Revised Estimates of Expenditure, year ending 31st March, 1913 (Vote 19, Prisons and Reformatories).

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

said he wished to draw the attention of the House to an article which appeared in the “Sunday Times,” dated June 2. The article purported to give certain information with regard to the work done in the Select Committee on the Miners’ Phthisis Bill. In his opinion the article constituted a gross breach of privilege. In the course of the article, it was stated: “When one had the advantage, as I had, of listening to the evidence in the committee, it was clear to the meanest intelligence that Mr. Chaplin and his friends would report as they have reported.” Proceeding, Mr. Botha submitted that the article constituted a gross breach of privilege, and if it did not constitute a gross breach of privilege it certainly made use of information obtained in the Select Committee in a most improper manner. (Hear, hear.) It was necessary for the House to take some cognisance of it, and to make some inquiry, because it was perfectly clear that whoever wrote the article was someone who was present at the sittings of the committee, as the writer himself said. It might be a moot point as to whether a member of the House, who was a member of the committee, was entitled to make use of discussions and individual expressions of opinion in Select Committees; it was a moot point whether a member was entitled to make use of such information, but there was no doubt that no official of that House had any right whatever to make use of such information. It became necessary for the House to make inquiry as to the person who was responsible for this publication. He (Mr. Botha) did not wish to make any further comment on the matter, for the House was competent to take care of itself. He would move: “That in the opinion of this House the publication in the ‘Sunday Times,’ of the 2nd inst., of an account purporting to be a report of the proceedings of the Select Committee on the Miners’ Phthisis Bill, and of the attitude of the members of the committee when dealing with the subject matter of the inquiry, constitutes a breach of the privileges of this House, and the House, therefore, resolves that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the matter, the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, and to consist of six members, such members to be nominated by Mr. Speaker.”

seconded the motion.

Do you propose to take this without notice?

Matters of privilege can be discussed without notice.

My attention has also been drawn to this article, and there can be no question about it at all, that this article was contributed to this paper by a man who was present at the meetings of the Select Committee. (Hear, hear.) As a matter of fact the internal evidence is quite clear, and the writer says: “When one has had the advantage, as I have, of listening to the evidence in committee, it was clear—” The article appeared simultaneously almost with the publication of the report of the committee, and it is quite clear that no one who was not present in the committee-room could have written this article. I do not know what view the House will take of the matter of privilege, but I do think this, that it is the duty of the House to protect the officers. (Cheers.) There were present at practically all the meetings of this committee the Acting Secretary for Mines and the Government Mining Engineer, and in addition several clerks who took down in shorthand the evidence that was taken. A reflection is thrown on those who were present in that Select Committee, and I think that it is the duty of the House to take cognisance of it. What steps we should take afterwards when we have got the report is a different matter. I am not going into that now, but I do think it is the duty of the House to inquire into it and to take away any slur that might have been cast on the reliability of the officers who attended that committee.

said he did not wish to say anything on this matter, but only desired to express his regret at the publication of matters of this kind. He thought, however, that everyone in this House would agree with him that as hon. members had not had an opportunity of reading the article referred to, they could not possibly judge on it. In these circumstances he thought it desirable for the hon. member for Bloemfontein to give notice of his motion, in order to enable hon. members to acquaint themselves with the article. He (General Botha), for one, had not yet read it, and it was difficult to form a judgment from the extracts read by the hon. member. He agreed, however, that there should be an end to occurrences of this kind, but he urged that hon. members could not take action which was based on the reading of extracts from the article in question, and he would appeal to the hon. member for Bloemfontein to give notice of his motion in the usual manner.

said he certainly did not think that they ought to take any steps now, and he questioned whether they should take any steps at all. Really, if they were to take notice of everything that appeared in obscure newspapers all over the country—(laughter) —and bring people down here for committing breaches of privilege, he thought they would have their work cut out. (Laughter.) They would not be adding to the dignity of the House or the efficiency of the House. (Hear, hear.) He saw the article; it was brought to him to see. Perhaps it went a little too far. He did not want to prejudge the case, but at the same time it did not seem to him that any harm had been done. Certainly it did not reflect credit upon himself. (Laughter.) But he did not think they would be doing wisely if they took notice of all these things. They were altogether too sensitive. (Laughter.) What they had got to do was to conduct the business of the House in a way that would command the respect of the country, and not to mind any people who gave them a kick in an obscure newspaper here and there—(laughter)—otherwise they would have the time of the House taken up with some very interesting discussions no doubt, but at the same time it would not do any good to the House or the country, and it would not get the business forward. He would rather see the matter dropped altogether. The hon. member (Mr. Botha) bad drawn attention to it, and that would be sufficient. If they went stirring about in this sort of business they would have these things being continually brought up. He was a diligent reader of the daily Press, and he saw some things which astonished him from time to time, he must say frankly. Well, he supposed one’s skin got hardened by a long life in Parliament—(laughter)—but it really did not matter. Nobody took any notice of it. Who cared what a paper like the “Sunday Times” in Johannesburg said? They would next have the cartoonists at the bar of the House. They were certainly a set of people who ought to be brought to the bar for showing contempt to some of the most revered people in this House. Do let them drop this business.

