brought up the report of the Committee of the Whole House, reporting the Bill without amendment.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that the Bill be now read a third time.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

brought up the report of the Committee of the Whole House, reporting the Bill with amendments.

moved that the amendments be considered on Monday.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure, year ending 31st March, 1913.

These Estimates were referred to the Committee of Supply on the Estimates.

moved that the House at its rising to-day adjourn until Monday, the 3rd June, at 2 o’clock p.m.

seconded. Agreed to.

moved that on the consideration of the Miners’ Phthisis Bill in Committee of the Whole House, Standing Order No. 403. having reference to the amendments made in private Bills by Select Committees, shall apply.

seconded. Agreed to.

moved that the amendments be now considered.

Agreed to.

On clause 2, Interpretation of terms,

moved to add at the end of the interpretation of term “dividing fence,” “including any necessary gate in such fence.” He said he hoped the Minister would see the necessity of including “gate.” Disputes had frequently arisen in his part of the country—Natal—with regard to the nature of the fence, and it was necessary, he thought, that “gate” should be included.

said that there was no objection to the amendment.

On the same clause,

said that sub-section (b) of the amendment of the Minister would hardly cover certificates in Natal. In Natal certificates were not registered in the Deeds Office or other registration office: they were registered in the Surveyor-General’s Office. Certificates in Natal were not registered until the land was freehold.

said he was afraid that in the eye of the law that was not registration. In the case referred to by the hon. member he would see that the Crown was still the owner, and was responsible. If the ground still remained in the Crown, then the Crown was really the party liable.

said he saw there were a great many amendments, and he did not think it would be fair to confine the amendments at this stage to one sitting. He would suggest that the further amendments should be considered in committee, including those already made.

The interpretation of “standard” was negatived.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that the order that the Bill, as amended in Committee of the Whole House, be considered be discharged, together with the amendments already agreed to, and that the Bill be forthwith recommitted, and that Mr. Speaker leave the chair.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved to omit the interpretation of term “holding,” and to substitute the following: “holding” shall mean—(a) any area of land (not being an erf or stand) held by any person under separate grant, deed of transfer, or certificate of title; or (b) any area of land held under lease, licence, or allotment, from the Crown, with an option to purchase such area, provided the instrument of lease, licence, or allotment is registered in a Deeds Office or other registration office; to omit the interpretation of term “owner,” and to substitute the following: “owner” shall mean, in respect of a holding described in paragraph (a) of the definition of “holding,” the person registered in any Deeds Office or other registration office as the owner; and in respect of a holding described in paragraph (b) of the said definition the person registered as the holder of the lease, licence, or allotment; and to omit the interpretation of term “standard.”

moved to add at the end of the interpretation of term “dividing fence” “including any necessary gate in such fence”; and, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by the Minister of the Interior, in the new sub-section (b) of the interpretation of term “holding” to add at the end “or Surveyor-General’s office." He said that the point he laid before the House was, perhaps obscure. During the last twenty years the Government of Natal had been selling Crown land, subject to payment in twenty annual instalments. The land was held under certificates of sale; latterly these certificates had been called certificates of allotment. He would suggest that the Minister should bring sub-section (b) into conformity with their law in Natal by adding “or Surveyor-General’s Office.” The transfer was not registered until the land was freehold.

said that he would accept the amendment.

moved to omit the words “not being an erf or stand” in sub-section (a). He pointed out that there were a good many erven in the Western Province situated outside the towns.

said he thought the whole of the words in brackets should come out and he, therefore, agreed to the deletion of “not being an erf or stand.”

All three amendments were agreed to.

said he would like to ask what was really a fence? It might be made of iron or it might be a wall.

said that the hon. member could not go back to the definition of “dividing fence.”

said that he merely wished to draw the Minister’s attention to the matter.

On new clause 3, Advances by Land Bank towards the cost of erection of dividing fences.

said that hon. members would understand that the disappearance of the schedule giving specifications for various types of fences necessitated a number of consequential changes in the body of the Bill. He moved to omit all the words from “as will” in line 26 to “fence” in line 27; and the word “standard” in line 28.

The amendment was agreed to.

On new clause 4, Beneficial use by one owner of fence erected on holding of adjoining owner,

moved in line 16, before “demand” to insert “in default of agreement”; in the same line to omit “in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV.”; and in line 19, after “made” to insert “such value shall be determined as a dispute in accordance with the provisions of the third schedule to this Act.”

moved, after the word “Act” in the amendment proposed by the Minister of Agriculture, to add: “and thereupon it shall be obligatory upon the owner who has made beneficial use of the fence to contribute towards the cost of such fence in accordance with such assessment.” The mover said it seemed to him that this was really the whole object of the clause, and that was why he moved the amendment.

said he had no objection to the amendment, although it did not seem to him to be quite necessary.

Both amendments were agreed to.

On new clause 5, Contributions by adjoining owner to cost of dividing fence when obligatory,

moved, in line 14, to insert “Subject to the provisions of this section”; in line 15, to omit “declared” and to substitute “in which such contributions are declared obligatory”; and in line 16, to omit “after the provisions of this section have been complied with.”

The amendments were agreed to.

On clause 6, Notice to adjoining owners of intention to erect a dividing fence,

moved, in line 35, to omit “Chapter IV.” and substitute “Third Schedule to this Act”; line 41, to omit “standard fence, or if it is already a standard fence, made it a”; and in line 42 to omit “standard”, and to omit the whole of sub-section (5).

argued that the amendments would be unjust to the rights of the Free State.

said he could not understand the hon. member, as the question of a standard fence was now dead.

said standard fences were not provided for, but in cases of dispute the matter would be dealt with by arbitration. He hoped the hon. member would not raise this question again. (Hear, hear.)

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 7, Notice to absentee owner,

moved in line 59, after “situate” to omit all the words to the end of the sub-section, and to add a new paragraph at the end of the clause, viz.:“The cost of publication described in paragraph (b) shall be added to the contribution towards the cost of the fence required to be made by the owner whose whereabouts are unknown, or who is absent from the Union.”

moved also in the same clause, in line 60, to omit “locality” and to substitute “district.”

Both amendments were agreed to.

On new clause 9,

moved, in lines 30 and 31, to omit “as laid down in the third schedule.”

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 10, Cost of erection of fences under this chapter and repayment of same by owners.

moved, in line 42, after “commencing” to insert “as regards both instalments and interest.”

moved to insert after “fence” the words “however, not to exceed the cost of an ordinary fence.” Seeing that no standard fence was provided for, he held that this was an essential safeguard.

asked what was an “ordinary fence”?

moved to add the words “ as used in the district concerned.” He feared that unless this safeguard was inserted a farmer might be put to excessive expense.

asked hon. members to “speak up,” as they were inaudible in another part of the House.

feared that without a standard fence the Bill would be a failure. What the Government considered right would surely also be right as far as the farmer was concerned.

agreed that no excessively expensive fence should be erected, but the Government so far had not erected such expensive fences, and he thought there was no ground for the fears of the hon. member for Ficksburg. Where an excessively expensive fence was erected for the purposes of the State the farmer should not be asked to pay more than the cost of an ordinary fence. He was therefore prepared to accept the amendment, though he thought it superfluous.

thought his hon. friend was a little too vehement. Some of his hon. friend’s followers must be allowed to express their opinions even if they did not vote. (Laughter.)

reiterated his objections to the amendment, and held that a four-wire fence was insufficient.

said he did not share the objections of the last speaker.

said all objections were dealt with in the third schedule.

Both amendments were agreed to.

On clause 11,

moved on page 14, line 1, to omit “of the exercise of that right,” and to substitute “on which the purchase takes effect”; and in line 6, to omit “right to purchase is executed,” and to substitute “purchase takes effect.”

Agreed to.

On clause 14,

moved in line 48, after “in” to insert “or controlled by”; and in line 50, to omit all the words from “and the amount” to “authority” in line 60.

Agreed to.

On clause 15,

moved on page 16, lines 1 and 2, to omit “be determined”; and in line 3, to omit “in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV.” and substitute “be determined as a dispute in accordance with the provisions of the third schedule to this Act.”

Agreed to.

On clause 18,

moved in lines 18 and 19, to omit “any portion of any province,” and to substitute “along boundaries of any number of holdings.”

Agreed to.

On clause 20, Leaving gates open,

moved the deletion of sub-section (b). He thought this was rather a new idea. The penalty was quite serious enough in the case of a person who opened a gate and left it open or unfastened, but it was too bad to impose a fine of £10, with the option of 14 days’ imprisonment, in the case of a person who, finding a gate open on passing through, neglected to shut and fasten it. There were many gaps in the fences in this country, and it would take a clever man to say whether these spaces were gates or not. The result of the clause would be to manufacture criminals, and that was ridiculous.

said that surely the hon. member (Mr. Creswell) must see that it was impossible for a farmer to keep somebody continually at his gates, which might be far away from his homestead and behind hills. It was also impossible for a farmer to send a person every half-hour to see that his gate was closed. A farmer might have five or six gates on his farm, and they were not all within view of his home; they were often situated behind hills. His stock was running on the veld, and people might come along, and leave his gates open, and thereby cause enormous damage. In the case of large stock farmers, it was absolutely impossible for them to have persons on watch day after day, and they must have the right of going for those persons who left the gates open, and were therefore responsible for the damage caused.

said he sympathised with the hon. member (General T. Smuts), but did he seriously advance the argument that it was difficult for a farmer to look after his gates because he lived, perhaps, a mile away from where the gates were?

Of course it is.

It is difficult for the farmer, but does the hon. member not realise that the mere fact that the farmer lives a mile away shows that he owns land to that extent, and that he is correspondingly wealthy, and well able to look after his gates? (Ministerial laughter.)

Nonsense.

Well, if it is all nonsense, I am quite prepared to share in that nonsense, and I am prepared to undertake that if half of the mile is given over to me, I will keep somebody to look after the gate.

No. no.

suggested that farmers should have self-closing gates.

referred to the difficulties with which a farmer would be faced if the suggestions of the hon. members on the cross-benches were agreed to. He opposed the amendment.

said that he had a considerable amount of sympathy with the motion for the deletion of the sub-section, especially in so far as it referred to fences across public roads. When a fence was put across a public road, surely there was the right of the public to be considered, and it was especially hard on a man who laid himself open to a fine perhaps through an inadvertence in going through a gate which was already open and forgetting to close it. Hon. members had to remember that the gate was trespassing on that man’s right. A road was the right of the public and not the right of a farmer.

said that surely there were such things as mutual rights. The public had the right to a public road, but the farmer had also the right to have his cattle protected. If roads were made across a farmer’s land, the least the public could do was to close the gate in the interests of the farmer. He must say that he had looked for some clause in the Bill compelling the farmer to erect gates which it would be possible to close. He had travelled considerably in this country and in 110 miles he had to open and close 38 gates. (Laughter.) He did that most religiously, but there were some gates which it was impossible to close. If farmers wished to compel people to close their gates surely the least they could do was to erect proper gates.

said that, as this amendment seemed to be treated hardly seriously by some members, he would divide the House upon the matter. There was no lack of sympathy for the farmers in this country on their part. Already they had created a crime for a person who opened a gate and left it open. The farmers were allowed to fence across the public road as a concession. But when they went further and said that anyone who inadvertently passed through a gate and who left the state of things as he found it, committed an offence, he thought they were going too far. They were going to press everyone who passed along a public road into the service of the farmer.

favoured an even heavier penalty for the leaving open of gates. The suggestions of the hon. members on the cross-benches were, he urged, ridiculous.

said he had 12 gates on his farm. It would cost him a lot of money if he had to put a guard at each gate, while it cost nothing to the traveller to close it after he had passed through. (Hear, hear.)

said he would vote for the clause as it stood. He thought clause 28 met the objection raised by the hon. member for Jeppe.

said that the question was this, that the land was granted subject to the servitude over that land of a road. Every servitude must be, he understood, exercised with the least detriment that it could be to the owner of land. Consequently, it was not asking too much that those who crossed the land should close the gate.

said that, While he was entirely in sympathy with the clause, he would suggest that it should contain some reference to clause 28.

said that the first sub-section was absolutely useless without the second. The fine again was not £10, but up to £10.

said that surely a man should not be fined where there was no means of fastening the gate. There was nothing in the clause which bound the farmer to keep the gate in good condition.

said he did not agree with the hon. member who moved the amendment. There was no question that over a public road, under section 28, a gate must be put up that would conform to certain regulations, and there was no doubt that if a gate on a public road did not comply with that it was no gate at all.

