from F. J. Smallman, clerk in Railway Administration.

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

These Estimates were referred to Committee of Supply.

Return of licences and rentals waived under the Mineral Law Amendment Act No. 16 of 1907 (Cape).

moved for leave to introduce a Bill to regulate and determine the Financial Relations which shall exist between the Union and the Provinces, to provide for the transference of certain additional functions and powers to Provincial Councils and for other purposes.

seconded.

asked whether it was the serious intention of the Government to go on with this important measure during the present session?

said yes, that was the intention of the Government. The Provinces were waiting most anxiously for this measure, and the intention of the Government was to put it through.

said if that were done it would be nothing less than a travesty of Parliamentary work. The Minister’s assurance regarding the urgency of that measure lost a little weight through the fact that a similar plea had been urged several times that session with regard to measures which, after all, were not to be proceeded with. The country wanted to know something more detailed regarding the Government’s proposal than those contained in the sketchy remarks of the Minister of Finance. He (Mr. Creswell) hoped there would be the very strongest protest made against proceeding with a most important measure like that in a tired House at the end of the session. If it were a matter of urgency let Government adjourn Parliament and have a special session to deal with the Bill.

Nonsense.

said the Prime Minister stated the other day that he intended to carry a whole list of Bills. Two of those were very important—the Public Service Bill and the Railway Service Bill, and they would require very considerable discussion. The Financial Relations Bill was perhaps the biggest introduced this session, and it required most careful consideration. It would affect the taxation of the whole of the people of the country, it dealt with the relations of all the Provinces with the Central Government, and affected every department of public life. Personally, he would not mind if the Government would make up its mind and keep Parliament together for another six weeks, so that legislation could be dealt with in a proper manner, but he heard that the House was to adjourn on the 21st inst. If there was any such intention to rush the work of Parliament through then there was no justification whatever for introducing that measure at this stage of the session. (Opposition cheers.)

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

moved that the second reading be set down for Monday.

seconded.

Mr. Speaker, can I move an amendment on that? Can I propose as an amendment that the Bill be read a second time this day six weeks?

The House is at liberty to fix any date.

Well, I move that the Bill be read a second time this day six weeks. That will give the House time to adjourn for a month and then meet specially to consider the Bill, and so transact the business of the country in the way in which the business of the country should be transacted.

seconded the amendment.

The amendment was put and declared negatived.

called for a division.

Monday next is far too short a time—

A division has been called.

The division was taken with the following result:

moved that the Bill be read a second time on Monday, the 17th inst.

seconded.

said he thought it would be reasonable if the Minister would give a little longer time, and he would suggest that the second reading be taken on Thursday or Friday of next week. At any rate, the Minister should give the House a little longer time.

said he could assure hon. members that there was really very little, except minor details, in the Bill, beyond what was stated in the Budget speech of his hon. friend behind him (Mr. Hull). Furthermore, hon. members had had the report of the Financial Relations Commission before them for months as well as the statement of his hon. friend, and he did not think that at this late date of the session it was necessary to give more time than was allowed by his motion.

put the question that the Bill be read a second time on the 17th inst., and declared that the “Noes” had it.

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

moved that the following be a standing order for the remainder of the session: “That from and after Friday, the 7th inst., the House at its rising every Friday stand adjourned until Saturday, at 10 o’clock a.m., that Government business have precedence on Saturdays, and that Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Committees, as the case may be, do suspend business at 1 o’clock p.m. until a quarter past 2 o’clock p.m. on such days.”

seconded.

said the House was entitled to some explanation by the right hon. gentleman in putting forward such a motion. After what they had just experienced he could not help thinking that it was the intention of the Government to cover that Assembly with ridicule, because the procedure adopted by the Government was such as would certainly make the public think such was the intention. He had never seen such procedure before. If it were the intention of the Government to end the session within a reasonable time, such a procedure would have been permissible to allow of third readings. When the right hon. gentleman informed the House a few minutes previously that it was the intention to sit on and not to adjourn on the 21st, and now to propose that they should sit on Saturdays, it would seem that it was only done to pass measures without the intention of discussing them. The Minister of the Interior had given notice of one of the most important measures it was possible to bring forward—a measure that had been referred to in the Governor-General’s Speech, a measure for the adjustment of the financial relationships between the Provinces and the Union. This Bill was not before the House and hon. members had no opportunity of seeing it. Having sat every day and night up to Friday, and then being asked to sit on Saturday and to take that Bill on Monday, was simply opera bouffe legislation. They wanted to know the provisions under which the finances of the country were going to be established. Was the Government adopting a policy of getting certain measures through and not considering other Bills. He objected also to sitting on Saturday, because the Public Service Bill had not yet been considered, and he hoped the Government were not going to carry on without such an important matter being put on the Statute-book. There were other important matters which the Right Hon. the Prime Minister referred to the other day. There were the Estimates, the loans, and various other measures to be introduced, and he asked was it fair if they were going on with these measures to work the House in this way, and sit night and day, and then add Saturday. It was utterly impossible to consider the questions before the House under these conditions, and he protested against such an undignified manner of conducting business. They would not be doing their duty to the country or to Parliament without raising a protest against this.

said he anticipated that this would be what would happen, because the Government relying upon a majority, relying upon members of Parliament desirous of getting to their homes, would simply turn Parliament into a registering machine. If they wanted to pass this legislation which was very necessary, then let it be subject to a special session of Parliament. (Ministerial dissent.) Hon. members opposite were too anxious to get away. (Cries of “No.”) If the House really wanted to deal with these measures they had no justification either to the public or the Parliament to rush them through a tired House, and he would appeal to the Prime Minister to adjourn for a month and then sit again in two or three months’ time.

said he very much regretted that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had got so heated on the question of Saturday sittings. The hon. member always liked to pass as one who devoted his whole time to the interests of the country, and the speaker could not understand the hon. member’s attitude now that they wished to take up his holiday for the benefit of the country. All members were here in Cape Town now, and now it was argued that they had no time to read through these measures. Practically all the Select Committees had concluded their labours, and hon. members who formerly had had to sit on the Select Committees in the forenoon would now be able to devote these mornings to studying these measures. Therefore it was not so essential now to have Saturday as a holiday. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, even, would admit that if he did not devote his mornings to his private business he would be quite able to make himself acquainted with all these measures. (Hear, hear.) He (the Prime Minister) took exception to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort’s remarks that the Government were making an “Opera Bouffe” of this House. A good deal of unnecessary discussion had been indulged in this session, discussion which could not be said to have been for the interest of the country. (Hear, hear.) That was a matter which touched the dignity of this House—the sacrificing of time to unnecessary discussion. He was always prepared to give more time to discuss necessary business and never wished to force anything. Hon. members would agree that large and important measures were usually dealt with much quicker in other countries such as England, though in that country there were far more members of Parliament. The hon. member would admit that there was no forcing or steam-rolling indulged in. The intention was not to sit later than one o’clock on Saturdays. They did not propose to sit in the afternoons, except perhaps on the last day of the session—(hear, hear)—when it might be necessary to meet for the transmission of messages to the other place. He had introduced this motion in its present form, so as not to be obliged to introduce a fresh motion later on. The intention, however, was to adjourn systematically at one o’clock. “As regards the work before the House”—proceeded the Prime Minister—“I want to appeal to both sides of the House. We have already been in session four months and have entered on our fifth month. I earnestly hope that we shall be able to conclude by the end of this month. I do not see how we can possibly finish on the 21st of this month. I can assure my hon. friend, however, that it is my intention not to rise here until the Public Service Bill has been concluded, even if we have to sit until the middle of next month. We want to uphold the dignity of this House and not make a farce of it. (Hear, hear.) Therefore I hope no unnecessary discussions will be indulged in in future.” (Ministerial cheers.)

said that his hon. friend had stated that he wished to take Saturdays in the interests of the country. It was precisely in the interests of the country that they objected to sit on Saturdays. (Hear, hear.) Some of them were sitting there now from a little after 10 in the morning up till midnight, and they were doing that day after day until Friday. Their contention was that if the House were called together on Saturday morning, the members were not in a fit state to do their duty to the country, for they got jaded men, and men who were tired out by their work. Therefore, he urged it was reasonable to adjourn on Friday night, and give the House two days’ rest per week. He should not have objected if the right hon. gentleman had asked them to sit on the last Saturday of the session, but to come back every Saturday at this stage was not a reasonable proposition, or a proposition in the interests of the country. The right hon. gentleman had complained about long speeches on the agricultural vote, but he would remind him that he spoke on that subject for two hours, and that he must not complain if other people, who were as strongly interested in the agricultural progress of this country as he was himself, took some time to bring before Parliament their views of the administration. The right hon. gentleman had also expressed the hope that discussion would be brief, and all the rest of it. He could only say that they would have to insist upon a proper discussion of the proposals that were put before them. The right hon. gentleman had stated that the House would not sit on Saturday afternoons, but even this proposition would prevent members from getting away from town for two full days.

