. member for Piquetberg and urge the Minister of Rail ways to spend millions of money in building railways all over the country. He only wished that the hon. member (Mr. M. J. de Beer) would be as progressive in supporting compulsory dipping and compulsory fencing as he had been in advocating the construction of railways. He (Sir Thomas) agreed to a great extent with what had been said by the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick). Before the Government came forward with any railway scheme, the House should have the fullest possible information; it should have a report from the Railway Board. The hon. member for Pretoria East had overlooked the fact that under existing conditions, the Railway Board could not initiate schemes; it could only give reports on schemes which were initiated by the Minister of Railways as representing the Government, because it was laid down in the Act of Union that only the Government could bring forward matters in connection with expenditure. He considered that in connection with this or any other railway, the House should have the fullest information. He hoped that the Minister would take into consideration the resolution which had been moved by the hon. member for Hope Town, because he believed that the district was particularly suited for closer settlement. The Government had already bought, irrespective of the irrigation works existing on the banks of the Vaal River, a very considerable stretch of land. He understood that they had bought it very cheaply.

We bought it cheaply.

said that he spoke rather feelingly on the question of this railway, because it was one he introduced when he was in office. In fact the material for the construction of the railway was ordered, but owing to the pressure of the right hon. gentleman the member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) when he came into office, the present Minister of Railways countermanded the order, and the line was not taken in hand. It was so good that he (Sir Thomas) was prepared to submit it to the Railway Board. (Laughter, and “Hear, hear.”)

said that in some senses this was the most entertaining debate of the session. (Laughter.) They had heard the hon. member for Piquetberg advocating railways all over the country, but he did not know whether he would be such a strong advocate if they put on a tax. At all events, he hoped that when the hon. member was taxed to meet the deficiency he would remember that they were carrying out his policy. He (the Minister) was delighted to hear the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger). He had realised at last that it was very difficult to carry on farming operations unless they had got railways, and that they must not always have a balance sheet to see whether there would be a loss or not. If they did that, they would stop further railway construction in this country. In America they built railways where there were no people at all—the people followed the railways—and if he had to choose between that and first obtaining balance sheets to see whether there would be a loss he would prefer the American system. There was no doubt that the time had come when they could not carry on agricultural pursuits satisfactorily unless they got their produce to the markets. Therefore he was in favour of building railways, but not at the speed advocated by the hon. member for Piquetberg. (Laughter.) Reference had been made to good, bad, and indifferent lines, but there were few lines indeed that he would call bad. He had heard a great deal of nonsense talked about political lines and gambling lines, but there were very few lines which the people would like to see pulled up. Ministerial cheers.)

The only sensible way to build railway was to build them as they were built here and elsewhere, and that was to build what was necessary, and also to bear in mind when they built them that they could extend them where necessary. All this talk about large schemes was, to his mind, all wind. What they wanted was a practical scheme which was capable of development at the proper time, and which met the immediate necessities of the case. Of course, when he brought in a scheme he should bring in the report of the Board.

Where is it?