If he cannot close it, what then?

You cannot compel a man to do what is impossible. But if he can do it, by all means let him do it. I think my hon. friend, if he wants to go over the property of a man, the least he can do is to close the gate.

said he was inclined to think that the opposition was due to some misunderstanding. Hon. members surely did not mean to impose a penalty upon a man for not closing a gate upon a public road. An hon. member opposite had made reference to his farm, and he said he had twelve gates upon it, but surely he did not mean to say he had twelve gates upon a public road. Farmers said people had no right upon their farms which were their own property, but the public roads were the property of the pubic, and farmers had no right to say that the public should be penalised simply because they left a gate open.

put the question and declared that the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe was negatived.

called for a division, but afterwards withdrew.

The amendment was therefore negatived.

On new clause 26, fencing of land subject to grazing servitude,

moved, in line 10, after “holder,” to insert “as to the suitability or sufficiency of the gates”; and in line 12, to omit “Chapter IV.” and to substitute “the third schedule to this Act”; and in line 21, to omit “Chapter IV.” and to substitute “the third schedule to this Act”.

The amendment was agreed to.

On new clause 27,

moved in line 38, to omit “fourth” and to substitute “third.”

Agreed to.

On clause 28, gates,

moved to insert the words “painted white” after “gates.”

hoped the Minister would accept an amendment to the effect that the gates be provided with self-closing springs.

hoped the amendment would not be pressed, as it would be impossible to get these gates to work properly.

ridiculed the remarks of the hon. member for Jeppe, who seemed to think that he and his colleagues on the cross-benches were the only people who represented the public. An 18 ft. gate could not be closed by a spring.

objected to every post having to be painted white, and moved for the deletion of the words “painted white.”

moved to insert after the word “wood,” “or an iron or wooden frame spanned with wire.” This, he said, was the usual kind of gate.

moved as an amendment to this amendment, to add “painted white.”

moved in line 43, after “wood” to insert “fitted with an effective self-closing device.”

asked the Minister if he would accept an amendment dealing with native footpaths in Natal, where frequently footpaths were closed by a fence, and no stile or wicket erected to allow the people to pass through. And then a man crawling under the fence might be fined anything up to £10. The rights of people who used footpaths were very seriously being encroached upon.

agreed that it was unnecessary to have white gates. White gates, he feared, might scare travellers. (Laughter.)

said it was illegal in Natal to close by-roads without the consent of the proper authority.

It is frequently done.

wished to know if the Minister would agree to his amendment stipulating that gates must be fitted with an effective self-closing device. It would be quite possible to affix such a device to an ordinary gate, but not to some of the Chinese puzzles which did duty as gates. (Laughter.)

said these devices were most uncommon. Certain types of gates were being manufactured on a large scale for South Africa, and the self-closing device was unknown. Such an amendment would create a revolution.

said the Minister’s real objection was to asking those who already had great privileges—the farming classes—to take upon themselves a little burden. (Hear, hear.) All he hoped was that before they got through the Bill they would not find that it was a criminal offence to refuse to help to milk the cows should that interesting operation be in progress when one passed over a farm. (Laughter.)

wished to know whether it would not be possible to have a device which would automatically close hon. member’s mouths when they spoke about things which they did not understand. (Laughter.) He hoped the country would take note of what hon. members on the cross-benches had said, because that would show what kind of policy would be followed if some day they should come into power. (Laughter.) Mr. Louw was proceeding to speak in Dutch when

rose and asked if the hon. member was in order in continuing his speech in another language.

replied in the negative.

I thought we had equal privileges, and if I have transgressed I beg your pardon. Continuing, Mr. Louw said that he was under the impression that the Minister had promised that the latter part of clause 28 would be dropped. Mr. Louw then moved the omission of the following: “and shall plant a strong pole painted white not less than forty-five feet from the side of ingress and egress, for the purpose of tying draught or riding animals thereto whilst the gate is being opened or closed.”

said the acceptance of the amendment would not have good results. If anyone passed with a cart and two horses, he had to have something to which to tie his horses. If he had to tie his horses to the fence, accidents would happen, and therefore they should have a post.

urged that the posts should be properly fixed in the ground, otherwise the horse might break it down and cause an ugly accident.

thought the danger was greater without poles.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Creswell was negatived.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Rademeyer and Mr. Keyter were agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Louw was negatived.

moved in line 60, after “Hope” to insert “or Act No. 9 of 1902 of Natal or section 20 of Act No. 35 of 1901 of Natal.”

moved to add at the end of the clause “or in any area wherein any local authority makes lawful provision prohibiting the erection of gates across recognised public roads.”

These amendments were agreed to.

On clause 29, fencing of public outspans,

moved in paragraph (c) to omit “Provincial Council,” and to substitute “Executive Committee.” He said it was quite clear that a Provincial Council could not, no more than this Parliament, exercise executive powers, and the Executive Committee was the proper authority to deal with the matter.

suggested the insertion of the words “Executive Committee” before the words “Provincial Councils.”

said he thought the amendment was really unnecessary. It was far better to leave the Provincial Council to say how much they would allow the Executive Committee to do without reference to them.

said that the Provincial Council might not be sitting and who was to act in the matter?

said that under the Act of Union the Executive Committee carried out the administrative work of the Council, and if anybody wanted anything done the Executive Committee would do it.

Sir T. Watt’s amendment was negatived.

On new clause 31,

moved, in line 15, to omit “in instalments”; in line 19, to omit “anything to the contrary in the lease notwithstanding”; and in line 20, after “lease,” to insert “unless the owner’s liability to contribute towards the cost of the fence arose from any act of the lessee.”

Agreed to.

moved in line 32, after “determined” to insert “as a dispute”; in the same line to omit “this chapter” and substitute “the third schedule of this Act”; and in line 35, to omit “upon.”

Agreed to.

On new clause 34,

moved in line 61, to omit “make it a standard fence, or if it be already a standard fence, to”; and in line 62, to omit “standard”.

Agreed to.

moved in lines 15 and 16, to omit “any arbitrator appointed under the provisions of this chapter,” and to substitute “any person appointed or nominated to determine a dispute in accordance with the third schedule to this Act”; in line 24, after “parties” to insert “as a dispute”; and in line 25, to omit “this chapter” and to substitute “the said third schedule.”

Agreed to.

On clause 38,

moved in line 51, before “Nothing” to insert “save as is specially provided in section 31.”

Agreed to.

On clause 39,

moved in line 58, after “holding” to insert “whether by registration or otherwise.”

Agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments, which were set down for consideration on Monday next.

in moving the second reading of the Immigrants’ Restriction Bill, said that this Bill was read a second time in a slightly altered form last year, and he did not think it would be necessary on this occasion to go into its provisions or principles at any great length. The second reading had been delayed for a considerable time, because he was anxious to see the report of the Tuberculosis Commission in reference to certain questions which might be important for this Bill before the second reading was taken. Hon. members who had taken the trouble to look at the report of the Tuberculosis Commission would see that it was an instruction to them to report on such questions as might be of importance for this Bill, and they had reported, and the report had been for some time in the hands of hon. members, and he thought that this report was a valuable one, and part of their recommendations would probably have been adopted by them before this Bill was made law. As he said last year, this Bill, although not of the most urgent public importance from the purely South African point of view, yet was important and urgent from a wider point of view. Questions had received their solution in this Bill which were of great Imperial importance, as hon. members could understand. It was intended to put into force and embody the agreement which was come to, as far back as 1910, with the British Government, in regard to the position of Asiatics in this country and the immigration of Asiatics, especially Indians, into this country. That was really the importance of this Bill. That raised also the great difficulty which one encountered in dealing with a law like this. It was not merely a Bill dealing with white immigration into South Africa, but it dealt also with the somewhat difficult and complicated subject of Asiatic immigration into South Africa. The Asiatic population, especially the inland portion, of South Africa, had taken up the attitude, in which they had been supported by the India Office and the British Government, whereby they claimed that, as regarded the laws of South Africa, there should be no differentiation between them and whites. They did not object to differential administration, against any difference in practice being applied to them, but they objected to any inferiority being recognised, so far as the Statutes of this country were concerned. In this action they were supported by the British Government, and, at any rate, as hon. members knew, after a good deal of trouble, and negotiation, and consideration on the part of the South African Government, they had acceded to that position, and they had recognised that in the legislation of this country there should be no difference recognised, but that the difference should be confined to the administration of the laws which had been passed. Hon. members could understand that, that being so, the difficulty in regard to immigration law became most considerable.

said it was a most extraordinary pass in which they now found themselves, and they saw how history repeated itself. The same thing happened last year. The same Minister stated that he meant to see the Bill through, as it was a most important measure, but they watched it getting slowly down upon the paper, until the Minister made a statement to the House that it was one of the measures that would have to wait another year. The Minister of the Interior said last session that there was no immediate necessity to deal with the question, and that it could very well stand over for mature consideration, and for more careful thought in South Africa generally. “The subject,” proceeded the Minister, “was a very important one. It dealt not only with Indian immigration, but with all-white immigration, and the delay in proceeding with the Bill would probably tend to facilitate its passage through Parliament, because more mature consideration would be given to it. He, therefore, moved that the order be discharged, and the Bill withdrawn.” Then, at the very beginning of the session, on January 24, the Bill was published in the “Gazette,” and was read a first time on January 30. The Minister was in such a hurry to get on with the measure that he wanted to take the second reading two days after. However, he allowed a week’s postponement, but now—although the conduct of public business was entirely in the hands of the Government—at the end of May the Bill was once more being proceeded with. He could not follow the Minister when he said it was unnecessary to go into the question in detail.

The House could not act as a registering machine for the Government. (Hear, hear.) It was through no fault of theirs that they had to deal with that very important matter at the end of the session. And it was a very important matter, and one not merely affecting the interests of Asiatics alone. He would vote against the introduction of more Asiatics, who were not wanted by the population of South Africa, which realised that South Africa now had as many Indians as it could absorb. The presence of such a large number of Indians in South Africa was due to the fact that large numbers had been introduced under the indenture system. But for the indenture system in Natal we should not have had them here. (Cheers.) Once they did away with the indenture system they would do away with Asiatic immigration. (Hear, hear.) Continuing, Mr. Alexander said they had all thought that the Bill had been done with for the session, it having dropped to the twenty-second place on the paper. On Monday last it still occupied that position; on Tuesday it stood No. 20; on Wednesday No. 12, and to-day it was the second order. He thought the real reason for this long delay in bringing the measure forward this session was that the Minister was not very enthusiastic over the Bill, which was being forced on him against his better judgment.