said he felt that on Saturdays they would not be able to devote the attention to legislation that they ought to give, after sitting until midnight five days in the week. He felt himself that if he had Saturday and Sunday off, he came back on Monday refreshed. The measures that had been passed during the session had, to a large extent, been put into shape through the help of that side of the House. (Ministerial dissent.) There had been a tendency to bring in tentative measures, badly-drawn measures, and these had had to be entirely remodelled once they had been introduced. It seemed to him that the policy of the Government was to bring in hasty measures, and by that means find out, not only what was the opinion of that side of the House, but also the opinion of the Ministerial side, and shape their legislation accordingly. That (Mr. Schreiner declared) was the old Transvaal custom—the old Republican custom. (Cries of “No” and “Withdraw.”)

said that the hon. member was travelling wide of the motion.

said that that seemed to him to be the policy of the Government.

said that hasty legislation meant bad legislation, and he foresaw the time when a few years hence they would require amending Bills. He hoped, if this motion were passed, that the Prime Minister would, for the convenience of all concerned, substitute half-past two for a quarter-past two. He moved an amendment accordingly.

in seconding the amendment, said that while he was opposed to Saturday sittings, if they must have Saturday sittings, he hoped the Government would meet them to that extent. He referred to the great strain on the officials and the Press representatives.

moved to omit “until 2.15 p.m.” He said he thought, if they must sit on Saturdays at all, it was quite long enough to sit until 1 o’clock.

said that it was almost impossible to fix the moment when the House might adjourn, but the adjournment under the rules was always in the hands of the House. He could not take the amendment of the hon. member for Durban.

The amendment of Mr. Nathan was negatived.

appealed to the Prime Minister to withdraw “this Saturday morning business.” (Ministerial cries of “No.”) Only yesterday—and it was an occurrence which happened very frequently when members on the cross-benches were endeavouring to put before the House their point of view in regard to a Bill of the most vital importance to those they represented—they were frequently twitted with the fact that they were taking up the time of the House. They were told to shorten their speeches in order to get the business through, and that they were running the risk of wrecking the Bill simply because there was no time to pass it. It appeared to him that Government had, in caucus, decided on a day for the adjournment—(Ministerial cries of “No” and “Quite wrong”)—and then endeavoured to fix as many sitting days in the week as possible. He wished to enter a most emphatic protest against that method of ruling the country. They were sent there to express their views with regard to legislation, and they had the right to take up as much time as they liked. (Ministerial dissent.) However, if they had a month’s rest they could come back—(renewed Ministerial dissent)—and discuss all the measures in the best possible way. All the hon. members opposite were concerned with was to get back to their homes. There was another point of view which had not been considered. The hon. member for Newlands had referred to the reporting of the proceedings, but there was the matter of printing, and it might be news to hon. members to know that at present the printing houses were busily engaged on Saturday afternoons and Sundays endeavouring to cope with the Parliamentary printing. If the House sat on Saturdays, and especially on Saturday afternoons, what time would there be to have the printed matter ready so that it could be in hon. members’ hands on Monday morning? These men should be thought of. The idea of Saturday sittings was absolutely ridiculous. Did the Prime Minister deny that Government intended to sit in the afternoons as well as in the mornings on Saturday? Was the House to sit until midnight on Saturdays? (Ministerial cries of “Yes.”) He supposed those who said “yes” would go home, “and will leave it to us honest legislators to put through the business.”

said the Prime Minister had made a somewhat unfair reference to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), who the Prime Minister said attended to his business in the mornings, and added that that was the reason why the hon. member could not read Bills in the morning. (A MINISTERIAL MEMBER: “He never said that.”) There was a most distinct sneer. (Ministerial cries of “No.”) The hon. member for Cape Town was there every morning on the Public Accounts Committee. Then another statement had been made as to the time being wasted in the early part of the session by hon. members on the Opposition side of the House, but he could prove that throughout the first three and a half months of the session that for every speech made on the Opposition side two were made on the Government side. (Opposition cheers.) If hon. members on the Government benches had gone in for a little less discussion the House might have done more work. Then the Ministers were the greatest time-wasters. Could they imagine any Bill upon which more time had been wasted than the Fencing Bill? The House had a long discussion on it in its original form. Then it was brought in in another form, arid more discussion ensued, and then when the time came for the consideration of amendments the Minister moved two pages of them. Conduct of that sort was time wasted. (Opposition cheers.)

The motion of the Prime Minister was put and declared carried.

called for a division.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask your ruling whether the motion is one that will not add expense in the extra hours of the attendants and so on.

I cannot listen to the hon. member. If the matter arises out of the vote he can put the question after the division.

The division was taken with the following result:

moved, pursuant to notice: That the following be a new clause, to follow clause thirty-nine, viz.: 40. Whenever a line of railway traverses a holding the owner of the line shall, except in such areas as the Governor-General may by proclamation in the “Gazette” exempt from the operation of this section, erect and maintain at his own expense a sufficient fence on both sides of the line with level crossings at every place where a recognised public road traverses the line and at any other place that may be reasonably necessary to enable stock to traverse the line from one part of the holding to the other: Provided that in the case of crossings required at any such other place after the commencement of this Act, the owner of the holding shall pay one half the cost. Gates shall be erected of such number and structure in any such fence as may be agreed between the owner of the line and the owner of the holding, or in default of agreement, as may be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Third Schedule to this Act. For the purposes of this section “owner of the line” shall, in the case of any railway line of the South African Railways, mean the Railway Administration of the Union, and in the case of any private line of railway shall mean the person or company recognised by law as the owner. He said that there was some doubt as to how far the Bill as it stood now would affect fencing which was done and was being done at present by the Railway Department, and to prevent confusion this clause was proposed to be inserted.

What is the law at present?

The practice now is that the Railway Department fences their own lines, but, of course, after this Bill comes into operation it might be that the cost would have to be divided between the owner whose land adjoined the railway and the Railway Department. The Railway Department are the owners of a strip of expropriated land and the owners fairly argue that unless this amendment were introduced the cost would be divided between the Railway Department and the owner. That was not intended in the Bill, and therefore it was proposed to safeguard the present position by saying that whenever a line of railway traversed a holding the owner of the line should, except in such areas as the Governor-General might by proclamation in the “Gazette” exempt, erect and maintain at his own expense a sufficient fence on both sides of the line. The clause included gates over all public roads. Hon. members would see that there would also be fences at such points as were necessary to allow an owner to get from one part of his property to another, but in case of crossings at any such other place the owner of the property should pay one-half of the cost. This amendment was a reasonable one and he hoped that the House would agree to it. The amendment which was proposed to be moved by the hon. member for Bechuanaland also seemed quite reasonable. It stated that all fences erected along the lines by the railways prior to this Act should remain entirely a charge on the railways, and that they should keep them in repair without calling upon the owners of the adjoining lands. It was a reasonable amendment and he had no objection to it.

seconded the Minister’s amendment.

said that the position now was that the Railway Department were not compelled to do the fencing, but they could if they liked, and, as a matter of fact, they did. But had an owner of property the right under this Act to demand that the Railway Department should fence?

If it is proclaimed.

And if the Governor-General does not exempt by proclamation, then the Railway Department does not fence?

The Governor-General may exempt an area.

But area is not defined and the point is whether an owner has the right to say to the Railway Department, “You are coming through my property, you must fence.” At present an owner has not got that right, and I want to know if it is intended by this clause to give it to him.

moved a proviso to the Minister’s amendment that in line 12, after “cost,” to insert “and provided further that all fences erected along a railway line prior to this Act coming into operation shall be maintained and kept in repair by the owner of the line.”

seconded.

What is the practice in connection with this amendment moved by the hon. member for Bechuanaland? Will it mean additional expenditure?

It simply embodies in the law what is the practice now. At present the railways fence their own line.

said that when this question was raised in the Transvaal Parliament the Minister himself refused to undertake the liability of fencing the railway lines. The Minister said so in reply to a question which he (the speaker) put to him. He said that there was no obligation upon the railways to do the fencing. As a matter of fact, they did not do it, and there was neither custom nor law to compel them to do so.

Whatever the practice of the Railway Department may be, I must look to the procedure of the House, and I am clearly of the opinion that this proviso of the hon. member for Bechuanaland imposes a duty upon the Government. It may be that the Government do it at present, but they do it voluntarily, but if this amendment is put and agreed to it imposes a legislative obligation and increases expenditure, and therefore I am not prepared to accept it. It may be that no harm will be done, but the fact remains that if this amendment is put in it forces the Government to do it, and therefore imposes a burden upon the Government which no private member can introduce.

said that he would like to suggest to the Minister to defer the third reading in order to get the consent of the Crown.

said that he would also suggest that the Minister defer the third reading of the Bill Up to the last moment they had been having improvements, and as the House was going to sit for some weeks—

The hon. member must confine himself to the amendment before the House.

said that it seemed to him that this was going to throw an enormous increase of expenditure on the Railway Administration Under the amendment, it might be possible for landowners along the main lines to demand that the Railway Department fence on both sides of the line. (Ministerial cries of “Quite right.”) That showed how the amendment was regarded by hon. members who were most interested in the matter. He would like to point out to these hon. members that the State, in building railways through their properties, considerably increased the value of their properties. Hon. members were constantly clamouring for railways, and as soon as they got them, they wished to impose additional obligations on the State. (Ministerial cries of “Quite right.”) He could see, without any further interruption, what the temper of the hon. members opposite was in regard to this matter, and in what direction the Government would be pressed. This amendment went further than the existing law.