It is in my pocket just now, and I hope it will be on the floor of the House very soon. I am sure it will be of such a character as to convince the House that I have selected the best lines for the time being. In regard to this particular line, he went on to say, it was true that it was authorised when they had rather extravagant ideas, but he was bound to say that he was never much in favour of the line. It was true that it had been on the Statute Book. That was left him there when he succeeded somebody else, but the money was not left. There was apparent authority, but no money. Unless some action were taken by the Union Parliament, he had no means of building this line. While he was in favour of developing what were called the Karoo districts, he thought it was very important that they should build their lines where they would be most useful, and it had always seemed to him that the proper way to build a line to serve that part of the country was not to build one from Douglas to Belmont, but to extend the line somewhere from Prieska and go along the river and serve both portions of the Orange and Vaal Rivers, and then on to Kimberley. They would thus cover a great deal more land that could be cultivated, serve a much larger area, and bring them into contact with their markets by the shortest route. It was a curious thing, but there was hardly a railway near Kroonstad, near Bloemfontein, or near Kimberley but there was a salt pan. (Laughter.) He had got a bag in his office containing samples of salt sent to him gratuitously. It was a singular thing how the salt pan turned up everywhere. (Laughter.) All he could say was that if the House adopted this motion the matter would receive consideration, but it would receive consideration in connection with a scheme as a whole to serve that part of the country. If they built a railway from Belmont to Douglas, he was convinced that they would at once have to extend it to the south.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the system of piece-work obtaining at present in the railway workshops at Pretoria and Bloemfontein, and which it is proposed to extend to other workships. He said that they had the report of the Commission appointed to go into the question of the working of the railway workshops in various parts of the Union. They had not, unfortunately, had the report printed and circulated, but there was a copy which he believed a good many members of the House had had an opportunity of reading. One thing that struck one in reading that report was that there was no unanimity on this particular point of the extension of the piecework system. The majority, consisting of three members, certainly did” strongly urge that piece-work, what they called straight piece-work, should be introduced throughout the workshops of the Railway Department. But, then, they found that one of the gentlemen who signed the majority report rather qualified his statement, and he seemed to think that it would be better if a system of straight piece-work were not adopted. That was Mr. Hendrie. Mr. Beatty drew attention to the fact that in Australia the only State that took in the piece-work system on the railways was Queensland, and they guaranteed a day’s pay. In the American Loco. Co. they had a piece-work system, but a modified one which guaranteed a day’s pay, whether the job happened to turn out well or otherwise. In face of this, he thought this House should consider whether it was not advisable to appoint a Select Committee to go into the question, so that they might know what they were doing before they embarked upon a system of introducing piece-work throughout the railways of the Union. It might be mentioned that Mr. Beatty said and Mr. Hendrie also mentioned that this method of piecework was already in existence m Natal. The men in Natal in 1910 had a system of piecework forced upon them against their will, but modified from the original idea. It was called the bonus system, and was laid down in the majority report as follows: (a) That prices be fixed in the first instance by mutual agreement between the foreman and the workmen, subject to the approval of the works manager, (b) That such prices should allow the workmen the chance of making one-fourth or three-eighths over their working time. (c) That such prices once fixed should be scheduled and posted for general information, and should not be altered unless there is some patent and material variation in any of the factors on which the prices were originally based; such prices to remain fixed for not less than six months, (d) That it be optional for the men to take bonus work when available. (e) That the ordinary time wage of every man working on the bonus payment system be guaranteed. It would be exceedingly unfair, and possibly unwise, to take away the conditions that prevailed in Natal, not that the men were particularly in love with them, but they were certainly better conditions than those at Bloemfontein and Pretoria.

He failed to discover that the Commission had proved that even a modified system of piecework had been found beneficial to the Administration itself. An engine repaired under the piecework system in the Transvaal ran 31,500 miles before totally breaking down, as compared with 69,300 miles in the Cape under the daywork system. Coaches built at Durban under the daywork system cost £3,070, against £3,634, when constructed at Pretoria under the piecework system. A comparison between Durban and Bloemfontein showed a similar state of affairs. Thus there was no benefit in regard to cheapness in the adoption of piecework, and there seemed to be great disadvantages in the reliability and life of engines repaired under the one system as compared with the other. They had to examine the system, not only on the railways, but in the industries of the country generally. In such industries as the building trade, in which contractors were tendering one against the other, not only the men but the Master Builders’ Federation were quite opposed to piecework. So far as their own interests were concerned, the mines of the Rand understood their own business, and they had not adopted—so far as the engineering part of the mines were concerned—the piecework system. Again, in the printing trade, which was a competitive one, piecework was by no means universal. The present position on the railways was exceedingly unsatisfactory, because of the uncertainty the men found themselves in in not knowing what new conditions might be imposed on them. If the House would let the men understand that before putting into practice any new scheme, and before extending piecework, there would be a thorough and impartial inquiry into the matter, and then, if it were found that there was an unanswerable case for piecework, he supposed the men would have to submit. But until then, the evidence was not conclusive enough to justify the system being extended throughout the railways—a system which was objectionable to the men, and was being fought against in every country so far as the engineers were concerned, and would not conduce to the welfare of the country or to harmony between the men and the Administration. As to the latter part of the motion, he was not wedded to that, and if any hon. member cared to move an amendment to it, he would not object. His object was to get a Select Committee appointed, in order that the whole matter might thoroughly be thrashed out by an impartial committee.