He (Mr. Alexander) could not help thinking that the Minister and the Government were not very keen over the Bill, because the publication of the report of the Tuberculosis Commission was no justification for the delay, and was quite beside the matter. The Minister of the Interior was wonderfully clever in dealing with suggestions, but he (Mr. Alexander) did not think the Minister was serious in asking the House to believe that the report of the Tuberculosis Commission was the one thing needful to enable him to push on with the Bill. There was no Tuberculosis Commission in existence when the Bill was introduced last session, and if its conclusions were going to affect the Bill, the Minister should have seen that the Commission sat during the recess, for then its report would have been ready when Parliament met at the beginning of this year. The report of the Tuberculosis Commission did not affect the principle of the Bill one iota, and the one or two clauses which it had suggested could have been introduced into the measure when the Bill was in its committee stage. The House should have some explanation from the Minister as to the extraordinary position of this particular Bill.

With regard to the Imperial Government, he (Mr. Alexander) found himself in a very difficult position. The Minister of the Interior told them that the Imperial Government was pressing this Bill upon the Union Government, and he had indicated a number of instances in which the Imperial Government was not satisfied with the measure. Take the point of equal rights for the Indians not being protected. Even now those points were not protected by the Bill. There must be some correspondence between the Imperial and Union Governments, showing that the former were not satisfied with the Bill, and asking for some alterations that would be introduced in committee. (Hear, hear.) He was rather sorry that the Minister had refused the very reasonable request that the correspondence between the Imperial and Union Governments, which had taken place since last session, should be laid on the table. In making that refusal the Minister indicated that the correspondence was not very important. The House was, therefore, in the dark as to what took place between the Imperial Government and the Union Government since last session. Seeing that the original correspondence was laid on the table last session, the House should have been furnished with the continuation, so that honourable members could see what was the attitude of the Imperial Government on this matter. The principle of the Bill contained something new to South Africa and new to any Parliament in the world. The only precedent the Minister could find was from a country to which he did not always go for his precedents. (Hear, hear.) Even the system to which the Minister had referred did not apply. At this stage of South Africa’s history we were asked to go back to the state of affairs which prevailed in England before the signing of Magna Charta, to which the Minister frequently referred. The King who signed Magna Charta got into trouble, and his name was also John—like the Minister’s. (Laughter.) The Bill was the negation of all law and the deification of bureaucracy and the Government.

With regard to the question of domicile, he wished to point out that a person had to satisfy the immigration officer on the point and consequently he became an absolute autocrat. If the immigration officer desired to prevent a particular person from entering he had simply to say that he was not satisfied on the question of domicile and that person must go. Now, that was a serious thing. With regard to wives and children, also the immigration officer had to be satisfied, clearly indicating that that official would be an absolute autocrat. The Minister stated that the sole reason for the Bill was to settle the Indian difficulty in the Transvaal, but he wished the Minister would tell the House candidly whether the leaders of the passive resistance movement in the North were satisfied or not. He quite agreed that there were some alterations that were improvements, and there was no doubt that the present Bill was better than the Bill the Minister introduced last session, but nothing had been indicated to show that the Asiatics in the Transvaal were satisfied with the Bill. He did not believe that they were. They would not be satisfied unless the Bill was very seriously amended. The Indians in the Cape and Natal were against the measure. The Imperial Government might be satisfied, but the House had not got the correspondence that had passed between the Union and Imperial Governments. The Minister had indicated that the Imperial Government was satisfied with certain amendments that he proposed to introduce. One of the most important amendments had reference to the question of Advisory Boards. But these Advisory Boards were absolutely useless. They were Boards only in name, and not in substance. The Minister did not take for himself power to make regulations for these Boards, and without regulations how were they going to improve upon the present state of things? These Boards were going to be shams, dummies, behind which the Minister would shelter himself. He would like to know why the Minister did not follow the precedent of the Aliens Act in England, under which Boards of Appeal were appointed. A fairer way of doing things it would be difficult to find. They should not allow an Immigration Officer to be prosecutor and judge at the same time. He would ask the Minister whether he would not, as was done in England, appoint Boards of Appeal, instead of Advisory Boards, who would have no real power.

In England this was entirely taken out of the hands of the immigration officer. He was the prosecutor, and rightly so, but it was an unheard-of thing as we did in this country in regard to aliens, that the immigration officer should be the prosecutor the judge, and the deporting officer. If he said to an alien who came here, “I don’t like you; you have got to go,” he had to go. Mr. Alexander then sketched the constitution, and work of the Immigration Appeal Boards in England, and mentioned that in 1911 there were 432 appeals, of which 144 were successful. He referred to a number of the cases that came before the Board in order to show that applicants were admitted after investigation by the Board, who would, if they had attempted to enter this country, which had no Appeal Board, have been deported. These cases, he urged, showed the necessity for Appeal Boards in order to prevent an injustice being done.

Continuing, the hon. member referred to the report of the Tuberculosis Commission, and said it was clearly shown in that report that the Commission was not entirely in favour of the Board that was provided under the Bill. He pointed out that it was quite impossible for the Minister to deal with these cases. It was not so bad when the Minister was in Cape Town, but things were different when the Minister was in Pretoria. He went on to quote a case which had happened on the previous day, and in reply to a letter which he (the speaker) wrote, the Minister said that Sir Meiring Beck, among others, quite agreed that the man in question was an undesirable. He (the speaker) had a letter from Sir Meiring, which showed that the latter simply introduced two Tulbagh residents, who knew the immigrant, to the Immigration Officer, and left them. He knew nothing further about the case, and did not express the opinion that the man was an undesirable. Such things would be prevented if there were a proper Board of Appeal. What was more, it would shift a great deal of responsibility from the shoulders of the Minister and the Chief Immigration Officer, and would prevent the dissatisfaction that was rampant at the present time. He had to compliment the Minister on the alteration in the clause dealing with the deportation of persons who had been guilty of living on the proceeds of prostitution. He thought that the measure had been strengthened in this respect. He would say at this point that he (the speaker) would be only too willing, as far as lay in his power, to help the Minister to keep undesirables out of the country, and with special reference to this clause, he would like to say that he was glad that the Bill had been tightened. Then he was glad to see that the clause dealing with the “degenerates of the human species,” which gave rise to much hilarity last session, had been dropped, because he was afraid that if it had been included in the Bill it would have given rise to a great deal of trouble. The hon. member then went on to deal with the case of persons domiciled in South Africa, and said that the Minister had taken a different view in the Bill to the view which he expressed last session. Last session he said that any provision of the sort would be illogical. But he (the speaker) had fault to find with the clause that had been inserted in this Bill. Again, according to the Bill, anybody born in South Africa who wanted to go to Bloemfontein to, say, attend a congress, would have to get permission from the Chief Immigration Officer, pass an education test, and do other things. In clause 7 of the Bill the hon. Minister had made an amazing confession, and it seemed they were going to have different administrative laws in South Africa. They were going to change legislation for administration. There was more in common between the Cape and Natal and the Free State and the Transvaal in the old Immigration Act than there was in the administration that was going to take place between one Province and another.

Passing to sub-sections (f) and (g), Mr. Alexander said that would be giving with one hand and taking away with the other. The words “subject to the provisions of section 7 a person must satisfy the Immigration Officer that he is domiciled and entitled to reside” meant that a man might be entitled to reside and yet not be domiciled. He might have his wife and children in another country. Under that provision he had not only to prove that he was domiciled in South Africa, but residing there. He had to satisfy the Immigration Officer; if these words did not come out (contended the speaker), the provision was an absolute farce. In support of his contention, he referred to the judgment of Mr. Justice Rose-Innes in a case in which the Immigration Officer had not been satisfied that the applicant was the son of a certain Indian, and on that ground admission was refused. According to the judgment, section 3 of the Natal Act of 1906 required that a person seeking exemption from prohibition on the ground that he was the child of a person not himself a prohibited immigrant must satisfy the Immigration Officer on that point. “That matter was left to the absolute discretion of the Immigration Officer. That was very extraordinary legislation.” If the immigration Officer made a mistake, the admission would be refused, and the person would have to go back. He might even satisfy the Court, but if he did not satisfy the Immigration Officer, the applicant would have to go back. What was to become of a prohibition of that kind? (asked Mr. Alexander). Were they going to leave it absolutely to the Immigration Officer; was he going to be allowed to be the sole judge? He would like to call the notice of the Minister to the use of the word “white,” and suggested that it would have been better to have kept to the word “European,” as in the Cape Act of 1906. In regard to section 7, he would say that it seemed to him to be astounding to try to embody administrative diversity with legislative uniformity, and he would like to know how the hon. Minister proposed to meet the case of persons, not Asiatics, who were going to travel from one place to another. In referring to the regulations in his speech last year, the Minister said that they were coming to the most important part of the Bill—they were going to be the crux of the whole question. If the Minister had given them the opportunity of seeing those regulations, a great deal of heart-burning would have been spared. Continuing, Mr. Alexander urged the Minister to lay the regulations on the table as early as possible, for the regulations were supposed to be the most important part of the Bill. The Bill conferred enormous powers on the Immigration Officer, who need not necessarily be a member of the Civil Service. This officer could even prevent a man who was entitled to land in South Africa from communicating with his legal adviser on shore. Then the Immigration Officer, through the port authorities, could order the master of a ship to berth his vessel wherever the former chose. This might give rise to considerable friction. Then the Minister had put in a new clause with regard to the Free State, which struck him (Mr. Alexander) as something very extraordinary. As usual, the Minister was trying to do the impossible and to satisfy everybody. The Minister was trying to satisfy both the Indians and the Europeans, but he could not do it in the way suggested by the Minister.

It being five minutes to 6 p.m.,

stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted by the House on the 26th April, he would now adjourn the debate.

The debate was adjourned until Monday.