I am not going to put the amendment of the hon. member for Bechuanaland.

said that he totally disagreed with the new clause. He wished to point out that hon. members on the Ministerial benches were opposed to the State contributing a certain amount of money for the benefit of men suffering from miners’ phthisis, but when a suggestion was made to take money from the taxpayers of the country for the benefit of landowners, it was met with a chorus of approval and cheers on that side of the House. Did they not hear frequently petitions asking for railways to be built in this or that locality of the country? It seemed to him that it was to the benefit of landowners that railways should be built through their properties, and yet those who benefited as the result of their land being enormously appreciated had the effrontery to come forward with the suggestion that the railways should go further and fence their lands, in order that their stock might not stray on the railway. The very least they could do was to pay half To his mind, he considered it would be only fair if they paid the whole cost. They were the people who benefited by this national expenditure.

hoped the new clause would be agreed to, as it was only fair that the Administration should fence its lines. The building of a railway increased the value of a farm, unless a station was built on it.

The new clause was agreed to.

that the Bill be read a third time.

said that he thought it advisable that they should hold over the Bill for a few weeks longer. Experience showed them that so long as the Bill was before them its defects would be remedied and the Bill generally improved. It was so easy to improve upon the measure, but once the House parted with it it would have some difficulty in making those improvements which hon. members continued to discover. He saw no reason to think that they had made the final improvements, and he would suggest to the Minister that he defer the third reading for a few weeks longer. (Laughter.)

said he would appeal to the Minister to defer the third reading. If the Bill went through without his proviso, the Railway Department would be entitled to call upon the owners to pay half the expense of the fencing, and the owners would be in a very much worse position than they were today. There was no hurry for the passing of the measure, and he would suggest that the Minister obtain the consent of the Crown.

No further amendment can be accepted now on this Bill. Anything that has to be done must be done in another place.

said that it was made perfectly clear in the most eloquent and emphatic manner that they were not going to undertake additional obligations of finance, but they wanted something more from the Hon. the Minister who was in charge of the Finance Bill. This was simply a travesty of legislation. It was perfectly easy for them to say that they could easily go on. Perhaps there was another Cabinet crisis going on. Who was in charge of the Bill? He did not see the Right Hon. the Prime Minister present.

I am in charge of the Bill.

Well, I quite understand the right hon. gentleman is the Pooh Bah of the Government, and now he is understudy for the Minister of Agriculture. I quite admire my hon. friend for the manner in which he takes upon himself the work of others. (Laughter.) Continuing, the hon. member said that they ought to allow the Bill to stand over till the Right Hon. the Prime Minister came back. They might have another treat. They might have another series of amendments brought in. This Bill was a farce. It was a sketchy Bill, there were 17 amendments. 20 amendments, pages of amendments, in fact, and now another one brought in at the last stage.

said that it was a somewhat different policy laid down in the Transvaal, but now they were in Union. In some of the Provinces of the Union like his own Province it was necessary for the railway line to be fenced.

And farms also.

Yes, and farms. He assured his hon. friend the member for Bechuanaland that no difficulty would arise on account of this Bill. The railway would be responsible for the total cost of this fencing. The owners of the farms would be made to contribute. As he had already informed his hon. friend he had no objection to the amendment, but it was not necessary, and it would not make the slightest difference in the Bill. Under these circumstances he appealed to his hon. friend not to delay the passing of the Bill.

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

said that the Minister had made a statement with regard to the finance proposals, but he had not said anything regarding what proportion was to be taken that year, but that the Government would finance the Board as required. He could not finance it without asking Parliament.

said that the intention was to take the authority now and to pay out of the general revenue, the intention being to replace this from the amount received from the bewaarplaatsen fund.

said that the section, as he understood, gave the Board no power to go against this £100,000, except so far as might be required to make up the difference between a quarter’s profit of any mine and assessment made on that particular mine.

said that what the hon. member for Fordsburg said was exactly what the committee intended, and that was quite clear by sub-section 3. There would be a nest egg of some £30.000 of the present fund to go on with. This would enable them to go on for about six weeks, and then they would have the levy to come in.

said it was clear that the Acting Minister of Finance was going to have to find the £100,000. They would have to take an extra vote for that. The deficit for the year would thus be increased by £100,000.

said he hoped that hon. members would not raise unnecessary obstacles to the Bill. Whatever position Parliament might take with regard to the bewaarplaatsen fund, there was no question at all that half of it under any circumstances went to the Government. That half was more than £100,000, and it was available.

Where?

You have got to allocate it. We shall take steps in the House to put that straight.

pointed out that the last valuation of the bewaarplaatsen was £170,000, and it was now likely to be more. He did not agree with the Minister in regard to taking this money out of ordinary expenditure, because they only swelled the ordinary expenditure for the year, and increased the deficit for the year. It was better to take it direct from the moneys lying in the Treasury in connection with the bewaarplaatsen.

said that the hon. member for Barberton had declined to put this money into a separate fund, and he presented his Estimates showing it in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Then he told them, before resigning office, that, in deference to representations, he supposed, from somewhere, he had taken steps to put this money into a separate account. If he had done this, the Consolidated Revenue Account was diminished by that amount, and steps would have to be taken to regularise it.

The best way to do it would be by a Bill.

said that as soon as they could touch the bewaarplaatsen fund, there would be no question as to the money; but if they began to allocate that money now, they would raise the whole question. It was, after careful consideration by the Treasury, thought this was the best form in which it could be done. They would ask Parliament before the end of this session to appropriate £100,000 for this fund. If they could take it out of the bewaarplaatsen fund, they would do it; if not, they would finance it on the Supplementary Estimates, and recoup themselves out of the bewaarplaatsen fund afterwards. The Transvaal had already earmarked this fund, and said that the money should be utilised for the redemption of debt. They would have to repeal that Act of the Transvaal, and go into the whole question of what was to be done with the money. He thought the House would agree with him that, under the circumstances, it was not advisable to go into the question of the bewaarplaatsen now.

said that his hon. friend the Minister, he was afraid, was not well informed on this question. Would he be surprised to learn that the Government, utterly disregarding this Transvaal Act, “snaffled,” if he might say so, this money and the Treasurer boasted that he had got it in his surplus, and it was only by the efforts of the Public Accounts Committee, working on the Treasurer’s conscience, that that sensitive organ at once realised that something was wrong, and that he had been breaking the law, and, having broken the law, he then proceeded very properly to make amends, and had now got the money in a separate pocket in the Treasury? There was no difficulty at all. Why should they not decide the question this session? He had made up his mind, and so had the Government.

said that, in point of fact, what they were doing was taking £100,000 of the taxpayers’ money, and it did not matter a brass button to the country whether this was done in the way the Minister suggested or whether it was done in the way the other people said.

moved to omit certain words after “£100,000,” for the purpose of inserting “is hereby appropriated and shall be paid to the fund.”

ruled this out of order.

said that they wanted to avoid having appropriations in different Bills.

asked under what Transvaal Act was this money appropriated for the redemption of debt?

The Act of 1908.

said that that Act specially provided that the receipts from the bewaarplaatsen should not be so appropriated, but should be paid into a fund.

The Minister’s amendments, which were moved at the previous sitting, were agreed to.

moved to add at the end of sub-section (3) “and shall be used at the discretion of the Board for providing benefits in excess of those specified in section 11, in cases where the circumstances may appear to it to require such additional benefits.” He said that the object of this grant from the Government, as explained in the Bill, was for the purpose of the Compensation Fund, not for the purpose of the Insurance Fund. A sum of £100,000 was to be provided, so that where an assessment was made on a mine during the next two years and one quarter’s profits for that mine was taken, the difference should be made up from the £100,000. After those two years, after all the compensation cases had been dealt with—

No.

Then I have misread the Act. I do not say that all the money must be paid out in two years. After two years (he went on to say) when every case for compensation had been dealt with and assessed, when all the contributions upon the mines had been decided and fixed, then any balance remaining out of this £100,000 was to be handed over to the Compensation Fund.

The result of that would be that at the end of these two years if there were a considerable balance remaining over, all the mines would have to be re-assessed. The balance would not go in improving the benefits given to the men, but in reducing the contributions of the mines. He realised fully that this compensation was going to be a very heavy burden on the mines, but it would be more equitable to use this sum to improve the benefits to be paid to the men rather than to relieving the richer mines of their liability. (Hear, hear.) He did not think the benefits were adequate.

said the idea was that the money should go towards diminishing the contributions made by the mines.

entirely agreed with the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg. The total amount of the compensation claims would represent only 2d. or 3d. a ton of ore mined. It was not the duty of the general taxpayers to come to the relief of properties like the Crown Mines, East Rand, Robinson, and Simmer and Jack, which were making very large profits. Any moneys that were over after relieving the poorer mines should be available for increasing the benefits paid to the men, benefits which were so inadequate. Unless the Board had some surplus to fall back upon, its opportunities of giving additional benefits would be very small.