seconded the motion

thought the mover would be well advised to accept an amendment such as he (Mr. Andrews) had outlined. He (Mr. Orr) did not think they ought to ask the Administration to bind itself not to extend the piecework system until a report had been submitted to the House, because the responsibility must be left to the Administration. But he did think it was a proper matter for the House to inquire into. The House ought to consider whether the introduction of piecework, as setting up a standard of labour for the rest of the country, was the system best calculated to develop the men into good working-men and good citizens. (Hear, hear.) Piecework resulted in labour being made of a mechanical character, the men thus employed being tied down to some particular kind of work. He believed that piecework did tend to fix men, women, and boys to one mechanical task, until they were able to work no longer, and then they were cast aside. He did not think that the arguments in favour of piecework which were put into the Minister’s mouth were justified, and he did not think also there had been a case made out as regarded the rival merits of piecework and daywork. He appealed to the Minister to accept the motion, on the ground that satisfaction would be given to the railwaymen by the knowledge that an impartial inquiry would be held into the merits of the system The hon. member then moved that all the words from “and” be omitted, down to the end of the amendment.

said he had two objections to piecework. First of all however much work they got out of the men, they would grow old, and were liable to be shelved and more active men taken on. Another reason was that railway men were opposed to this, and he certainly thought their voice ought to be heard. The third objection was that the hon. member for Georgetown had produced statistics in proof of the fact that the work done by these slower methods was nearly double as lasting and as good as that done on the piecework system. For these reasons he intended to support the motion of the hon. member for Georgetown.

hoped the Minister would accept the motion not only in the interests of the railway men, but in the interests of the country. It was very desirable that if an inquiry were instituted the men should have confidence in it. There were very strong financial arguments against piece-work. This was an attempt to apply Transvaal methods to the Cape. He was told by numbers of his constituents that the work done in the Northern Provinces was not so great as that done in the Cape shops. Many blacksmiths had left Uitenhage and gone to other centres, and they all agreed that the work done there was not so heavy as the work at Uitenhage. In fact, a reliable correspondent had informed him that the work at Uitenhage was slavery compared to that at Bloemfontein. As far as the financial side of the question was concerned he would like to draw attention to the fact that the cheapest work was done by the system of daywork. As far as the repairs to engines were concerned, the following figures taken from the report of the Workshops Commission, would bear out his contention. In Salt River, repairs to an engine cost £299, in Bloemfontein £463 for the same kind of engine. It was perfectly true that the efficiency was put down at 100 per cent. in the case of Bloemfontein and 86 per cent. in the case of Salt River, yet here was a saving of £164 upon every engine. Again, with regard to coach repairs: At Salt River it was £35 per coach and at Pretoria £84. Here, again, the dearer place had the greater percentage of efficiency. With regard to wagons again, he found the Uitenhage cost was a little under £7, while at Bloemfontein it was over £17, although the efficiency was supposed to be more than double where the work cost was much more than twice as great. On the figures published, it was clearly shown that the daywork system was cheaper than the piece-work system. A saloon had been built at Uitenhage for £2,200 and at Bloemfontein for £3,600—a saving of £1,400 upon this piece-work system. There was really nothing that had been put before them to show that work could be done cheaper upon the piece-work system. All the Commissioners had stated that there was no very great saving, in the opinion of any of them, by means of the introduction of the piece work system. It was agreed that the men would be paid extra. They might do more but they would have to be paid extra. The charges for supervision would be increased. Clerical work would be greatly increased. Thus it would appear that piece-work, as far as they could judge, was an expensive system. Mr. Hendrie recommended piece-work, but why he did not suggest at all. It appeared to him (Mr. Fremantle) that there was a very grave danger of a financial loss in connection with this. Under these circumstances, it did seem to him that the House as the guardian of the public in all financial matters, ought to be very careful before it brought in a change of this kind. There was the undoubted fact also that piece-work to a large extent meant bad work. Mr. Beatty suggested that as one of the reasons and the chief reason why the engines broke down so much in the Transvaal as compared with the Cape, was that repairs were not carried out as thoroughly as they might be. He (Mr. Fremantle) was also told that drivers had told the Grievances Commission that their engines were in worse repair after they had been in the C.S.A.R. workshops than before they went here. He might say, in regard to other work of which he had information, so far as the experience of the Uitenhage workshops were concerned carriages marked “C.S.A.R.” had arrived for repairs which were disgracefully put together. He believed a great deal of this was going on at the present time. He believed that hitherto it had been impossible to properly check work done by piece-work. It must also be remembered that the machinery in the new shops was very much superior to that in the old shops. On the whole, the financial argument for an inquiry was very strong. The cheapest and the best work was done in the worst equipped shops, and was done by daywork. There remained the argument as regards the men. He was not personally sure when the Minister spoke whether the men were altogether against piecework or not. He had now ascertained that the whole staff was against it. Mr. Beatty called attention to a rather grave point in this connection. He said that the fixed men in the Cape, who were of very considerable numbers, could claim their daily pay as a right quite irrespective of piecework, and that, as far as they were concerned, piece-work could not be forcibly introduced. He thought the House ought to have some information on this before it went further. It seemed to him that, in this matter, they could not go by force on either side. Only evil could possibly result from anything of that kind, and it was essential that they should use some tact in this matter and try and make the men feel that their side of the question had been carefully studied. He would like to know how they proposed to carry out a system of piece-work when they had got their system of stores so bad as it was at present, when, as the Commission agreed, work was constantly brought to a standstill by the failure of the stores department to supply the necessary material. Were the men to pay for this inefficiency? This system might be well enough for Pretoria and Bloemfontein, where they had modern equipment and it was possible to carry it out, but in the Cape they would have gross injustice.