said he objected to the Prime Minister referring to him the other evening in innuendoes. It was deplorable that an hon. member should be referred to in this manner. If the Prime Minister had anything to say about him, let him say it openly, because he was going to speak openly about the Department over which he presided. He did not think the right hon. gentleman knew what was going on in his own department. A little while ago he put a question to the right hon. gentleman concerning the case of Mr. Palmer. He received two statements, one being that Mr. Palmer was not dismissed and the other statement being that he had actually offered him another position. He was going to read certain letters to the committee, and he was going to show that Mr. Palmer was not offered another position, and that he was summarily dismissed. He did not bring up this matter because he wanted to advocate the case of Mr. Palmer or the case of any retrenched Civil Servant, although he was convinced that every progressive farmer in the Free State believed that his retrenchment meant a serious loss to the country, and it was a great pity that his services had not been retained. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member then proceeded to quote from the correspondence bearing on the matter. Mr. Smith (Director of Agriculture) wrote Mr. Palmer on June 10, stating that there was a possibility of dividing the Agricultural Department into two heads, and that these two sections could communicate with the Minister through the secretary. In consequence of that letter Mr. Palmer had an interview with him, and they discussed the question generally. Mr. Palmer, after that interview, wrote and stated that he believed he could supervise either of the two sections to the satisfaction of the Minister. On the 6th February Mr. Palmer received another letter from Mr. Smith informing him that on account of the rush of Parliamentary business the Prime Minister was unable to make any definite offer at that time, and that he would be unable to deal with his case until Parliament had risen. From that date Mr. Palmer had no communication whatever from the Prime Minister until the Prime Minister was almost leaving for Europe last session. Under the impression that his case was to be considered, Mr. Palmer applied for leave of absence, and on the Monday morning he had to be in Pretoria to give evidence before the Public Service Commission. At 3 o’clock on the Monday afternoon Mr. Palmer was informed that his retrenchment had been decided on. The case was so scandalous that the Acting Minister of Agriculture had said that his retrenchment had been decided upon before the Prime Minister left for England. Mr. Palmer on June 1 received a letter stating that his services were no longer required. And so the services of this officer, who had won the appreciation of almost every farmer in the Free State, was dismissed. He did not believe that his right hon. friend was aware of all this, and contended that if he had known he would not have tolerated such behaviour. He must say that the ignorance of the Prime Minister was no excuse. He certainly did not justify the statement in reply to the question. He would even go so far as to suggest that the information was given him by others and that he relied upon it. But they had started Union on a wrong basis. They had nine months in which to co-ordinate things so that when they did enter Union Ministers would have some scheme before them, so that they could carry on the business of their departments in a satisfactory fashion. But what happened? They had the head officials of the Departments falling over each other and trying to get the biggest billets in those departments. The same state of chaos prevailed among Ministers who were going to take office. That was the case in the Agricultural Department, and it was more the pity in this case because the Department was dealing with such an important and such a difficult subject. The previous night the hon. member for Winburg waxed very eloquent over the Palmer case, and said that the whole of the agitation was engineered from Bloemfontein. He had noticed that if anything was started against the Government the charge was made that the agitation was started by the capitalists, by the Jingoes on the Witwatersrand, and if not by the Jingoes on the Witwatersrand, then somebody on the front benches or some locality or other. They had had the same thing in regard to the case of Mr. Palmer. His hon. friend the member for Winburg knew as well as he did that the agitation was not engineered in Bloemfontein. The people of Bloemfontein were alleged to be the originators of the outcry against the Government on the subject of the dismissal of Mr. Palmer. He happened to have the petition to the Government in his hands, and he would be pleased to place the petition upon the table of the House. It was not true when the hon. member for Winburg stated that the agitation was started in Bloemfontein. His right hon. friend knew very well that farmers from every part of the Free State protested against the retrenchment of Mr. Palmer. He could name his hon. friend the member who represented the Bloemfontein district in that House. He could name others, including Mr. Fanie Viljoen, and, if anybody was individually responsible for the petition that was sent to the Government, then it was Mr. Viljoen. His hon. friend the member for Boshof was not responsible for the petition, for the simple reason that he was not a farmer.

Who sent the petition round?

I am perfectly certain that my hon. friend the member for Boshof did not send the petition round. (Opposition laughter.)

You never got a signature from Boshof.

said he deprecated this sort of plea as a means of getting the Government out of its difficulties. Surely any hon. member from the Free State would bear him out when he said that the dismissal of Mr. Palmer was very much deplored. Every farmer liked him, and he was looked upon as a man to be trusted. He was not only trusted by the farmers, but they followed his advice, and he said that Mr. Palmer could have no better recommendation than that. If the Prime Minister had been in real touch with his Department and knew what was going on he would have used every endeavour to have retained the services of Mr. Palmer in the general interests of agriculture. And when he got the letter of the 26th of January he should have been the first to pin Mr. Palmer down to the offer that was made, as a man who was fit and a man who was really trusted by the farming community of the Province. That was one sample of the ignorance of the Prime Minister in regard to the affairs of his own Department. There was another case to which he would like to draw the attention of the House. He would simply state the plain facts and make no comments, and he would leave the committee to draw its own conclusions. There was a scab inspector in the Jacobsdal district. In September, 1911, a report was made, of which his right hon. friend had the original, by the Chief Inspector, not only commending the work that was being done by this inspector, but gratuitously telling him that he was one of the most excellent officials in the Department. Unfortunately he did not meet with the approval of one prominent farmer in the district. He had him summoned for trespass while he was carrying out the duties of his office. The case was heard in the Magistrate’s Court, and was dismissed. The farmer appealed to the Provincial Court, and again lost. A month after the case was decided by the Provincial Court he was dismissed from the service on the ground of re-organisation, and another gentleman was appointed in his stead. Now the complaint was this, though he would say at once that he was simply stating what he had been told, and did not know whether the facts were correct. The rumour in the district was to the effect that the farmer was a great friend of Senator De Villiers, and that the man appointed to the position was part owner or had an interest in a salt pan in which Senator De Villiers was also interested. He did not say that the Prime Minister had anything to do with the matter; he did not suggest that the right hon. gentleman had been guilty of misconduct. But the point was that he said that the plea of re-organisation was not the true reason for the dismissal of this official. Neither could he have been dismissed because he was not carrying out his duties in a proper manner, because they knew of the testimonial that he had received from the Chief Inspector. There was another reason at the back of it, and the rumour was that there had been some underhand work in connection with the dismissal of the inspector and appointment of another official. The one thing clear was that the Minister who did not know what was going in his Department had not the control of that Department which he ought to be able to exercise. (Hear, hear.)

said that the hon. member who had just spoken had tried to follow in the footsteps of his leaders, and had made an attack on the Agricultural Department, and especially the Prime Minister, who was at the head of that Department. He did not think there was much substance in the charges that had been brought forward by the hon. member. The principal point which he tried to make against the Prime Minister was the retrenchment of Mr. Palmer some time ago. Let him say at once in regard to that transaction, that the responsibility rested entirely on him (the speaker), as he was acting for the Prime Minister as Minister of Agriculture at the time—(Ministerial cheers)—and so the responsibility rested upon his shoulders. The action which he took then he was prepared to defend that night and at any other time. His hon. friend had read some correspondence which no doubt was very interesting and, perhaps, pertinent to the point; but he was faced at the time he took the action not with correspondence, but with simple facts. The facts were these. The re-organisation of the various departments of State were being gone into by the Re-organisation Commission. At that time they were dealing with the Agricultural Department. He was extremely sorry to see from the correspondence which had been read by the hon. member that a letter had been written to Mr. Palmer as far back as February of this year, which conveyed the intimation that his services might be retained in the Agricultural Department. He (the speaker) was not aware of that letter. He had to deal with the facts as he met them at the time. The Re-organisation Commission was at work, the Public Service Commission was going into the matter, and he (the speaker) had to decide what was to be done. It was quite clear that place could not be made for the various Agricultural Department secretaries of the Provinces. He consulted the Re-organisation Commission. He consulted the Secretary of the Agricultural Department for the Union, and it was quite clear to him that they could not take over the Cape, the Natal, and the Free State men. Most unfortunately at that time Mr. Palmer was on the eve of leaving for a holiday with the idea that his services would be continued by the Department. He thought it would be cowardly to allow him to go on holiday thinking that his services would be retained when it was perfectly clear at the time that he would not be required by the Department. After taking the advice of those in the Department, he adopted the course that had been followed and intimated his decision to Mr. Palmer. He sent for him and explained the whole matter to him personally. Of course, he was very much grieved at having his career cut short at that stage, but he said there was really no other way open. The only question that remained was as to whether a wise thing was done in keeping other men in the Department and letting Mr. Palmer go. That was a question which was arguable, but he was not going to argue it there because it was a very invidious thing to argue personal issues. He believed that whilst Mr. Palmer was Director of Agriculture in the Free State, he did very good work. From what he had seen of his work and from what he had heard, he was free to admit that his work was good and that the record of his work in the Free State was very good. But that might be said about many officers they had had to retrench since Union. The retention or otherwise of men depended upon a number of considerations. On a due balance of the considerations it was found that there was no place for Mr. Palmer, and he had to go. He did not wish it to be understood that there was any animus against Mr. Palmer or that his services had been dispensed with because there was any feeling in the Agricultural Department against him. The Secretary of Agriculture had a very high opinion of Mr. Palmer’s services, but, of course, it was a case of trying to find a place for three men when only one was wanted. If a mistake were made it was made by him in weighing the pros and cons of Mr. Palmer’s case. He decided the case quite impartially. The charge was one against him, and in coming to a decision he exercised the best judgment he was capable of on the facts of the case. He was not cognisant of the other case of Schutte, which had been brought forward, and it must be a very minor case.

Not for the party concerned.

No doubt it was most serious to the man concerned. Proceeding, he said he came to what was said the previous night by the hon. member for East London (Col. Crewe) in regard to the statement made by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. Now, his hon. friend (Col. Crewe) made a great point of the delay in bringing the Animal Diseases Act into operation, but what he stated was a complete travesty of the facts. He could only suppose that his hon. friend was in ignorance of the real facts of the case. The Act could not be put into operation earlier than it was, because it was necessary to issue simultaneous regulations under the Act. The coming into operation of the Act would mean the disturbing of all the older Acts and regulations, and it was, therefore, quite necessary that the new Act and the new regulations should come into operation simultaneously, in order to take the place of the measures they were intended to abrogate. Now, as regards the regulations, there was no doubt that it was most difficult to get them into final shape. Originally they were laid on the table of the House, and after the prorogation of Parliament, they had first to go to the lawyers, and after passing the lawyers, they were sent to the various Provinces, to see how far they would fit in with the different conditions which obtained in the Provinces, and after they had been criticised by the various provincial officials, they received their final form in September last. They were then published for general information, so that, if there were any criticism, it could be brought to the notice of the Department, and adopted in the final form. The regulations were put into operation in October of last year. Although some time took place in putting them into operation, he knew that the officers of the Department who administered animals’ diseases were amongst the most zealous officers they had in the service to-day, and he was sure that if any delay took place in bringing into operation the Act and regulations, it was certainly not the fault of the officers, because they did their best and expedited matters. The only fault he had to find with some of the officials was that they were too pushful. He could assure the House that no blame rested on the Agricultural Department in connection with delay. The hon. member (Colonel Crewe) seemed to forget that they were dealing with a matter which affected the whole of the Union, and required the fullest and amplest consideration, and when some months were devoted to consideration, he must not think that that time was being wasted. He did not think there was any undue delay. His hon. friend (Colonel Crewe) also made merry over the question of arsenite of soda, but he wished to remind him that the Agricultural Department did not stock it. It was an ordinary commercial article, which was stocked and sold by merchants to farmers. If there were any delay in getting it, the blame did not rest with the Agricultural Department at all. He knew that the custom in the Cape used to be for the Government to supply farmers with arsenite of soda.

It still continues.

It has been discontinued since Union. Here are alterations since Union, and my hon. friend does not know of them. (Ministerial cheers.) Proceeding, he said his hon. friend (Colonel Crewe) seemed to doubt the statement of the Prime Minister that there were only two outbreaks of East Coast fever in the East London district. His hon. friend seemed very surprised at that, and he spoke of the large number of animals that had died. But his right hon. friend the Prime Minister was perfectly correct. There were two outbreaks in the East London district, and one in the King William’s Town district. An outbreak occurred in Ward 3 of the East London division, and 18 or 19 head of cattle died. Continuing, the hon. Minister said there had been another outbreak in Ward 7, where a number of small farmers occupied lots, and where the number of cattle, when the scourge appeared, was about 1,250. That was in March last. No means existed of coping with the disease and, of course, it had been very difficult to arrest the spread, and numbers of the herd were still dying. The Agricultural Department had been urging those farmers to erect dipping tanks as the only sure method of arresting the disease. The Government, of course, could not foresee what was going to happen.

I told you eighteen months ago.