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg.

said the amendment should not be accepted. The whole question was most exhaustively gone into by the Select Committee, which came to the conclusion that having regard to the general interests of everyone concerned it was impossible to allocate more for compensation than was recommended in the Bill. It was most distinctly understood that the £100,000 should be a contribution from the Government to the mines. The Select Committee took the view that it was desirable that the money should be applied in the first instance to the relief of the poorer mines, and there were various mines whose margin of profits was exceedingly small. It was not in the interests of the country, of the men or the shareholders, that the poorer mines should have every single penny taken from them for the purposes of paying compensation. The balance remaining should go to the general relief of the mines. At the end of two years claims would come in and money must be there to meet them. The whole thing came to this—was the money to be applied to the relief of the mines or to increase the compensation paid to the men? Everybody would like to give the men more, but they had to consider the general interests of everyone concerned, and the Select Committee, with the exception, of course, of the hon. member for Jeppe, decided that the money should go to the relief of the mines.

did not think the committee ought to accept the amendment. After the end of two years the mines would have to pay into the insurance fund a double contribution. It would not be equitable to pay some men £8 per month and a few others a little more. They should all be treated alike.

said that supposing there were many cases—he trusted there would not be—and there were no funds, what had the Board to do? They could not pay out, and this clause would be a dead letter.

said that possibly for seven years the compensation fund would draw amounts from the mines.

The amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg was put and negatived.

said that he wished to move at the end, “the balance shall be placed to the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.” He subsequently withdrew it, but said that he wished to know whether mines which were not producing profits, but which had a capital of, say, 1½ millions, would not contribute anything to the compensation. His point was that mines which still had a considerable amount of cash in hand should compensate the men, and not leave it to the State to do so. He would like an answer from the Minister.

I cannot force the Minister to answer.

said that with the permission of the committee he would like to say that the mines for the first year would draw on this fund, and if they were not producing any profit in the second year, they would again draw on the fund; but he thought it was hardly conceivable that a mine would continue to work for two years without showing any profit at all.

said that his point was that mines might say that they were not making any profits and demand under this Act that their contributions be paid out of the £100,000 provided by the State.

According to the wording, obviously a mine making no profits will go scot free altogether.

The new clause, as amended, was agreed to.

New clause 9,

On the motion of Mr. CRESWELL,

put the new clause proposed by the Select Committee.

asked the Minister to allow the clause to stand over until the committee had discussed the amounts of benefits. The amounts of benefits were, he said, the real crux of the whole Bill. The committee should determine the amounts of benefits before it discussed what the men should contribute, if the committee fixed the benefits on the workmen’s compensation principle then obviously one-third was an absurd amount to ask the men to contribute.

said that if he thought it would shorten the discussion, he would have no objection to allowing the clause to stand over, but he would point out that they must first know what money they had before they could allocate it. It was better to deal now with the amount they should allocate.

said that they had, so far as existing cases were concerned, thrown the whole burden upon the mines, but in future they said that the contribution should be on an insurance basis, the men to contribute one-third and the owner two-thirds. He maintained that it was a most fair contribution the men should pay. This was an insurance of £400 upon most reasonable terms.

said he wanted to move in lines 47 and 48 to omit the words “persons employed underground” for the purpose of inserting “tons of rock hoisted,” and in line 48 to omit “as a miner.” He had raised this question before, and the whole question turned upon whether they were to adopt this principle of the tons of rock hoisted or persons employed. His amendment, he believed, was much the better method.

thought the clause was best as it stood. If he left the contributions to the rock hauled they would have to have another system. Altogether he thought that the system of persons employed was the best to act upon. The hon. member seemed to think that there would be a tendency to reduce the number of men, but that tendency would prevail in either case, because in any case compensation would have to be paid on the number of men employed.

said in this case they were paying out every month in proportion to the number of men employed, and there would be a tendency to keep the white man as low as possible.

said if this were adopted, how were they going to regulate the contributions of the men?

The amendment was negatived.

moved to omit sub-section 2. He wanted to point out that by instituting this system of insurance the Government were running away from their promise. The Government promised to deal with this upon the principle of workmen’s compensation, and this method of contributions was simply placing another burden upon a certain class of men in order to relieve those who were better able to bear it. The Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior had given pledges upon this point on the platform, but they had not now the pluck to do right. The reason that the last Bill was wrecked was on account of the State contribution. He admitted that this was too great, but they could have altered that and made that Bill more efficient than the present. They could only protest now, but the day would come when they would have their way.

said he hoped the committee would not go over again all the arguments. He did not object to the hon. member for Jeppe making these protests, but they had the same arguments last year, and they had had them in the committee repeatedly, therefore he hoped the Government would not accept this amendment. They had gone as far as they could in this measure, and he thought 6d. in the £ was not too much. The clause as it now stood was an improvement on the last Bill. Then the rock driller would have had to pay 30s. a month and the others 15s. per month. They had also assisted the poor man under this clause by giving him the full amount of benefit. True, the man who had paid the larger amount would not get so much, but he could well afford to pay that.

said that the Minister had assured them that under this scale the poorer class of miner would be better off than in the former Bill, because he would not have to pay so much. What they wanted to know was upon what principle the Minister based his contributory scheme? Did he understand what compensation meant and what its object was? The object of introducing compensation for injury or for occupational disease was not so much that men should get money, though they claimed that as well, but that the cause of the disease or accident should be eliminated. They on the Labour benches desired to make it impossible for men to get miners’ phthisis, and to reduce the risk of their meeting with accidents. To make men contribute was not going towards that end, even if the men could take precautions there was not very much inducement for them to do so. He objected to the statement that the men could prevent themselves getting this disease. They could not, and the Minister knew that quite well. No man working down below could control the amount of dust in which he had to labour. Referring to an inaudible remark made by an hon. member, Mr. Madeley said the hon. members seemed to think that the men working down below could control the dust. How could the men eliminate the dust factor from the air? Whatever may be the cause, whether rock drills, explosions, or any other cause, the dust existed there, and the men could not prevent it. The hon. member would, perhaps, say that it could be watered down. Yes, if there were water there, but he (Mr. Madeley) had brought numerous instances to the notice of the committee and the House all along the Witwatersrand where there had been no water supply, and in cases where it had been supplied it had been insufficient in quantity or pressure. The only individuals who could control the dust were the controllers of the mines. It could not be done by making the men wear respirators. The men could not help themselves, but the employers could. The member for Victoria West would argue that if the men desired to be placed under a Workmen’s Compensation Act they did not know what they desired, because they did not know the difficulties and the penalites which would be meted out to them. The main object was that the disease should be stopped. From experience they found the compensation principles had been most effective, and was followed by a diminution in occupational disease. It was not fair, as he had stated, that men should have to sue in the Courts. They agreed with that, but they contended that the compensation money should automatically be paid over. A man should automatically be entitled to his compensation money, and the onus of contesting such a case should lie with the employers. Unless they placed this measure under compensation and in effect prevent men from contributing to their own compensation they were not going to stop miners’ phthisis. In regard to the suggestion of insurance, he would like to know who would insure men who worked down below? There was not one company, and that being the case, even if hon. members who controlled the mines arranged for an insurance company to come into being the premiums would be so high as to render it almost impossible for them to pay on such a large number of cases.

said he would like to associate himself with the remarks of the hon. member for Jeppe, and fully agreed with all the statements that had fallen from him. He had not spoken at all too harshly of the Minister and of the present Government, and they well deserved the rebuke that had been given them. The men’s point of view had been considered very little indeed in that Bill. The hon. Minister did not think it unfair that the men should be called upon to pay 6d. in the £. He (Mr. Sampson) thought it was very unfair to ask any body of men to find a sum which was equal to an income tax of 3 per cent., irrespective of the fact that there was no minimum rate of wages specified. The increase in the number of cases of miners’ phthisis had been correlative with the increased number of rock drilling machines. In what way had the men benefited from the increased use of rock drilling machines? Obviously if the Minister could point out that the men had benefited he could justify himself in asking them to contribute.