They were going through a very difficult time now in unifying the different Provinces, in applying a system which was working in one Province to another Province, and he realised that the’ whole difficulty at the present time came from that point. He did not think, so far as he was able to judge, that the good had been entirely on the side of the Cape and that all that came from the Transvaal was bad. There had been a want of system at the Cape, and it was well to rectify this. There was a difficulty in systematising the service in the Cape and applying fixed rules with regard to the appointment of the men. But there had been no serious trouble at the Cape. He did think that any wise administrator would recognise that there was some danger in applying to a Province where there had been no great labour troubles a system which was at work in a Province where there had been considerable troubles in the past. Prejudice, he continued, had been aroused in the minds of the men against the proposals, and unless the men felt that their case had been fairly heard—and nothing had been heard on their behalf except what hon. members had said in the House—they would feel they had not been fairly treated in the matter. There were two ways of treating the subject, to get on the right side of the men or to get on their wrong side. They should get on the good side of the men, and the men would work honourably and not require much driving. On the other hand, if they got on the bad side of the men no supervision in the world would produce the work required. There was a great doubt as to the piece-work system from the point of view of finance as well as the staff, and he thought it would be wise for the House to accept the original motion of the hon. member for Georgetown as amended by the member for Pietermaritzburg (Mr. Orr).

supported the motion of the hon. member for Georgetown, and urged that there should be a full expression of opinion from the men before the piece-work system was adopted. He did not approve of a system in which they were recommending men to work themselves to a standstill for the purpose of making money. Piece-work led to deterioration. It was unfair to the older men in the service. They could not compete at 45 years of age with men of 25, and to-them the system would be an absolute injustice.

could not agree to the motion to refer the matter to a Select Committee He thought they had quite sufficient experience to know whether piece-work was good or not. Experience taught them that a workman did much more work when he worked by the piece or on contract. Otherwise he only did his best to get through the day. It would be necessary to appoint capable men to see that the workmen delivered good work. As he believed it would be more advantageous for the Government to adopt piece-work he could not agree to the motion.

said he was not prepared to tie the hands of the Government by supporting the last paragraph of the motion. From his own experience he found that piecework was not satisfactory, and it was cheaper to have a job done by paying men daily wages. In his own business, when he changed from piece-work to daily pay, on one particular job he made a saving of £400. The result of the adoption of daily pay had proved eminently satisfactory. Where life was at stake he did not think it was advisable to have piece-work, unless the men voluntarily asked for it.

said it appeared to him that the members of the Labour party had got a lease of the House. The hon. member for Georgetown wanted another Select Committee solely to enable workmen to get a free trip to Cape Town. If they listened to hon. members such as the hon. member for Uitenhage, they would come to the conclusion that they were the only people who represented working men. But the speaker represented many working men, and he intended to vote against the motion. There was talk in the House about workmen’s grievances which did not exist, and that was not in the interests of the men. He thought the Standing Orders should be so modified that no one party in the House could monopolise it. They were not all willing to sit on till Christmas, as the members of the Labour party had said they were willing to do. The second part of the motion went too far If the committee failed to report during the present session, then the Minister would not be able to adopt piece-work. The speaker was in favour of paying workmen proper wages, and in the majority of cases that was done. No doubt there were grievances, but they were to a large extent incited by the leaders of the workmen themselves. The Labour party wanted to put all responsibility upon the employers, and that was not fair, nor did all working men support them in that attitude.