My hon. friend foresaw these things. (Laughter.) Every care had been taken that was possible to confine the outbreak to the two places mentioned. There had also been an outbreak in the Jamestown district in February last. There a tank was erected, and the disease was gradually dying out. The state of affairs was not at all so bad as hon. members opposite would lead the House to suppose. There had been only three outbreaks outside the Native Territories, and there was no reason why the spread should not now be stopped. The experience in South Africa had been that amongst the natives it was very difficult indeed to stamp out the disease. The Prime Minister had already informed the House that steps had been taken to safeguard stock contiguous to the native borders. The hon. member for Border (Mr. G. Blaine) stigmatised the policy of the Government as one of fencing and shooting. Well, there was much to be said in favour of a policy like that. They had cases where the disease jumped for a distance of 50 miles, and perhaps appeared in a small herd. In that case the Department maintained that the best means of dealing with the outbreak was to kill off the herd. (“Oh! Oh!”) That was the policy that had saved the Transvaal from the disease. As long as it appeared in isolated districts and amongst small herds of cattle they did not think there was a more effective way of dealing with the disease.

You kill the cattle and save the ticks.

My hon. friend knows this is not a case for an epigram, but one that has to be dealt with from experience. Hon. members would recollect that before Union there were these sporadic appearances in the Native Territories, and the policy of shooting was then justified, but now it was impracticable and unwise to follow that policy there any longer. Of course, there was only one satisfactory method of dealing with the scourge, and that was dipping. He did not think the criticism passed on the Department by hon. members opposite had been fair or reasonable. They did not recognise, when a scourge like that appeared, how difficult it was to effect its arrest. It was a case in which the people in conjunction with the Agricultural Department had to do the best for themselves, and he thought it would be far better if hon. members instead of finding fault with the Department would advise their constituents to help themselves. (Cheers.)

said he understood from what had been said by the hon. Minister that the Government did not supply arsenite of soda to farmers, that the practice had been abandoned since Union. In the accounts up to March, 1912, there appeared under the head of purchases of arsenite of soda sold to farmers at cost price £2,340, while the year before the amount was only £800. He would like to know what had been done with the material if it had not been sold to farmers?

said the hon. member for Bloemfontein was not acquainted with the matters he had tried to discuss. As regarded the hon. member’s remarks in connection with the case of Mr. Schutte, he deprecated personal attacks being made and an attack being made on Senator De Villiers.

said he had not attacked Senator De Villiers, but he had simply mentioned what rumour said.

thought he was entitled to deduce from the speech of the hon. member that he was attacking Senator De Villiers. That was not a proper thing to do, as the gentleman so attacked was not in a position to reply. The speaker proceeded to refer to some speeches which had been delivered by the hon. member for Bloemfontein to his consituents, and compared them with his own. He had found considerable dissatisfaction existed in the district of Jacobsdal, from which it appeared that in his capacity of inspector Mr. Schutte had acted wrongly. The inspector swore that a sheep had a scab sore 5 in, by 8 in. in diameter, and the animal was at once slaughtered. When the skin was brought before the court it was found that the sore was of the size of a three penny-piece. That statement could be proved from the magistrate’s records. The speaker continued that he was quite prepared to have his own career during the past ten years compared with that of the hon. member for Bloemfontein, and leave the people of the Free State to judge. The agitation which had been brought about in the Free State did not proceed from the people of the Free State. The hon. member was now shedding crocodile’s tears, but a certain pamphlet had been distributed from Bloemfontein which attacked both the Government and the speaker, but in so covert a fashion that it could hardly be got hold of. Then there was the case of Inspector Morgan. The Government had recently been charged with nepotism in that case, but such a charge might more properly be made against Mr. Morgan himself, who had taken on no less than six members of his own family. The speaker feared it was not the first time that the hon. member had sent out pamphlets of that sort, and thought it would be honourable of him to withdraw one of them. The speaker had further nothing to say against Mr. Palmer, though scab had much diminished since the removal of Messrs. Palmer and Morgan. He would also point out that in the year 1910 many sheep died in the district of Jacobsdal, not so much because of drought, as had been asserted, but because they were dipped to death by Messrs. Palmer and Morgan. Now it was seen that under the guidance of the Prime Minister things were going on well and the people were satisfied, attempts were being made to create dissatisfaction. Instead of retrogression and dissatisfaction, there existed progress and general satisfaction. He deplored the attack which had been made by the hon. member on a man who was so generally esteemed as Senator De Villiers, and challenged the hon. member to accompany him (the speaker) to go and meet their constituents.

said he wanted to reply for a moment to a certain statement made by the Minister of the Interior, who was sometimes the Treasurer (he thought he was always the Treasurer), at other times Minister of the Interior, and now he was taking charge of Agriculture. Might he point out to him that he could not understand him? He made two statements, one of which was that the Department had no arsenite of soda in store. On the 4th December last a notice was published by the Agricultural Department, saying that from and after April 1, 1912, the department would no longer continue to sell arsenite of soda. He mentioned the date on the previous evening as being January 12th and thought that the hon. Minister was convicted on his own evidence that he was selling it. With regard to the regulations, he understood the Minister to say that certain regulations were published in September. But he was not going to quarrel with him over a month, because, as a matter of fact, they were published in October. But these were the general regulations dealing with East Coast fever, and were published on October 19. They were not the regulations he (the hon. member) spoke of last night, when he mentioned the fact that the Act was put into force in the division of East London, and under that there were certain regulations which he dealt with. But he would take his hon. friend on his own ground that the regulations were all published in October Last. Would the hon. Minister now tell him why the Prime Minister’s promises, given in that House in April, were not carried out in East London, Komgha, and other districts prior to January 12? They were told last night it was the difficulty of the regulations, but now the hon. Minister got away from that, and said it was not the regulations. Would the hon. Minister kindly inform him why the Prime Minister’s promise had not been kept? Last session he asked the Prime Minister: would the Government put compulsory dipping into force in the Komgha district? His answer was: “Yes, straight away.” These regulations were published in October. If it were not the regulations that were preventing the Prime Minister’s promise from being carried out, what was it? His hon. friend was between two stools. He complained, first, that it was the regulations, and in order to defend himself from an attack on that, he said it was not the regulations. Why was no compulsory dipping put into force, according to his promise, after those regulations were published? Why did he wait until East Coast fever was inside the Province? Proceeding, the hon. gentleman said he had the “Gazette” in which the regulations appeared, and would point out that on January 12 the East Coast Fever Regulations and compulsory dipping were put into force in the Komgha district, and he was perfectly right in saying that the regulations covered exactly the space of two inches. The hon. member then proceeded to read the notice, and said that naturally they thought that the Government were waiting for those regulations. The regulations laid down that all cattle in the district were to be, at successive intervals, dipped or sprayed in a tick-destroying liquid, and that failure to comply with this order would render any owner of cattle liable to the penalties provided for in the Act.

said he was not much of a believer in Government control of Agriculture. He noticed on the Estimates that this year a sum of nearly three-quarters of a million pounds was to be spent on the Agricultural Department. Now three-quarters of a million was a round sum, and when hon. members considered that this was the profits of 2,000 farms at £400 a year each, it would give the House some idea as to what the Agricultural Department was in this country. One would like to know what the Agricultural Department had done for agriculture in this country. What had they done for ostrich feathers, or for wool, tea, sugar, bark, wine, and fruit? Had they done anything for those industries at all? He contended that they were spending this huge amount of money with very small profit to the country. They had these agricultural colleges, which were run at pretty nearly a cost of £300 per head of the students, who paid for the education they got there something like £40 per year. He was not going to blame the Prime Minister for anything in regard to the control of the Agricultural Department. The fault was not with the Prime Minister. No one else in his place could do any better. Did anyone want to tell him that were the hon. member for East London (Colonel C. P. Crewe) in his place he would control the Department better? The probability was that it would be very much worse.

It was not the control of the Department, it was the thing itself that was wrong. It was beyond the power of any man to control such huge and unwieldy machinery as the Agricultural Department must be in this country at the present time, or to say that such tremendous expenditure as it entailed was spent economically. He was not like the hon. member for Border (Mr. G. Blaine) who urged the Prime Minister on to fresh endeavours and to fresh expenditure. He would rather take the opposite step, and ask him to retrench and reform. He was surprised, he must say, to hear at this time of the day the Minister of the Interior advocating the shooting of cattle to prevent East Coast fever. Who had they to thank for the dipping cure for East Coast fever? It was not the Agricultural Department. Very far from it. The Agricultural Department and the Veterinary Department in Natal stated three or four years ago that dipping was no cure for East Coast fever. It was a private individual that started it—Mr. Joseph Baynes who in face of the opposition from the Government was always advocating dipping as their one salvation. So late as last year they were informed that Dr. Theiler had found a cure for East Coast fever. Where was it to-day? It was not to be found. He did not say that Dr. Theiler’s rumoured cure for East Coast fever had anything to do with the spread of the disease; but there was no doubt his statement that there was a cure gave people a sense of false security, and that may have had something to do with the matter of dipping not being pressed forward as much as it might have been. Fifteen years ago there was no such thing as an Agricultural Department in South Africa, or nothing to speak of, and to-day they had sprung up to an expenditure of three-quarters of a million. The Civil Service. Commission had reported on it, but he had to say that he did not think that that Commission’s opinion of agriculture amounted to much. Agriculture, in his opinion, should be left entirely in the hands of the Provincial Councils. If the Provincial agricultural departments had to be run by money raised by local taxation, they would get a good deal more economical control than they had now.

Uniformity was absolutely unnecessary. In the Provincial Councils they would get all the local knowledge that was so necessary in regard to agriculture, and a great amount of enthusiasm; and agricultural matters would be attended to with more care than they could possibly receive in that House, where there were so many more important matters to be attended to. In his opinion, the one success of the Agricultural Department up to the present was in regard to the Bacteriological Department, and all the other departments would be better in the hands of Provincial Councils. They were, to his mind, entrenching on the latter, and they could not leave even such a simple thing as a Fencing Bill to them, which would receive much better attention than in that House. Forestry had been very well managed in the Provinces, and in Natal large areas of trees had been planted under a system of bonuses and prizes; which had done a great deal of good. In his opinion, and he thought in that of very many people, decentralisation was what the country was calling for to-day. The Provincial Councils were calling out for work: let them undertake it, and efficiency and economy would be the result. All the Bills being brought before the Assembly at the present time received very scant consideration, in his opinion, and if some of them could be handed over to the Provincial Councils he thought that they would be gone over with much more care than in the Assembly.

intimated that the hon. member was going beyond the vote.

concluded by saying that he would like to see the Agricultural Department of the Union scrapped altogether, and handed over to the Provincial Councils. A few days ago they had a matter before them where two farms had been purchased for £20,000, but he thought that they would cost £30,000 to run.

referred to the question asked by Mr. Wyndham of the Prime Minister on February 6 and the Minister’s reply with regard to field-cornets in the Transvaal. Last year, he said, he had drawn attention to their being inept, inefficient, and degrading their high calling by becoming political agents; and now they had been informed that they had become scab inspectors. Just think of it! He said that the action of the Government was absolutely unjustified, and for three years it would be costing the country £60,000.