He would like to point out the altered conditions of the men since the introduction of the rock drilling machines. It would not be contested that their wages had been reduced by at least 25 per cent. They were not in as good a position to-day to pay this contribution as they were before the introduction of rock drilling machines. In other ways the position was worse than it was a few years ago. What was the good of talking about high wages in the cases of men who merely had a working life of some seven years? It would be something to say that the man was earning high wages if his working life was one of 40 years, as in many other occupations. If the men resisted these payments he desired that no blame should rest on the shoulders of the Labour members. He would wash his hands of all blame in the matter. He wanted to place the blame on the right shoulders. The Minister was wrong in expecting the security in the smooth working of the Bill that he contemplated. The Government had been given fair warning.

said he was anxious to use every possible inducement both with the men and with the employers, and he believed every hon. member who seriously thought about the matter was anxious to come to a satisfactory conclusion. He was tired of obstructive methods. (Hear, hear.) He was afraid that if this Bill got through it would be another case of the education compromise—well, the less said about that the better.

said that the hon. member must confine himself to the question before the House.

said that he wanted the Minister to recognise that the amount of money had absolutely nothing to do with any opposition which might be urged there. It was not a question of the amount; it was really a question of principle, whether, as a matter of principle, these men should be asked to contribute anything to the fund. He should like to ask the Minister: why should the men be asked to contribute anything at all? The hon. member for Randfontein, an admitted authority, had laid it down; if it were decided that phthisis is an occupational disease, then the men should not contribute, the mines should pay all. The Commission’s report decided that point. He understood from the report of the Commission and the Bill that there were two objects to be aimed at. One was the relief of those who were now suffering, and he thought there was not a member there who was not disposed to do his very utmost to relieve those who were now suffering, although they must admit that the paltry sum which had been paid over was totally inadequate. Suppose the men contributed would it to any extent minimise the dust, lessen the fumes, or make men more careful in the future? It would not. It had been said again and again that if the men had to contribute, it would tend to make them more careful. The Commission’s report indicated at once that that had very little to do with it. It would not minimise the evil. If they did anything to aggravate these men and irritate them, it would have a very bad effect on their nervous system, and thus tend to increase their liability to the disease.

did not see any injustice in a miner having to contribute towards his own insurance. They could not insure their lives in the ordinary way, and here they had a chance to do it for 6d. in the £1. Although hon. members on the cross-benches contended that they represented the men, they did not work in the interests of the men. (Hear, hear.) He contended that most of these men would be very grateful at the provisions of the Bill. He emphasised that in view of the contribution to be made by the companies, the dust would decrease very greatly, as every possible precaution would be taken. It was not right to put miners’ phthisis under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and if the men refused to contribute to the new fund it would be the fault of the Labour party. Those men who appeared before the Select Committee said that the men generally had no objection to contribute.

said he had made a study of the question of miners’ phthisis since 1902. The men knew the precautions they should take, but according to the evidence given before the Select Committee on the Bill they were too careless to take them. All the evidence so far produced had failed to convince him that the carelessness of the men was not a critical factor in the causation of the disease.

said the hon. member for Denver had neglected to read from the reports on the subject by the latest Commission. Even supposing that a small percentage of the men were criminally careless and did sometimes neglect to take precautions they should still be treated fairly. The contract system had a great bearing on the question, and in the rush to earn a living some of the men were forced by the grinding of their superiors to neglect to take precautions against contracting miners’ phthisis. The only people that could take effective steps to make the mines more healthy were the mine owners. This Bill having been thrust down their throats, was not to last for ever. There was a conspiracy of silence —that they quite realised—but they were sent there to talk as they had done. The hon. member for Vrededorp had said that he represented the poor miner class, but the poor miners were represented in all the constituencies. He would recommend him to return and speak of the people in the same way as he had done in that House and he would not receive the same cheers as he had done nor be received in the same way. He hoped any member of the committee who desired to be up-to-date would take his courage in both hands and vote as his conscience dictated.

put the question that sub-section 2, proposed to be omitted stand part of the Bill, and declared the “Ayes” had it.

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

moved to add at the end of sub-section (2) “provided that in the case of a miner being awarded compensation under this Act prior to the expiration of two years from the commencement thereof the amount of any deductions made from his earnings under this section shall be refunded to him in addition to the compensation awarded and the amount of any contributions made by his employer in respect to such miner shall be refunded to such employer.”

A remark by Mr. Merriman drew from the hon. member for Jeppe the comment that the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) was evidently feeling the effects of the lateness of the session. He (Mr. Merriman) imagined he had a sort, of chartered liberty in the House. In conclusion, Mr. Creswell said there was no practical difficulty in the way, and they should not take the money out of the pockets of the men.

said he was sorry he could not accept the amendment. There were very cogent reasons against the proposal. The amendment would destroy the principle of the insurance fund altogether. If they had to pay out of the fund, they would make the fund insolvent. Again, supposing a man had paid into the fund for a period of two years, and then left the mines. He had not got miners’ phthisis, and went away a healthy man. Did the hon. member propose to give him back what he had paid in during those two years? He would only have to pay his 6d. in the £ on his wages for two years, whereas the man who retired after the Act has come into operation will have to pay in for a much longer time.

pointed out that the hon. Minister said a man was asked to contribute to a fund of which he might participate in the future. That was not so. The hon. Minister knew that it referred to the cases of men of whom, when the Bill was passed, and when it came into force, a large number would be entitled to compensation; but he knew as well as they (the Labour members) that it would not be possible to deal with all the cases at once, and a large number would be compelled to wait. The insurance idea did not apply there at all If a man had been injured for a period, he should be given the compensation, but the Minister would not agree that he should receive compensation and also receive insurance.

said that both the men and the mine owners would get the benefit of anything that was paid in now, and therefore the total liability would be reduced.

The amendment was negatived.

moved to omit sub-section 3 of the clause.

Agreed to.

The new clause as amended was agreed to.

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 report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

moved that the votes be taken seriatim according to the sub-heads.

The motion was agreed to.

On sub-head administration, £40,552,

asked the Minister a question in regard to the salary of the Secretary of the Interior, and also asked him whether it was correct to put down the figures of £250 in regard to the salary of the Agent in German South-West Africa. He understood, he said, that the salary was £1,000, to which the Imperial Government contributed £500.

asked the Minister a question, which was inaudible in the gallery.

said that his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) was quite right in regard to the proposal of the Public Service Commission in reference to the salaries of secretaries. The Government, when they came to consider the scheme, thought that, in view of the varying importance of Departments, it was better to put the salaries of secretaries on two different bases. His hon. friend would see that some of these salaries went up to £1,200 and some to £1,500, with local allowances. This came out as a cheaper arrangement, as it included local allowances and differentiation between the bigger departments and the smaller ones, than that recommended by the Public Service Commission. In regard to the Union Agent in German South-West Africa, there was an inaccuracy in the footnote. The footnote read: “Half cost paid by Imperial Government.” This should read: “Half salary and allowance paid by the Imperial Government.” If it were in order, he would move that that be amended.

moved a reduction of the Minister’s salary by £5. He did this, he said, as one representing the medical profession, on behalf of the medical profession and the public of this country, to get a statement from the Minister as to what his future policy was going to be in regard to public health legislation in this country.

suggested that the more appropriate stage to raise this question would be on the public health vote.

said he would accordingly withdraw his motion for the present.

moved a reduction of the Minister’s salary by £5, in order, as he explained, to draw attention to the administration of the marriage laws in the Transvaal so far as coloured people were concerned. He pointed out that a fee of 5s. was charged upon the marriage of coloured persons before a marriage officer, while no such charge was made with regard to marriages between white persons. In addition to that, under the Stamp Act of last year these coloured people were required to produce a certificate of banns before the marriage officer, bearing a 1s. stamp, and when the marriage certificate was issued another 1s. stamp had to be put on it, while a copy of that certificate must bear a further 1s. stamp, making 8s. in all, as against 1s. paid by white people who were married before the marriage officer. He thought it was an unjust thing to have this differentiation. He did not say the Minister should change the Stamp Act, but he certainly thought that the charge of 5s. should be abolished. There should be proper investigation by the Minister of the Interior into the status of some of the religious bodies the ministers of which desired to have the right to solemnise marriages. Mr. Schreiner then referred to the case of an ordained Congregational minister at Parow who wished to be authorised to solemnise marriages, but whose application had been refused, because of the minister’s colour. One would have imagined that the State would like people to become legally married, but instead of that they were thrust back. There was a worse case in the Transkei, in which a native minister at Toleni, although a duly authorised marriage officer for one district, could not obtain permission to act in that capacity in an adjoining district, where he had established large and flourishing churches. Mr. Schreiner hoped the Minister would do the right thing in these matters.

said he had been to the Minister of the Interior two or three times on the subject to which the hon. member for Tembuland had referred. In his (Sir Bisset’s) constituency there were a number of coloured dissenters, who had set up churches, the ministers of which had been at considerable trouble and expense to get themselves qualified. Some of them had been to America, where they had been ordained, and they considered themselves to be as good as their neighbours, and they desired to be authorised to solemnise marriages. It was a matter which in his calm, philosophic, undenominational mind, the Minister of the Interior should look into, for these people were just as fond of their denominational rights, privileges, and ceremonies as the highest in the land. Surely, as a Christian people, it should be a matter of rejoicing to us that the natives had thrown off their heathenism in their own way. He hoped the Minister would be as fair in this matter as he generally was in other matters. Continuing, Sir Bisset said he noticed an item in the Estimates, “Keeper of the Archives, £950.” He was not aware that the Union had such an official, but the Cape had a good many archives which ought to be kept. (Hear, hear.) He did not know whether the other Provinces had any archives to preserve, but they in the Cape desired to see the work of the former Keeper of the Archives carried on.

supported what had been said by the hon. member for Queenstown regarding the archives, and asked whether those archives were to be retained in Cape Town or to be removed. Continuing, Mr. Long referred to the item, “Secretary Public Service Advisory Committee, £650.” He (Mr. Long) imagined that as soon as the Public Service Commission got to work that Board would no longer be necessary.