agreed with the last speaker, and said he felt that the motion had a political complexion, and that the acceptance of the motion would be bad both for many working men and for agriculture. It was wrong to pay otherwise than by results, and unfair to place the good workmen on a level with the less capable. The hon. member for Uitenhage had stated that work done on piece was worse than that done on time, but that statement could not be proved. Piece-work was in vogue in English mines and on English railways, and he opposed the motion.

thought some limit should be placed on the discussion of subjects which were out of place in that House. If they abolished piece-work on the railways and in the harbours, then it would have to be abolished in farm work. There were lazy people on the farms who were not wanted, and it would not be fair to pay as much to them as to good workmen. If a sheep farmer had to pay his shearers by the day, the results would be deplorable, whilst when they were paid by the piece, the result was that more work was done. It was impossible to abolish piece-work on the farm, as the hon. member for Piquetberg would agree. The wine farmer had the digging in his vineyards done on piece also, and if that were done by the day the workmen would do very little indeed. It was time to stop the discussion of exclusively labour questions, and to end the agitation which was created by those discussions. It would only end in hurting the working man himself. They were fixing their eye more on the ensuing general election than on the interests of the working men. He would vote against the motion.

said they were bound to express their opinion even when it was not to the taste of the working man. It was impossible to say that the principle of payment for actual work done was wrong. The payment of day wages was unfair to the smart worker, and it would be wrong to make piece-work impossible. He could not support the proposal to appoint a Select Committee, as the object was merely to protect the lazy workman. He hoped the motion would not be accepted.

must say that they could not attach much weight to that sort of argument, in view of the information which they had of experts before them. He could understand that the workmen at Uitenhage were against piecework. It was natural that a man should take the most favourable view of the work done in his workshop. But he did not think that that man was the best judge as to what shop was the most satisfactory. Then, again, as to the difference in cost, the higher wages which were paid in the North had been left out of mind entirely. Three men were strongly in favour of piecework, three men out of four, highly qualified men, accustomed to work with men, whose business it was, and who, by common consent, were regarded as the highest experts in this country, and Mr. Beatty himself told him (Mr. Sauer) deliberately, that he could state in the House of Assembly that if they had piecework at Salt River it would be not as efficient as the other, but it would be the most efficient workshop in the country. It was no good blinking facts. He was not going now into the question of whether there should be piecework or not. The question was whether there should be a Select Committee. He thought the hon. member for Uitenhage would have assisted his cause, if that were possible, by rather confining himself to the question of whether there should be a Select Committee. He said also that here they were going to proceed hurriedly, they were going to proceed on the report of a Commission said to be divided—although he (Mr. Sauer) did not know that they were divided, for they were all four in favour of piece-work—and had given the matter full consideration. He did not know what the hon. member meant by “full consideration.” In the Transvaal there was a most competent Commission appointed, and, after careful consideration and after having heard the men, they reported in favour of piecework. (Hear, hear.)

Competent men?

I believe a Labour man was on it. (Laughter.) It seems to me that the persons who sat on the Commission were highly competent men, and they advised in favour of piecework. Proceeding, he pointed out that since then they had the Commission to inquire into re-grading, and they had dealt very fully with piece-work. He merely mentioned this in reply to the statement that the matter had not been inquired into. When the hon. member for Uitenhage drew a comparison between the attitude of the railway people in the North and the railway people in the South, and rather indicated that they had trouble there because of piecework he must remind him that they had piecework in the Cape Colony and it was abolished, not, as the hon. member indicated, because it was a failure and did not work well, but simply and solely because under piecework they got so much work out of the men that as times were bad and more work was done than they wanted, rather than dismiss the men, they abolished piecework. (Hear, hear.) He was not in office at the time piecework was abolished but he did not hear that there was any great objection on the part of the men to the system. He had not been approached on the matter by the men, but if they were desirous of putting-their views before the administration they would have ample opportunity of doing so, and full consideration would be given to them.