said that they realised that the Minister of Agriculture and his officers had had a difficult task in re-organising the Department. He would, however, like to refer to the case of Mr. Palmer. Some time ago he remembered the Prime Minister saying in regard to that case that he had offered him a definite appointment, but Mr. Palmer had not seen his way to accept it. Now they had the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Van Niekerk), who used the most magnificent language—he used much better Dutch than he (Mr. Struben) could use English—say that it had been the autocratic rule of Mr. Palmer which had caused all the trouble. He thought that was most unjust, because all the people of the Orange Free State seemed to have treated Mr. Palmer with great respect, and said that one of his greatest charms was the tactful and considerate way in which he had dealt with them. The Minister of the Interior, however, had told them that evening that it was impossible to find a place for a Cape man as well as for a Free State man, and gave that as a reason why Mr. Palmer had had to go. Here were two entirely different statements, and Mr. Palmer had categorically denied that any billet had been offered to him; but the Prime Minister had said that another billet had been offered to Mr. Palmer. He wanted to know which of the two explanations—that of the Prime Minister or that of the Minister of the Interior—was the proper one. It was only fair to Mr. Palmer to say that here in Cape Town, the Chamber of Commerce had occasion to deal with Mr. Palmer in regard to the maize export trade, and they were so satisfied with him that they took the trouble to move a resolution regretting that the Government had thought it necessary to retrench him. “Now, who was it that engineered that?” queried the hon. member. With regard to East Coast fever, he admitted that he did not know much about that, but he would ask the Minister of the Interior when he spoke of the advantages of shooting and fencing, whether it was not better to kill the tick that did the damage than to fence or to shoot the cattle. There was another matter that he would like to call the attention of the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. H. Marais) to, and that was the “San Jose scale,” which might do so much damage to the fruit trees all through that district. This pest attacked fruit trees of all kinds, and roses as well. It had existed in the Transvaal since about 1907. San Jose scale was not recognised, and he put the blame not so much upon the Prime Minister as Prime Minister of the Union, but when he was Prime Minister of the Transvaal, for promoting a man without technical qualifications to an important post. Eventually when the pest had been recognised the Government attempted to eradicate it, but at length gave up the attempt. He had personally asked information from the Department, and he had been told that the Government had given up the attempt to eradicate the scale, because it would involve enormous expenditure, and they did not think that they would be able to eradicate it thoroughly. They had not yet got an estimate of the cost, and had no further information of what the Government intended to do in the matter, and the result of this vacillating policy had been that the scale was spreading in the Transvaal and Natal, and might damage great parts of the Western Province, working a great deal of harm to the fruit industry. In Natal the farmers were taking the matter into their hands and were endeavouring to eradicate the scale themselves. Then with regard to the question of dipping. Now he had been informed on very good authority that the Government had given instructions to their officers to give notice that compulsory dipping would be enforced, but so far these definite instructions had not been issued, and farmers who usually dipped had waited in vain, and lost the proper dipping time and the general benefit of dipping.

It was a serious matter to the farmers of the country who were trying to found a stable industry in this country. If the Government did not follow the best advice on this subject then they would be doing a great disservice to the people of this country. There was another point as to whether the Government were going to carry out the single unit or the bureau system. The latter was the system which had been recommended, and the Government had not seen fit to adopt this system. This had been recommended by Commissions, including the Financial Relations Commission, and yet it had not been adopted. He would tell the Prime Minister of other instances where the Government had not taken the advice which it had been tendered by responsible men; the Government had not carried out some of the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission, though the Prime Minister said they had had to follow that Commission. The Commission recommended the bureau system as the system for an advanced country. He could not follow the hon. member for Umlazi when he said that they ought to have agricultural departments in the Provinces. There were things that could not possibly be left to Provincial Departments such as those suggested by the hon. member for Umlazi. He drew attention to grants to agricultural societies. On the strength of specific promises in writing, some of these agricultural societies had incurred liabilities, but the promises which had been made by the Government had not been carried out. Then the Prime Minister had departed from the recommendations of the Commission with regard to the chemical laboratory proposal, and he believed that they had the distinction of being the only country in the world which had not got a chemical laboratory of any importance attached to the Agricultural Department. In that connection he would like to say that a most valuable officer who did splendid work in the Cape Province on soil analysis was removed to Pretoria, and the next thing they heard was that he had been transferred to the Department of the Minister of the Interior. Then the Commission had recommended that the administration of scab should be placed in charge of a highly-qualified official. True, an official had been appointed, but he had not the special qualifications that fitted him to be holding such a very important post. These were some of the recommendations of the Commission which had not been carried out by the Prime Minister. What they wanted was a Central Department of Agriculture at Pretoria with sub-heads in the Provinces, who would be given such an amount of power that they need not have to refer everything to Pretoria. He wanted centralisation of policy and decentralisation of administration.

said he understood from the speech made by the Prime Minister last year that the policy in regard to tick fever would have been to dip the animals and not to shoot them, except in cases of moving infected animals. Yet he knew of a case where a small herd of cattle had been shot in June, belonging to a man named Stefanus Schutte. In reply to his representations on the matter, he had been informed that this had been done on the advice of experts. He wondered if experts could override laws passed by this House, and he held that the animals in question had been needlessly destroyed.

said that an attack had been made on the Agricultural Department, but all he could say was that Natal had had from the present Administration the very best help, enabling the farmers in that part to deal effectively with East Coast fever. For instance, the Government had assisted in the way of dipping and by giving loans to farmers to build dips. In a country like theirs, he thought the Bureau system should continue. The hon. Minister had been attacked, and unfairly so, he thought, for the dismissal of Mr. Palmer, but it turned out that all the abuse showered upon him was not deserved, and perhaps, if some of the other charges were more closely examined, they would be found as unjustifiable as that had been When they considered the advances which had been made in agriculture during the past two years, the schools and colleges which had been established for teaching the youth of the country a knowledge of the industry, they could not but admit that much excellent work had been accomplished. In regard to scab, which was a serious matter, he thought the best thing that had been done was to make widely known the conditions under which the disease was engendered. He believed that in a very short time there would be no need for compulsory dipping, but that every farmer would adopt this means of eradicating the disease of his own free will. If the farmers in the Cape Province and the Transvaal had profited by the experience of Natal, they would have avoided the losses from East Coast fever. Under the circumstances, he did not think it was fair to attack the Department, which had always shown a disposition to act up to the requirements of the times, and if farmers would only co-operate with the officers of the Department, they would find that the disease would soon disappear.

said that no doubt the hon. Minister of Agriculture would be very pleased with the eulogy of his Department by the hon. member who had just spoken. He had brightened up considerably. During a certain portion of the debate he had not looked so bright and cheerful as he did now that the hon. and gallant gentleman had come to his assistance. He was sorry the Minister of the Interior was not in his place, because he would have liked to have the opportunity of congratulating him on the eloquence he had put forth earlier in the evening. Not satisfied with a great laborious Department of his own, he had taken over the administration of finance, and now he appeared as a second Minister of Agriculture. He had really become the Pooh Bah of the Ministry. His labours were very great, but for the first time that night it appeared there was a limit to the administration that the Minister of the Interior could take upon his shoulders. The Minister of Agriculture referred to the statements that had been made with regard to his Department as unsupported by facts and entirely depended upon hearsay. He did not want to go fully into the subject of the administration of agriculture, but when the hon. Minister said the charges levelled against the Department were absolutely unsupported by facts, he would say without hesitation that no agricultural society, beginning in Cape Town and going to the smallest agricultural society in the country and to the individual farmers who were members of these societies, they would find that there was a consensus of opinion, upheld by members on his side of the House and, if they would own to it, by members on the other side, that the reorganisation of the administration of the Agricultural Department under Union had been an entire failure and had not met the wants and requirements of the progressive farming community of the Union of South Africa. He said that with the greatest regret, but it was the view that was held by the vast majority of the farmers of that country. (Cries of dissent.) The right hon. gentleman the Minister, in replying to a remark he (Sir T. W. Smartt) made in the House on the laxity of administration in connection with the Scab Act, said the policy he would like to adopt was a policy of repression. He repudiated that statement. It was unworthy of the Minister of Agriculture. It was a statement that should not have been made, but he would deal with that question later. The great difficulty of reorganisation had been referred to. The right hon. gentleman had stated —and he (Sir Thomas) thought fairly—that the policy laid down by the Act of Union was a policy of centralisation, and that there was no justification in accusing the Agricultural Department of adopting a policy of centralisation. It had been made very clear, and the Opposition had never advocated a departure from the policy of centralisation. But they could have a policy of centralisation that centralised all the great administrative works of the Agricultural Department, and they could have that policy carried out by a certain amount of decentralisation, so that the various forces of the Agricultural Department could be dealt with in an intelligent manner throughout the Union. He referred to two Bills that were passed last year, one the Diseases of Stock Bill. They recognised in dealing with diseases of stock and plants, or anything of that sort, they must have centralisation, because they were in every part of the Union, and it would be futile to attempt to deal with such matters except through central control, but under the reorganisation that was going on —or want of organisation—the whole system in the various Provinces had been broken down before anything new had been set up and established in their places. Administration was supposed to be looked after in the various agricultural schools and colleges in the country, but agricultural schools had been established for an entirely different principle; for the teaching of the youth of the country, and he maintained that it was impossible to expect the colleges to do the work. His idea of an agricultural department was a department from which experts moved about the country and came into touch with farmers, and urged them to go forward in general scientific farming; but that, unfortunately, was not taking place at the present moment. Why, he was not prepared to say, but the blame must be accepted by the right hon. gentleman who presided over that Department.

Now he (the speaker) took another thing. The right hon. gentleman, about two months ago, after dealing with this subject in the House, defended the action of the Department in taking away from the administration of the Agricultural Department the chemical department, and placing it under the administration of the Department of the Interior; and he said, in connection with that change, that it was largely and entirely due to his desire for economy; and that it was more economical to place the chemical department, which, in the past, especially in the Cape Province, had done such an enormous amount of good, under the Department of the Interior, than to leave it under the Department of Agriculture. What changes had taken place during the last two months? To-day they had laid upon the table Supplementary Estimates, and if hon. gentlemen studied them they would find that, notwithstanding this change, this entire break up of a procedure which was a great advantage to agriculture, they were now establishing another department of chemistry under the Department of Agriculture.

The best thing they could do.

Yes, the best thing they could do. I acknowledge that; but they should never have taken it away. They should never have taken away a machine that was carrying out most admirable investigations in the interests of this country. Proceeding, he said he would ask the committee if there was anything more necessary in a country of this sort, which was developing a more scientific system of agriculture than they had in the past, than a thoroughly equipped chemical department. They had in Dr. Juritz, in the Cape, a South African-born chemist of world-wide repute, who had done an enormous amount of good for the country in systematic soil investigation.

Was it of advantage that, under Union, this Department should be broken up and put under the Control of the Minister of the Interior, with police investigations and medical matters? Medico-legal work was not the work with which this department should be connected. He maintained that there was no country in the world which had not a thoroughly-equipped chemical department for carrying out the various investigations in connection with soils and fertilisers, and various experiments so necessary for scientific agriculture; and it was their duty to see that any funds at their disposal were utilised for the carrying out of agricultural chemical investigation. The right hon. gentleman would know that two months ago he raised the point. Therefore he thought that the arguments they then put forward had been accepted by the Government, when he saw on the Estimates the proposal to have a chemical department for the carrying out of investigations of soils. Then the right hon. gentleman seemed to think that there was an absolute unanimity of opinion among the farmers of the Free State with regard to his administration of the Agricultural Department, and he turned to the hon. member for the Border and told him that he would far sooner abide by the views of the representatives of the Free State who sat behind him than he would by any statement of the hon. member, supported even by a newspaper; though he (Sir T. W. Smartt) believed that the newspaper quoted was published at Bloemfontein, and was an official organ of the party of the Government that sat upon the Treasury benches. But he took nearer evidence.