There was also a very much more important question upon which the Minister might give the committee an assurance. It was with regard to the position of Civil Servants of the old Cape Colony, who were now members of the Union Service. In the regrading scheme, which was embodied in these Estimates, these men had been graded on the salaries they were drawing at the date of Union. That was to say, that if they were drawing £300 a year at the date of Union they were graded into posts in the Union Service which carried that particular salary. The Public Service Reorganisation Commission which sat some time ago recommended that these men should receive one increment of salary above that which they were receiving at the date of Union in order to compensate them in some degree for the loss which they had sustained owing to the depression which obtained for some years in the Cape Colony. It appeared by regrading them on the basis of their salary instead of on their salary plus one increment an injustice had been done to them. It was an injustice which should be remedied as soon as possible, and he would like the Minister to say whether the Public Service Commission which it was proposed to appoint under the Public Service Bill, which was now before the House, would be able to deal with that matter. If he could give the committee and the country an assurance that this matter would come within the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission then he felt sure that a great deal of discontent would be removed and the members of the old Cape Service would feel sure that their case would be considered by the Commission.

said that there was a grievance in his district in regard to the marriage laws of the Cape and the Free State, and he hoped that the Minister would take steps to bring in a Marriage Bill which would apply to the whole of the Union.

said that hon. members would remember that when he introduced the Marriage Bill last year he did not get much encouragement. He very light-heartedly introduced the Bill, but the result was very disastrous. It was not, however, his fault. He did his best, because he thought that in a young country like this the population should be increased in every way, and the marriage laws should be easy all over the Union. He did not, however, get proper encouragement.

From which side?

From both sides of the House, and the result was that one of the most beneficial measures had been hung up. Proceeding, he said that having administered the marriage laws of this country he knew that they were full of anomalies, but he despaired of passing a uniform law through this wise Parliament, and therefore they must simply deal with the difficulties as best they could. He was surprised at what his friend opposite (Mr. Schreiner) had said in regard to the differentiation in taxation under the marriage laws in the Transvaal. He did not know that the law applied harshly upon the coloured people, and he would go into the question. With regard to the other questions which had been raised by his hon. friend opposite (Mr. Schreiner) and the member for Queenstown (Sir Bisset Berry), he wished to say that there was not much substance in the charge. The charge was that it did not give due recognition to coloured ministers, to what his hon. friend (Mr. Schreiner) called ministers of coloured Dissenters in the Transkei, Natal, and other parts of the Union. They had a very peculiar state of affairs in South Africa in respect of native churches. The native churches were continually dividing themselves up, and the parsons came to him and asked to be recognised as marriage officers, that was as Government servants. He did not think that the ministers of these churches should be recognised until their churches had attained a certain status and their parsons had passed a certain education standard.

said he wanted to deny the imputation that the hon. Minister had made with regard to the man—

rose to explain that he did not refer to the present man, but to his predecessor.

referring to the subject of the archives, asked whether it had been reported to the Minister that somebody had been detected in the act of abstracting a portion of the archives in Pretoria. He (Sir Percy) had the report with the names of the parties and all the circumstances. He thought that it was a rather serious matter. A certain person was caught in the act of cutting out a document from the file. The matter was properly reported, and he would like to know if the hon. Minister had any knowledge of the matter.

answered in the affirmative and said that he was at one with the hon. member with regard to the seriousness of such a matter. A clerk was approached by a certain gentleman who wanted a copy of a document. Permission was given, and it was subsequently reported to him (the hon. Minister) that a document was taken out of the file. Of course, he took immediate steps to get the document back. The document had been taken out for the purpose of being copied at home, most improperly.

asked if proper precautions were now taken, because there would be a tremendous row if anything was taken now.

said that in that particular case the attempt was made not to remove the document. He hoped the hon. member would not attach much importance to the word purloin. The documents had been most improperly taken away for the purpose of being copied at home, and leave to copy given to that person had now been taken away.

said that the document was cut out of the file, and the man who reported it was certainly under the impression that he had suffered in his position, that owing to the influence behind he felt he had suffered for what had been considered his officiousness; but he was only doing his duty.

assured the hon. member that that was not so. He was sorry to hear that the officer concerned was under that impression, because he (the hon. Minister) thought he had acted perfectly right. It was his duty, and he approved of what the officer had done.

said there was a very simple plan which was adopted at most places where archives were kept. If anyone wanted to copy a document they had to do it in the presence of one of the clerks and they had to pay a fee to cover the cost of that clerk’s time. That was a very simple way and nobody was allowed access to the archives except under the actual eye of a member of the staff.

On sub-heads D, E, and F, “Vital Statistics,” £7,575,

in answer to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, said it was necessary that the vital statistics of the Union should be collected and conserved. His idea was to appoint a capable officer for both census and statistical work. He hoped to make a little separate department to look after that work, and he hoped next year to have a handbook giving the statistics of the Union—(hear, hear)—rather than reports which hon. members had pressed for so strongly.

asked when such a book would be published?

said the work was being prepared, and he hoped next year to have the work to give the statistics for 1912.

referred to the item, Chief Immigration Officer, and said in connection with that official there was an important principle involved. That officer had broken the law, and was tried for the criminal offence known as contempt of Court before a bench of three judges. Those three judges held that there had been a wilful contempt of Court, but they did not punish the officer by giving him a sentence of imprisonment of any kind, and marked their sense of displeasure by ordering him to pay the costs, £7 15s. 5d., out of his own pocket. A most extraordinary thing seems to have taken place since that time. This officer had a very large salary, but the Minister allowed this £7 15s. 5d. to be paid out of the taxpayers’ money. He gave it as a present to the Immigration Officer. In effect he said, “Never mind; you have been found guilty, but you won’t have to pay.” He thought it was time that the House protested.

Proceeding, the hon. member gave an instance of a man who had been refused permission to land here, was sent away, and reshipped to this country, when he was allowed to land. The hon. member read an affidavit by the hon. secretary of the Cape Town Jewish Philanthropic Society with reference to cases quoted on a previous occasion. He said he gave those details in order to vindicate himself. With regard to another case the hon. Minister said that regarding the declaration that was supposed to have been put before the man, he had the assurance of the Immigration Officer that no such document was put before the man. Since then he (the hon. member) had seen an official of the shipping company, and a leading attorney in the city who had dealt with the case, and they both assured him that the statement of the Immigration Officer was entirely incorrect. And with regard to the last case dealt with, that of Berman, there, he thought, he had a distinct grievance against the Minister. His (the Minister’s) statement went forth to the country, and hon. members referred after that debate to “Alexander’s facts,” as if he had given them false information. All he said was that the Government had adopted the Lombroso test to cover itself. In this case the Lombroso test was not a fair test at all. He would point out that in this case all along the Immigration Officer took two grounds. The one was medical and the other was that he did not know enough Yiddish. Generally the Minister was most fair in dealing with these matters, but he did not think he was quite fair when he tried to suggest that this man had tried to come in two years before under another name in some underhand manner. The facts were that when he first went to Court he told the Court that two years ago he had tried to come in under another name, and that his mother had been married twice and that in South Africa the sons were known by the name of the second husband. There was no attempt to mislead anyone. To show how serious this Lombroso test was he would like to say that in addition to the examination made by Dr. Mitchell the man was also examined by Dr. Thomas, the port medical officer, and their reports showed that the Lombroso test was the only medical ground the Government relied on. It stated all the man’s physical peculiarities. He would read affidavits made by three practitioners who had examined this man on behalf of the applicant. Dr. Kark said that he was in good bodily health, his vital organs normal, and he was free from infectious disease. Dr. Lester said that he was in sound health and free from infectious disease. Dr. Bennie Hewat gave a certificate that he was in sound health and free from any infectious disease. So that he hoped the House would see that there was really something in his statement that the medical officers of the Government tried to keep the man out on the authority of the Lombroso test, when they had prominent medical men in Cape Town stating that the man was in good health. He had not tried to mislead the Minister and make the House believe that the deportation went on medical grounds. If he had been misleading he could only express his regret. He could only say that this was a very serious matter. He did not know whether the Lombroso test was still being applied. He hoped that what had taken place in that House, together with the two matters which he had briefly referred to, would lead to the Minister giving a promise that an inquiry would be held. He had tried to show the House that there was a strong feeling against the administration of that particular Act, and that injustice had been done. In the interests of immigration, of the immigrants, and of the Immigration Officers themselves, he hoped that that inquiry would be held. Then, perhaps, they would have an end of that matter, and they would not have it dragged across the floor of the House every time that vote came up. (Hear, hear.) A representative of a foreign Government, whose name he did not want to mention, but whose name he would give the Minister, if necessary, had stated—and he was perfectly satisfied that the state of affairs was as he had stated—that three children some time ago arrived by the Durham Castle, with her uncle, a wealthy Greek, who desired to keep and to educate them in Johannesburg. Their ages were 15, 12, and 10, but they had not been allowed to land; and he had been told that the man was willing to deposit £500, and give a guarantee that he would support and educate them. Exception had been taken by the Immigration Officer that if they had come to join their own parents they would have been allowed to land, but that their father was in another country. He (the hon. member) was told that the Union-Castle Co. then had £60 to cover the return fare of these children. Then the children had gone back and their uncle had accompanied them. Another Greek, resident in Cape Town, was going away for a holiday, and had, before going, asked for a permit for one of these boys to come back to South Africa; and he got that permit. The eldest boy came out, and he (the hon. member) was told that he was in South Africa to-day. No question had been raised as to money or educational qualifications. Was that not a most capricious thing?