This was a matter for the administration to deal with and not the House. (Ministerial cheers.) If the House was to decide these matters they must say good-bye to economical administration. (Hear, hear.) If Parliament were to take the management of the railways into its own hands they must say good-bye to efficiency and most certainly to economy. Some time ago the system of “clocking out” was introduced. There was some dissatisfaction on the part of the men, but when that fact came to the notice of the administration the pointe they raised were considered, reasonable objections were met, and the system will be put into force. If, whenever the railways tried to introduce some change the Assembly was going to appoint a Select Committee to inquire whether the administration was right or wrong no responsible or self-respecting official would remain in office. Good-bye then to good officials, efficiency and economy. When a system was proved to be a failure then was the time for the House to call those responsible to task.

Why have you altered the system, then?

In the interest of the taxpayers. Continuing, Mr. Sauer said there was a wide difference between giving Parliament information and Parliament taking the management of the railways into its own hands. In the House of Commons very frequently full information was given in regard to foreign affairs, but the House never interfered with the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

He is the only one.

said it was an axiom that in administrative affairs the Executive was responsible and not Parliament, and if among the many blessings that Union had brought Ministerial responsibility was to be destroyed and Parliament was to become responsible then it would be a change for the worse. Just look at the House! If it took over the management of the railways the rest of the session would have to be spent over it.

It was impossible for Parliament to take over the management of the railways. For these reasons it was impossible to accept the proposal. If he did that, well, he thought he might as well take a long holiday. If he accepted such a proposal in this matter he would have to do it in others, and he would be doing the men a disservice and very soon the railways would be in a chaotic condition. Although the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) seemed to think that he was the only one who had information on this subject, he (Mr. Sauer) had a deal of information as to piece-work, but he would not give it now to the House. Piece-work existed in many industrial concerns in England and the great authority Shadwell had stated that wherever England had ceased to apply the principles of piece-work to her industries they had gone to Germany. If piece-work were extended on the Union railways the matter would receive full consideration, and it would be applied with due safeguards, and with a view to avoiding the hardships and injustice which he was very well aware did occur in certain cases where the piecework system was applied. “We shall apply it,” said Mr. Sauer, in conclusion, “only where it will work fairly, and where it would be to the advantage of all concerned. We shall give the men ample opportunity to express their views before introducing it, but as a general principle, it appears to be a perfectly sound one.”

said it was impossible to run the railways and other departments by Parliamentary resolutions. If that were done they might as well abolish the Minister, and if that were desired they should introduce a motion of no confidence. The speaker admitted that piece-work was in some respects wrong, and in other respects good, and in this particular case the decision would have to be left to the Railway Board. If the Board were unable to decide on the question, it would certainly not be possible for Parliament to do so. A commission of capable persons had inquired into the question, and three of its members were in favour of piece-work. Now they wanted a new one. It was pure waste of time The workmen had now obtained their Grievances Board, and if piece-work were of advantage to the employers, then it was also an advantage to the workmen. With piece-work there would always be an effort to do as much as possible in a short time, which was good for the workmen as well as for the employer. The system was very suitable for application on the railways He moved the adjournment of the debate.

seconded the motion to adjourn the debate.

said that an exceedingly important matter would have come before the House but for the eloquence, he would call it, of hon. members on the left, and he opposed the adjournment. They had been accused of taking up the time of the House that afternoon. (An HON. MEMBER: “Ja!” and laughter.) “I understand that anyhow.” The Labour benches had taken up ten minutes of that debate during the afternoon, on a subject which vitally affected them and the class to which they belonged.

That is not debating the main question.

Mr. Vosloo’s motion was negatived.

put the main question, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

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

said there was an important motion standing in his name and he would like to ask whether the Government were prepared to put it down for a Government day, as otherwise there was no chance of its going on the paper. His sole reason was to allow the Government to make a public declaration. Would the Minister of Railways and Harbours, who was in charge of the House, agree to the motion being put down for to-morrow or Thursday?

said the Government recognised that this was an important matter, but he thought a few minutes’ conversation with the hon. gentleman would satisfy him that what was contemplated would not meet the case. Perhaps in view of that, the matter could remain as it was. It was very difficult to set down any particular day, because the time at the disposal of the House was very limited. He thought there was much to be said for obviating discussion upon this subject, and that the object could be obtained without it. Under these circumstances he could not make any promise.

Will my hon. friend allow this motion to be set down for Thursday?

It can be put upon the paper.