Surely it was within the memory of the House that the thirteen stalwart gentlemen who represented the Free State were not entirely in accord with the Agricultural Department in connection with the Fencing Bill; for if they were, they would not have seen this extraordinary Bill, which had come from the Select Committee with far more stripes, showing where the amendments were, than there were pages of the Bill. And he would like to give his meed of praise to the representatives of the Free State, who were the body who insisted on doing this. It was not the representations that came from the Opposition, because they were in too small a minority, but it was the representations that came from the progressive farmers of the Free State, who considered they would not be doing their duty to the country if they did not insist that that Bill be altered. Consequently it was no use for the Right Hon. the Prime Minister to say that he had behind him the support of the people of the Free State in the progressive legislation which he had adopted. He did not want to misinterpret the right hon. gentleman. He claimed for the policy of his Department a most admirable phrase. He thought his absolute words were “Forwards, forwards, always forwards.” (Ministerial cheers.) Hon. members cheered. When his right hon. friend said that he thought of another quotation:

(Cheers and laughter.) That would be a much more appropriate quotation in connection with the forward policy of the Department which the right hon. gentleman gave to the House. (Opposition cheers.) Then his right hon. friend said this committee was most unjust. It had given him no credit for the vast saving he had effected. Well, he was so struck by that that he thought, with the assistance of his hon. friend (Mr. J. W. Jagger)—his vade mecum on financial matters—he would look out really the amount of savings that had been effected by the department. And he found that his right hon. friend claimed a saving for an enormous amount of money in the agricultural department. There had been effected practically no saving whatsoever. There had been £58,000 less on fencing.

asked by whom were these statistics compiled.

By the department over which the hon. member for Barberton a short time ago presided with such great administrative ability until that little rift in the lute placed my hon. friend in a position of less responsibility but more freedom. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he said that there was an item of £39,000 on dipping tanks; and the slaughtering of animals had been stopped, so that practically the savings of the Agricultural Department according to the memorandum he had there was £200,000, but that had entirely been due to services not now being carried out. He was not criticising fences being put up or animals being slaughtered then, because he recognised that there had been a period when it was not known what was the best thing to do to deal with that disease, and when slaughtering had been a good policy, but it was not a good policy if carried out in a hesitating manner; it must be carried through thoroughly. Since dipping had been used in regard to that disease he had every right to complain that under the administration of his right hon. friend East Coast fever had been allowed to encroach its ravages on the Cape Province as it would not have done had dipping been thoroughly and properly carried out. When his right hon. friend said that there had been justification for delay he forgot that the Select Committee had dealt with the Diseases of Stock Bill, and notwithstanding that the Bill had been introduced in March or April, the regulations had been published for the first time in October in the “Gazette,” and that having been done, they were altered in January and again in March; and during the first few weeks of the session the provisions with regard to simultaneous dipping had been absolutely and entirely withdrawn, which they had been told in the committee were of such great importance. His right hon. friend had accused them of not acting in a spirit of co-operation. Well, he did not know what his right hon. friend meant by that. They were quite prepared to cooperate with him in advancing a determined policy in dealing with the spread of diseases; but they were not prepared to embark on a spirit of co-operation when they went back from the fine principles which they had enunciated, owing to pressure of a political character or otherwise. The right hon. member had taken exception to what the hon. member for the Border (Mr. Blaine) had said as to the Agricultural Department giving way to political pressure, and he (General Botha) had said that in dealing with the Scab Act they must not show sympathy, but consideration. Their co-operation was consideration for the progressive farmers, who did their duty, and not consideration for those who did not do their duty, but trekked through the country with their cattle, spreading disease and ruin to their more progressive neighbours. (Hear, hear.) Proceeding, the hon. member said they had now arrived at a period of time when in the general interests and development of the country, the question of party would become of secondary importance. There was a large number of people in the country who were determined that progressive measures should not be rendered useless at the bidding of people who represented but a portion of the stock-holding farmers in the country. When he was in England last year he was asked his views upon the agricultural policy of the Government, and he replied that the Diseases of Stock Bill was one of the most advanced measures that had ever been introduced into any country, but, with a view of protecting himself, he had added that although the Bill was an admirable one it would be useless unless it was admirably administered. (Hear, hear.) He left it to the House to say whether he was not right in adding that proviso to his eulogy of the measure. The fact that owners of sheep trekking on account of the drought were not to be fined because their sheep were found scabby, or the sheep quarantined, simply made the Stock Diseases Bill useless.

Before he sat down he would ask his hon. friend the member for Hope Town to get up and say that the statements which he made were correct statements, and that he had received letters from farmers in the district complaining of the same state of affairs. The right hon. gentleman said the previous night that he (the speaker) was prepared to take steps regardless of the consequences that might ensue upon the population. That was an unworthy statement. He would quote to the committee the statement of the chairman of the Britstown Agricultural Society, which, numbered amongst its members 95 per cent. Dutch farmers as against English farmers, and when he made that statement he hoped his right hon. friend would get up and withdraw the insinuation which he had made that he (the speaker) wished to have legislation passed that would press heavily on one particular section of the people. They were arguments which were not worthy of the position which was held by his right hon. friend. He must say that he was grieved and annoyed at the statement which was made by the Prime Minister. It was a district where farmers were making great strides in developing the wool and pastoral resources of that part of the country, and owing to the faulty administration of the Scab Act many farmers had been ruined and were expressing their condemnation of the policy of the Government in the loudest manner possible. Let him tell hon. members in that House what had taken place. The trouble had been that the Act had never been carried out in a proper and determined manner.

Why?

My hon. friend asks why. When I was in office during the administration of the Jameson Government in the Cape Colony we felt so seriously on this subject that we determined that scab inspectors should be thoroughly efficient men, who were able to pass examinations, who knew their duty, and knew how to carry it out. I am sorry that these provisions have not been carried out since then. I hope that my hon. friend is satisfied.

No, I am not.

said his hon. friend’s idea was that a scab inspector carried out his duty when he fell in with the views of the people among whom he was working.

You are wrong.

went on to quote from a letter which he had received from the manager of his farm, and he hoped that after he had explained its contents to the House the hon. member for Hope Town would rise in his seat and say that he had received similar letters with similar statements from many of the people in the district. Continuing, the speaker quoted from the letter, which stated that 50 per cent of certain flocks had been found to be scabby. If one got an outbreak of scab amongst one’s sheep, the speaker continued, one was taunted with the cry that though one was in favour of scab legislation one could not keep scab from one’s own flocks. The letter went on to say that the Chief Scab Inspector had been in the district within the last fortnight, and that they had had to dip seven scabby flocks out of ten scabby flocks that were trekking. If ten were found, the Lord only knew how many were trekking about the country and had not been found.

These were troops that had passed over properties with which he was connected, and also over the properties of persons who were endeavouring to keep their flocks free from scab, and was it not a hopeless struggle on the part of the progressive farmers when they heard of such things? The president of the Britstown Agricultural Society had sent him a telegram on the subject. The telegram was unasked for. Mr. Bayley was one of the best-known sheep farmers in South Africa; his name was a household word wherever merino sheep breeders were gathered together; he had produced some of the finest stud sheep in the country, and he was a leading farmer in the Britstown district. He telegraphed as follows: “The following wire sent to the Minister of Agriculture to-day:’I must protest on behalf of the farmers of the Britstown district against so many scabby sheep being allowed to come into the district from other areas.’” Had the Minister of Agriculture received that telegram? And if he received it, did it not justify every word of condemnation he had offered in connection with the administration of the Agricultural Department? This was not a party matter. A large number of people were honestly desirous of developing the agricultural resources of the country, irrespective of party considerations. They were often chided with the fact that the wool of South Africa was not able to compete with the Australian wool in the markets of the world; he maintained that if the Scab Act were properly administered, the wool of the country would be able to compete with the wool from Australia. But the progressive farmer in this country had no opportunity, owing to the Department sympathetically administering the Act on behalf of a certain section, and not in the general interests of the country. Unless they spoke out strongly in the House, unless the progressive farmer stood up and insisted upon his rights, the wool industry would never be any better than it was. The progressive farmer, who kept his flock clean, was absolutely at the mercy of the unprogressive farmer. Under these circumstances, they were justified in protesting in the strongest manner possible against administration of this kind. Surely the right hon. gentleman, who, he believed, honestly desired to see the agricultural resources of the country developed, must recognise that the time had arrived when they wanted something more than words; they wanted action. He felt certain in 1894, when he had the honour of sitting in the Cape Parliament and had been the Chairman of the Scab Commission which inquired into the state of the disease, he had then stated what would take place in ten years’ time owing to the watering down of the Act, that they would have it hurled at them that they could not eradicate scab. With the aid of the Agricultural Department they would be able to rid the country of scab, but if they went on as they were now doing the state of the country would be no better in ten years’ time than it was now. With regard to the East Coast fever, he would not go into the question as to whether the Government should take its courage in both hands and go in for compulsory dipping; but he did want to point out that in this matter the position in Natal was again becoming serious and that farms that were clean were now getting the disease again. It was just the same as with scab. Unless they had qualified inspectors, who would see that the dip was of the proper strength, they would never eradicate fever ticks, or eradicate scab. He hoped the hon. Minister of Agriculture would see that only thoroughly qualified inspectors would be appointed and not have Field-cornets appointed for political considerations. Under the Animals and Diseases Act an inspector was supposed to be a man with sufficient knowledge of the disease and who would carry out his duties irrespective of persons. They all knew how difficult it would be for an inspector going to a house and receiving the hospitality which was characteristic of the South African farmer, to carry out his duties without fear or favour, and in all appointments inspectors should be sent to districts to which they were entire strangers. If the Act were administered in a proper manner the country would be quickly rid of the disease, but administered as it now was they were simply wasting thousands of pounds.

said the tendency of the speech of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had been “ruin the farmer.” God help the farmer, he said, if the hon. member for Fort Beaufort ever came in office. Every member opposite had cried over the retrenchment of Mr. Palmer, as if the salvation of the Free State depended upon Mr. Palmer. He denied this. He also denied that Bloemfontein constituted the Free State. Mr. Palmer had done certain good work, but he was not indispensable. He denied the statement that the whole of the Free State mourned over the retrenchment of Mr. Palmer. The petitions for Mr. Palmer had not been extensively signed, and three-quarters of the people were not even farmers. After the people were told that Mr. Palmer’s retrenchment was due to economy, everyone had been content. He maintained that the retrenchment of Mr. Morgan was quite justifiable, as the latter’s policy was ruinous towards farmers. In the speaker’s presence he had said that the Government need not be alarmed at the costs which were being incurred, as the fines obtained would be sufficient to pay them. He had filled his department with about six brothers-in-law and brothers. Only cine of his relatives was not in the department, and he was a journalist, who no doubt would have had a billet, too, but for the fact that he had to write in the newspapers to keep the agitation going. (Laughter.) He held it was useless taking any notice of what hon. members opposite said—let them blow off steam, and eventually they would be able to pass the vote. (Laughter.)

said that up to 11 o’clock most of the discussion had taken place upon the other side of the House. (Ministerial dissent.) His contention was that out of three hours, 2¾ were taken up by hon. gentlemen who sat opposite. Of course, he quite admitted that they were perfectly entitled to speak, but they were not entitled to monopolise discussion upon agriculture, neither was it right for them to shove this discussion into the early hours of the morning. The hon. member (Mr. Steyl) and the hon. member for Boshof had condemned the Government and they had condemned Mr. Morgan’s administration and his capacity. He would merely read two letters in reply. The speaker read a letter addressed to Mr. Morgan, stating that the Government wished to place on record their appreciation of his past services, which had been faithfully and conscientiously performed, and this was signed by F. B. Smith. (Opposition laughter.) The second letter, which also paid a high tribute to the work of Mr. Morgan, was signed “Abraham Fischer.” (Opposition laughter.) He would leave the committee to decide whether it would accept the testimony of the right hon. gentleman or not. One reason hon. members on the other side must get out of the idea that they must have the monopoly on the agricultural vote was this. It was one of the largest—if not the largest—spending department of the State, and it was the smallest earning department. One could talk on it as a taxpayer as well as a farmer, because one contributed very heavily to it. Personally, he had always upheld this large contribution, and he would continue to do so. But they had to justify this expenditure from year to year, and he did not think that some of this expenditure was justified. As regarded the value. There had been considerable expenditure on the Scab Act. A little time ago—about a month or so—he took the liberty of working out certain figures with a view of comparing the progress that had been made. He found that the products of the wool industry had barely doubled during the last thirty-five years, and the country whose sheep came to this country was turning out wool to an enormous value. He thought that country had now ninety million sheep, and if they sought for information they would find that there were large flocks of 10,000 sheep or more where each sheep averaged 10 lbs. of wool. What was more, they got a price far above the price which the farmers got here. Anyone looking at these figures would come to the conclusion that something was wrong. It might not be entirely due to the scab business or the want of enterprise, but it was perfectly clear that there was something wrong. That this sympathetic administration of the Scab Act was unwise and unkind he had not the slightest doubt, because it was perfectly clear that there were those who would not, or could not, keep their flocks free from scab. If they could not keep their flocks clean, or lacked the means to do so, then they ought not to own flocks, because they were a danger to the rest of the community. The other night the Prime Minister said that some people would prefer a dead sheep to a scabby sheep. Well, he was one of them. He preferred a dead sheep to a scabby sheep, because it was one sheep that was dead, but a scabby sheep was going to ensure 100 dead sheep.