asked whether the boy came out under the same name?

said that according to the papers he had in front of him the boy came out under the same name. He hoped that hon. members would assist him in this matter because he was only acting in the public interest. He went on to say that there was another very curious case which had been brought to his attention that day, of a man who had come out in March of the present year, and an attorney of the Supreme Court had, on his behalf, written to the Immigration Officer. The father of the boy had gone to the Immigration Officer, and the next thing the attorney heard was that the Immigration Officer, behind the back of the attorney, had made a settlement, under which the boy had been allowed to land. All these things suggested that there was an absolute need for the Minister to go very carefully into the matter, and he would see, if he did so, that they were not actuated by any personal motives whatsoever. Referring to the charges made for detention at the Immigration Depot, the hon. and learned member said that immigrants did not want to remain at the depot, and yet they made them pay the complete cost of being looked after. The Minister had said that not only had they to pay 1s. for every meal they had, but also 1s. for their bed, which came to 4s. a day, which was very reasonable; but when they came to actual cases, there was a different state of affairs. There was the case of Berman, who had been detained for nine days at the depot, and the bill had come to £6 2s. Why, he could have stayed at the Mount Nelson Hotel for that amount. (Laughter.) And yet these were the charges which the Minister said were reasonable. The hon. member went on to say that the charge of 12s. per day for guard was made in the case of a single immigrant, but when there were more immigrants detained, that charge was reduced per head. It therefore came very hard on the unlucky immigrant who was alone. Why should the Minister not demand that a reasonable security should be given, and let the man go out to his friends, if they were willing to keep him? He hoped that the Minister would look into this question of the charges, and also look into the matter of the accommodation provided for immigrants, especially the accommodation for women. He instanced a number of cases of hardship which had occurred through women having to be deported to other places, because there had been no suitable accommodation for them at the Cape Town depot.

Did they pay their own fare?

said that a deposit was made with the shipping company, and the fare was deducted from that, so that the only person who suffered was the poor immigrant. Why should they bring these people 6,000 miles oversea, and then turn them away? If these people knew in England that they were not wanted in South Africa, they would not have come here. Let them take all the precautions they liked, but let them give these people a chance of saying that South Africa did not suit them, and that they would go somewhere else. These people had very little money, and they now spent that on travelling to and fro between Europe and South Africa, because they did not know that they would be refused admission here. He would ask the Minister in future not to rely on the ground of alienage. If a man were medically unfit, let him go back; if he were undesirable, let him go back; but the Minister should not rely on the right he had to keep him out merely because he was an alien. He hoped the Minister would between this time and next session go into this matter, with a view of meeting these hardships. The people who were complaining, he would remind hon. members, were not only the people of Cape Town, but very largely the people up-country. He moved to reduce the item by £7 15s. 5d.

said that there was undoubtedly something harsh in connection with this Immigration Department. He had had many complaints. So much power was given to this Immigration Officer that one had to be very guarded in what one said. There should be some body or bodies on the other side to examine these cases before the people set out for this country. In the old days they used to have in connection with the Cape Colony an Immigration Department on the other side. No one wished to see undesirables admitted into this country, but at the same time he thought the Minister should protect the immigrant who was coming out to this country.

said he had no complaint to make against any officer of the Immigration Department, but there was one case he would like to refer to, in which the blame, he thought, belonged to the C.I.D. Two young men came out to Delagoa Bay, who wished to proceed to Pretoria to take up a business they had acquired. They were refused a permit to land. He saw an officer in Pretoria, and this man’s statement was that the C.I.D. objected to the landing of these men, in the case of one because he had been turned out of the Transvaal seven years before and the other because he had kept very bad company in the Transvaal. Now, it seemed that neither of these men had previously been in the Transvaal, and that they were only 21 years of age. It took the C.I.D. three weeks to find out that they had hold of the wrong men altogether. Two days after their deposit had been lost a permit was sent down to Delagoa Bay, but it was too late. Continuing, the hon. member said the country was to be mulcted to the extent of £10,000 or £15,000 annually on account of Indian immigrants. In view of the immense profits made by those who imported the Indians was it not time that this expense should be borne by them?

said he did not blame the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), for the statements he had made, but on a previous occasion when he (General Smuts) replied with somewhat unwonted warmth, the hon. member had made a vexatious attack on a subordinate officer of his department, and he (General Smuts) wanted to defend him, as he was a most zealous and careful officer—perhaps too zealous as good men often were. But when the hon. member came here with particular cases, he must remember that he was looked upon as the authority in the House on this question, and when he brought forward these cases the House listened with the greatest attention. What he (General Smuts) said last time referred to the necessity of the hon. member making full investigation, and he did not want the hon. member to make any charges, because these cases were interesting, even to him. (Laughter.) But the hon. member pursued this official with too much zeal. As to the order of Court which, had been referred to, when that was issued the Immigration Officer, who was not a lawyer, took the order to the Department of the Interior, for the purpose of obtaining an interpretation. That Department gave an interpretation, which the Court did not approve of, and the Immigration Officer, acting on this interpretation, was fined by the Court. He (General Smuts) did not think after the very proper precautions the officer had taken that he should be fined. He (General Smuts) hoped he had not shown any undue contempt of Court by the action he had taken. He had the greatest respect for Courts, but at the same time he had to protect his officers, and he hoped he would always do so, in spite of the law courts. Continuing, General Smuts said he saw great force in the contention that some means should be devised of having immigrants medically examined on the other side, but there were difficulties in the way, and the Tuberculosis Commission had reported against it. However, he did not look upon the matter as settled. He would go into the question of the charges at the depot. He wanted to remove one impression that the speech of his hon. friend (Mr. Alexander) had given, viz., that the policy of the Immigration Department was directed against a certain class of immigrants—the Jewish immigrants. He wished to state most emphatically —

I have not said so.

From the line the hon. member takes, that is the impression which is given. There is no such policy; these immigrants are welcome to this country. (Hear, hear.) Continuing, General Smuts said that if mistakes were sometimes made in regard to particular cases, after all, these were a very small percentage. Out of 32,000 immigrants last year, only 171 had been prohibited from landing.

said that after the explanation given by the Minister he would not press his amendment.

said that he wished to draw the Minister’s attention to the extremely crowded state of the South African Museum in Cape Town. They were so badly off for money: they had not sufficient money to purchase cases for their specimens. The total grant to the Museum was £5,000, as compared with £16,960 granted to the Pretoria Museum. Out of the grant-in-aid of £4,000 which the South African Museum received from the Government they had to pay the whole staff, whereas a special sum was allotted for the staff of the Pretoria Museum. Whilst the South African Museum received £1,000 for buildings, the Pretoria Museum received £3,600 for their buildings, which had cost £90,000 in the last two years. The Museum in Maritzburg received a total grant of £8,894. The Museum in Cape Town was the first of its kind, and was really a national institution. Over 100,000 visitors had visited the museum during the last year, and he hoped that the Minister would do something to provide additional room for the specimens and give more towards the purchase of cases.

said that the total grant for the Kimberley museum was only £300. The cost of purchasing cases for exhibiting the specimens was met by public subscription, and when they imported the cases the Customs authorities charged them full duty and the railway authorities charged them first-class rates to carry the cases up to Kimberley. The people of Kimberley were very much dissatisfied. This was a new museum, and the people had spent £5,000 upon it, and, with the exception of the grant of £300, they had not had a penny from the Government. He was sure that the Minister did not wish to insult the people of Kimberley, who paid £700,000 in direct taxation by giving them a paltry sum of £300. The amount was absurd. When they looked through the list, and found what other places got, the amount given to Kimberley was out of all proportion. He asked the Minister seriously to consider increasing the grant in next year’s Estimates.

said that he was a very old Cape Colonist, and took great interest in the South African Museum in Cape Town. He recognised that it was the mother museum of the Union, and it was the only institution of its kind in connection with which any real scientific work had been done and done by scientific men. The people upcountry kept museums for curiosities—for assegais, skins, and the like, but the Cape Town Museum was the National Museum of South Africa. He contended that more visitors went to the South African Museum in the course of a year than visited all the other museums in the country put together. When people came to this part of the country they naturally wanted to know what sort of people lived in it, and went to the museum.

agreed that the Cape Museum, which was undoubtedly the National Museum, should receive first consideration. But he would like to call attention to the small amount given to the Port Elizabeth Museum. Every word that had been said by the hon. member for Cape Town deserved consideration. They need not complain that Pretoria had got too much. There they had fine buildings and magnificent grounds, which on Sunday afternoons formed the principal place of enjoyment for the people, but his hon. friend need not draw a distinction from Pretoria, for the museum there could not be compared with the Cape Town Museum in any way. But the small museums in the Union should be encouraged, and he wanted the hon. Minister to devote larger sums of money towards them, for they provided the best education one could get.

suggested to the hon. members for Cape Town and Three Rivers that if the corporation took over the museum, perhaps £4,000 a year would not be required.

testified to the great deal of pleasure and information he had derived through walking round the Cape Town Museum. At Durban and at Maritzburg they had two excellent collections. The hon. member for Queenstown spoke of scientific men. He wished the hon. member were present, so that he could tell him that not only in the Cape had they scientific men. They had one in Natal also, and he was doing excellent work.

said it was refreshing to see so much local patriotism, but he hoped they would not press their patriotism so far that they would compare the merits of these officers. They were both good and true men, and both were trying to work up to a very high standard. He felt there was a great deal of force in the plea which had been put forward on behalf of the South African Museum, and he had recognised the merits of that institution ever since Union. Hon. members who had watched the vote would know that year by year it had gone up whereas others had to some extent remained stationary. He agreed that more accommodation should be made for the valuable collection they had there; but, unfortunately, the museum had been compressed by the Art Gallery being in part of the building, and the first effort that was now being made was to clear out that Art Gallery and locate it in more suitable quarters, and they were busy on that now. If that happened, there would be a good deal of space available in the museum. He felt it was no use giving £2,000 and keeping on tinkering at it, but he hoped that hon. members would remain patient until they could deal more generously with the museum. In respect of Kimberley, he thought they were doing very good work, but still they must not overdo it. Regarding these museums, they should recognise that it was a case for concentrated effort, especially in regard to circumstances. In the Bill which was now before the House, and which he hoped would be read a second time soon—the Financial Relations Bill—the control was shifted on to the shoulders of the Provincial Administration.

said he would like a little more definite information about the building of the Art Gallery in Cape Town. The hon. Minister realised as well as any of them, the value of an art gallery in educating their people, and, as he knew, the accommodation for the present works of art in Cape Town was nothing less than a scandal. The pictures were crammed into one room, and the valuable collection of statuary presented by Mr. Alfred Beit was also crammed into a small room and hidden away from the general public. Different sites had been suggested for the new gallery, and his hope was that a definite decision would be come to regarding a suitable site, and that the work of building the new gallery would be undertaken as soon as possible. He knew that once the old law courts at the top of Adderley-street were suggested; but they did not know whether the Town Council would sanction their use for that purpose. The present Library and Government House had also been suggested; but he would ask the Minister to bear in mind that for people who had not much leisure, but found pleasure in works of art, a central site was necessary.

said he did not want to speak in any Provincial spirit, but it seemed to him that the people of Cape Town were not at all backward in putting forward their claims. If the people of Cape Town were anxious to have fine buildings and fine art galleries, why did not they set to and build them themselves? In Durban they had a very fine art gallery, but they did not go to the Government and ask them to build it. One thing he would like to point out was that all the people who came into South Africa did not come in through Cape Town. But he did not object to the people of Cape Town having fine art galleries so long as they did not ask the country to pay for them, and he would say that when strangers came to Durban they did not send them to the museum to see what kind of people they were. They sent them into the streets.

said that the Minister had visited the Durban Museum last year, and he was sure if he spoke as he should, he would say it was as good as any in South Africa. He did think that to treat them properly the Minister should give Durban a little more money.

said that he was not going to put in a word for the Cape Town Art Gallery—(laughter)—but what he wanted to put to the committee was this: the necessity for some policy being laid down throughout the Union with reference to assistance being given to museums, art galleries, and similar institutions. (Hear, hear.) He sympathised with what hon. members for Durban had said, because he did not think that there was a town in the Union which deserved more praise for its local patriotism than Durban—(hear, hear)—and it set an example to the rest of the Union in that respect. But the present state of affairs could not go on, the Minister himself would see. They could not have Durban, at one end of the scale, providing practically everything for itself, and on the other side there were other towns, which he would not name, where the Government provided everything; and they had “intermediate” towns like Cape Town, where the Government provided something, and private people provided the rest, with the assistance of the Town Council; and in all those institutions in Cape Town there was, he would like to point out, a grant from the City Council. They must have some system of co-ordinating the expenses and brants in connection with these institutions, and it might be left to the Provinces. (Hear, hear.)

said that Johannesburg never asked for anything. (An HON. MEMBER: “They take it.” Laughter.) He went on to ask for assistance for the Seymour Library, and hoped that the Minister would take it into consideration and be more kind-hearted the following year.

On sub-heads V, W, and X, General, £37,110.

said that he found that £3,000 had been put down for the registration of voters that year, and £18,000 for the previous year. He found only £11,000 in the Auditor’s report. What was the difference? (An HON. MEMBER: “£7,000,” and laughter.”) He knew that very well. Then there was an item of £5,000 for the repatriation of destitute Europeans, and he found that last year £3,091 had been spent. Who were these people? Where were these people being sent to? Where did they come from? They ought not to send these people out of South Africa, but find something for them to do here. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, he referred to the large number of immigrants in Canada, compared with South Africa.

who spoke of the Kimberley Library, said that formerly they had received £600 a year grant from the Cape Government and £100 for the reference library; and now they received only £300 from the Union Government. It was not the largest library in South Africa, but the attendance was as good as in any other part of South Africa. He hoped something would be done.

replying to Mr. Nathan, said that the £11,000 referred to was in the Auditor’s report, which was for ten months, and had nothing to do with the £18,000 figuring in the Estimates.

said that it would be a good thing to know upon what principle these grants were made. (Hear, hear.) If a municipality desired to start a library, would the Government be prepared to assist? At Benoni the Municipality had been considering the necessity of starting a public library, but the municipal funds were rather small compared with expenditure, and they did not see their way clear to do it. Was the Minister prepared to consider the question of making a grant towards the library in that town?

said he would also like to know upon what principle these grants were made to libraries? He would like the Minister to explain why, in a place like Pretoria, which was perhaps twice as large as Bloemfontein, they got a grant of £1,300, while Bloemfontein only got a grant of £300. He knew the Minister would say that these figures were taken from what was done by the different Colonial administrations, but he could not understand why the Government had not been able to place these grants in their proper proportions.

urged that steps should be taken towards placing the law on the same footing in all the different Provinces with regard to Parliamentary election expenses.

said he would like the Minister to give him a little more information with regard to the work of the Geological Society, to which a grant was made.

in reply, said that so much dissatisfaction had been expressed with regard to this vote, that he was not certain that the best way would not be to withdraw it. (Laughter.) He was speaking mostly with reference to grants to libraries, art galleries, etc. He was not to be blamed for the sins of his predecessors. These grants, at any rate, to the larger institutions, were all paid on the same footing as they were at the date of Union. He thought it would be a great reflection on his predecessors if he were to overhaul them. For the smaller libraries, a different principle was followed, and in the Transvaal and the Cape the principle was £ for £. There was a small committee dealing with the question of the art gallery in Cape Town, and he had no doubt that the remarks of his hon. friend would be duly reported and laid to heart by this committee They were all very anxious to have something done in Cape Town worthy of the place. (Hear, hear.) It was not a question of £12,000, or any particular sum, but in a departure like that they should utilise the unique resources of the place to have something which was really worthy of the Mother City of South Africa. He was sorry to see this grant for Durban. He thought it was really a mistake. He did not know whether the best compliment to Durban would not be to take it out. With regard to the Seymour Library, Johannesburg, mentioned by the hon. member for Denver, he (General Smuts) thought £150 would meet the case quite properly. He was surprised that his hon. friends cried out for more. In regard to electoral expenses, next year he hoped there would be a uniform electoral law worthy of the Union, which would put election expenses on a proper footing.

asked why the immigration subsidy was so much higher than last year?

asked for information with regard to assisted immigration, for which £9,500 was put down.

said where a person living in South Africa wished to bring his family out from Europe, he was, if unable to afford this, assisted by the State, under certain conditions. Considerable use was made of the privilege. This matter had been discussed last year. In a country like this, with a much larger male than female population, such a policy was highly beneficial.

Replying to Mr. ANDREWS,

said it was the policy of the Government, and had been the policy of previous Governments, to assist persons who were in this country, and whose families were in Europe, to bring their families to South Africa, in case they were too poor to pay the expense themselves. That policy was being extended. It was a most useful policy—(hear, hear)—and he hoped it would find the support of hon. members even on the cross-benches (Laughter.)

On vote 10, Public Health, £110,478,

suggested that progress be reported. (Ministerial dissent.)

moved accordingly.

The motion was carried.

called for a division, but subsequently withdrew his demand.

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again to-morrow.