Dip them.

Then they were not scabby sheep. Last session his hon. friend who had interrupted him led the brigade that resisted the Scab Act and the Animal Diseases Act.

You are wrong.

Well, my hon. friend took a very gallant and very prominent part in the fight. Proceeding, he said that, with the assistance of hon. members on his (the speaker’s) side of the House, the Prime Minister put up a first-class fight, and carried both measures. But what the Opposition felt was that during the recess there was a slump. The policy suffered a slump. Everyone knew that throughout the country there had been the greatest uncertainty and dissatisfaction about applying the Scab Act. They all felt uneasy, and he said that as long as they were going to permit unclean flocks to trek through the country, as long as they gave them facilities to travel by rail, as long as they made markets for people who were a danger to the country, they were not going to do any good for the benefit of the country. And to put a stop to all this sort of thing did not mean the persecution of the farmer. It was ridiculous to say it was. A fair policy could be carried out intelligently, and, if they liked, sympathetically and with consideration; but it must be carried out with firmness, otherwise they were not going to get any return for the enormous sums of money that were being spent. He said it was right that they should spend large sums, because this was not a country in which the agricultural resources of the country developed, so to speak, by themselves. There were difficulties; something had got to be done, and lots of disease had got to be overcome. They were taxing the mining industry right up to the hilt; they were getting money from that industry directly to help another. True it was wanted to put the country on a sound foundation, but they should, for Heaven’s sake, see that the money was properly spent and a reasoned policy consistently carried out.

As regards compulsory dipping, they emphasised, eighteen months ago, what had taken place, and what must inevitably have taken place. He named the districts, and traced that East Coast fever from Natal, through the Native Territories, right down to East London. Eighteen months before it came he appealed to the Government and the Prime Minister to put in force compulsory dipping, and said, and would say again, that if they did not do it it would come down to Cape Town. It would come down. And it was idle to talk about making the Transvaal clean. It was clean —of cattle; but not of ticks. And any native coming up from Natal, or any person walking through an infected area, could carry infection, and they would have it blaze up again. Let them take warning. They should not believe because they were on the Karoo or because they were on the 6,000 ft. level as he was—he did not believe it. He had two dips on his farm, and had been dipping for nearly twelve months. The hon. member for Harrismith, his nearest neighbour, knew that it had been very near to them, and it could come up at any time. They should not believe because they were on a six thousand feet plateau they would not get this disease—it might come up at any time, and they might have it on this coast. They would get it right in Cape Town. There was only one wise course to adopt, and that was dipping. The Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior had said they could not do the work for individuals. They gave them advice and facilities, but they could not do their work. If these people had not sufficient intelligence to take precautions the Government could not take them for them. The Prime Minister said that the Opposition would be the first to accuse them of giving doles if this were done. Who were the first to suggest dipping tanks? He could not say who was the first, but he suggested that during the first session, and named the sum of one million to do it with, and named the terms on which it should be done, and advised the Prime Minister to give the country a year’s warning that this compulsory dipping was going to be put into force. Where was the year? Gone. Where are the cattle? Gone. Where was the disease? At present it was the only thing that was left. He had seen the cattle dying all through the territories last year. Warnings had been issued by responsible people, and he knew of the appeals that were made, but where was compulsory dipping. It had not taken place. He did not want to go on nagging about all sorts of little details in regard to this vote, but he had to protest that there was a want of resolution and conviction about the policy of the Agricultural Department. It was impossible to condone or justify the irresolution, the vacillation, and the floundering of this Department. It was not right. Ever since he had sat on Lord Milner’s nominated Council he had supported and advocated the policy of scientific agricultural development. To-day it was justified, but what was lacking? The resolution, the lead, the control by Government, and the enterprise by the people.

It was the Government’s duty in cases of that kind to compel, as they compelled people to be vaccinated. What was the good of barring the roads? They found the cattle trekking just the same. The system of lobola itself would account for the disease throughout the districts where the natives moved. If natives were going to buy their wives no fences would stop them. The remedy was in the dip, and that was the only sure remedy. He had been advised to get up and say in Parliament, that so far as spraying was concerned they might as well spit on the cattle. He did say that, for he thought it was playing the fool. Speaking of Natal, he mentioned certain farmers who started dipping. Many bought herds and started dipping. They lost no more, and instead of losing 95 per cent of their calves, they did not lose any. They did not hear either of a number of other diseases. Was it necessary to keep on making these appeals? Men who directed the Department knew and believed in dipping, and he believed the Right Hon. the Prime Minister himself in his own heart believed in it, too. There was no policy properly carried out, and therefore they did not get a fair return for the sums of money that were spent on agriculture.

expressed the opinion that under the Administration of the present Premier greater progress had been recorded than ever before. That was the best answer to the criticism made. He wished, however, to express his regret at the decrease in the vote for dry farming, which was against the resolution of the Dryland Farming Congress. They were asked to vote large sums for other less essential purposes. He hoped the Minister of Agriculture would in future alter this and would also make more provision for the establishment of experimental stations which would be for the benefit of the whole country.

asked whether his right hon. friend would agree to take vote (2) and then report progress. He himself had some questions to ask; and it was getting late. It was now 10 minutes to 12.

said that if they did what the hon. member suggested, what good would all that discussion have done? He thought that they were to have the general discussion, and then put the whole vote. Much had been said that evening, and he hoped that they would finish that vote, as they would not sit for the next three nights. They had much business to do, and little time was left. He trusted that they would get on.

explained what had been the understanding on the side of the Opposition the previous evening, and he thought it would be better to take vote (a), and close the whole of the general discussion. As far as he and hon. members on his side of the House were concerned, they wanted to close the discussion, but wanted an opportunity of asking any question of the right hon. Minister which might arise. That was the position.

said the hon. member for Bloemfontein had repeated the allegation that he (the Minister) had not offered Mr. Palmer an appointment. If be allowed that to pass without notice, he would afterwards be charged with having done violence to the truth. When Mr. Smith wrote to Mr. Palmer, the speaker asked Mr. Palmer to come to Cape Town, and told that gentleman he would gladly keep him in the Department. Mr. Palmer then asked what position could be offered. He (the Minister) made it clear that the Secretary had already been appointed, together with the Under Secretary, so that the third position could be offered to Mr. Palmer. He (the Minister) was ready to group a number of sections together, and to place Mr. Palmer at the head of them. Mr. Palmer was unable to accept that position, as he did not desire to rank under the Under Secretary. Mr. Palmer then went home, and sent a letter making it clear that he wanted to have control of the whole Department, which, of course, it was impossible to agree to. The fact, therefore, that Mr. Palmer was no longer in the service of the Department was not due to the speaker, but was due to Mr. Palmer. He (the Minister) had immediately afterwards acquainted his colleagues with the position of affairs. He had hoped that no doubt would have been cast on his former statement. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had stated that it was wrong to administer the Department through the agricultural schools. Those schools, however, had nothing whatever to do with administration. Experts were attached to them, and they instructed the pupils and gave advice to the surrounding farmers. The system was not new, but was in general use, particularly in America. If they were to set up sections of the Department in all the leading places, it would result in heavy expenses. With regard to the chemical work of agriculture, that had not been abolished, but was placed under the Department of the Interior, Dr. Juritz remaining in control. That new arrangement had been made with a view to economy. If a chemist had now to be sent out to examine the water in a given district, he could at the same time examine the different sorts of soil and do other chemical work. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort complained that the experts did not go about sufficiently. The fact was that they were never in their office, but on the move continually. The hon. member had also made a violent attack on the carrying out of the scab regulations. The speaker could only repeat that there were different parts of the country where the people were poor, and where they could only exist on sheep breeding He (the Minister) had visited those districts, and examined into the conditions which prevailed there. He had long ago been asked for permission to trek the sheep, but had repeatedly refused. From the replies to telegrams sent to Magistrates, it appeared that the condition was very serious. In some districts there was an absolute lack of water. He had sent the chief of the sheep section to the place to inquire into the facts and to do what was necessary. When, however, that official arrived there, some of the people with their sheep had gone away. Only in case of urgency, and under the severest restrictions, was trekking allowed. The official would presently return, and then the speaker would be able to give full information as to what had taken place. Scab could and would have to be eradicated, and those who were not willing to help in doing that must be forced to do it. He had always been in favour of the principle of compulsory dipping, but, on the advice of the most progressive farmers, had not yet applied it. Even the late Chief Inspector at the Cape, Mr. Davidson, found as a result of inquiry that compulsory dipping was not yet practicable. It was not a bit of good publishing proclamations when there were not sufficient officials to supervise. If the Estimates were agreed to, they would be able to appoint a number of temporary inspectors, who could look after the dipping. He regretted that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had disapproved of a letter being sent to him in connection with the appointment of an inspector. Somebody had to be appointed, but as the Department knew nobody there, the speaker’s advice was to ask the assistance of the hon. member. If the hon. member did not approve of that it would not be done again. He also regretted that the hon. member had made an undeserved attack on the field-cornets, believing, as he did, that if the hon. member knew those people he would never have made it. They were good and capable men, but solely because they bore Dutch names they were constantly being attacked. Many of them during the recent war had been officers, and that seemed to be the greatest trouble in the eye of the hon. member for Turffontein. But for that the men in question had not the slightest cause to be ashamed. And then the field-cornets were described as political agents, and that they were not. There were political officials to whom he could point, but had never criticised them. In his view the officials should enjoy the support of all hon. members. He concluded by inviting the cooperation of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort to help in the advancement of their agricultural policy.

moved that the sub-heads of the vote be taken seriatim.

at 12.20 drew the attention of the House to the fact that it was Union Day. They were sitting on a public holiday, and he asked if it was satisfactory that they should go on.

thought they had discussed the matter long enough, and they should deal with the vote as a whole, as was suggested on the previous day by the leader of the Opposition.

denied that, and referred the hon. gentleman to the reports in either of the morning papers.

It was decided to take the items of the vote seriatim.

Sub-head A, Administration and general, having been agreed to,

suggested that progress be reported.

said there were some details in regard to finance that he would like to ask about, but he did not think they should discuss the matter at that time of the night.

moved that progress be reported.

The motion was agreed to with cheers, and leave given to sit again on Monday.