said he had no objection to an inquiry being held, though it served no purpose to take note of such reports.

said that there was a very distinct allegation in this article, which he thought they were bound to take notice of. He did not mean all the rubbish that was written, but the writer of the article distinctly said that he was present at the meeting of the committee, and gave away the secrets of the Select Committee, and that was a matter that the House should take cognisance of. They had a case of breach of privilege in the earlier part of the session, and a member of the House stood up and apologised, stating that he gave away information under a misapprehension. But there was a distinct allegation in this case that the writer was present at the committee, and that he had given away the secrets of that committee. What the paper or that gentleman said was another matter, but the fact that he was present and wrote the article showed that he had given away the secrets of the committee utterly regardless of the position of a member of Select Committee, and it was a matter which they should not pass over.

said that he was extremely sorry that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) differed so materially on the main point from his colleague, the Minister of Mines. His hon. friend (Mr. Botha) read a certain statement in a newspaper, and the Minister of Mines, who was chairman of the Select Committee concerned, and who had evidently had his attention drawn to it, went very carefully into the matter. As a matter of fact, he also read certain extracts from the same paper. He (Sir Thomas) entirely sympathised with the attitude taken up by the Minister. He was responsible for a large department, and important officers of that department were constantly present at the meetings of the committee, and the Minister of Mines, in his position as head of that department, made out to the House an extremely good case for the protection of these officers, and for removing every possibility of thinking that whilst they were allowed to be present at the meeting, they had been parties to imparting that information. He was perfectly sure that the attitude taken up by the Minister of Mines was one which would have the support of all hon. members of the House. He was not going into the question which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) had gone into when he suggested that there was a great deal to be said for Select Committees being thrown open to the public press.

I did not say so. What I said was that I did not care what an obscure paper said about my own conduct. I pay no attention to it, not a bit—(laughter)—nor does anybody eke.

continuing, said the right hon. member (Mr. Merriman) was not on the right track. The question was whether officers of the House, who had taken part in important Select Committee discussions, not open to the public, should not have the opportunity of clearing their characters, and proving that they had not been the medium of spreading information which it was their duty to regard as secret. That was the position the House had to decide, and under those circumstances he thought it was desirable that a Select Committee should be appointed for the purpose of clearing up this matter, if it were clear from the statements of the hon. member and the Minister that somebody who had an opportunity of listening to the evidence had conveyed to the public the impression that the attitude of members of the House was not a correct attitude, and was not an honourable attitude, and that they did their business, not as members of the House should, but in the interests of their own private affairs. Under these circumstances, he hoped the House would agree to the proposal of the appointment of a Select Committee.

said that there could be no harm in appointing a Select Committee. He had not seen the article that the hon. member had referred to, but it appeared to him from what he had listened to that the writer of that article could have written everything he did write from a careful study of the report, which was then in the hands of the public. He did not see any harm in appointing a Select Committee, but it might place the House in rather a peculiar position. Ho had been waiting to see somebody on the front bench of this side of the House (the Opposition side) stand up and say that he did it in the public interest. (Laughter.)

You seem to know a great deal about it.

I have my suspicions as to who the writer of the article is. Proceeding, he said that for his part he did not think the House could do any harm in appointing a committee, but he questioned whether it would do any good.

I was just going to make a suggestion. Apparently this matter has been sprung upon the House, and I would suggest that the debate be adjourned until Monday. The matter must come before the House first. It is a question of privilege, and must be disposed of. If the debate were adjourned until Monday it would come on before the Orders of the Day. In the meantime hon. members would have an opportunity of looking into the matter and deciding whether they should appoint a committee or not.

I was about to rise to propose that this debate be adjourned till tomorrow. I beg to do so now, without saying anything further. But must it come on before the Orders of the Day? Monday is a Government day.

seconded.

It must be disposed of; it is a question of privilege. The debate will be adjourned until to-morrow morning.

I hope we won’t waste the whole of the morning on it. (Laughter.)

Well, why don’t you take it now?

I am not in a position to say whether a committee should be appointed or not. I have not seen the report.

The motion to adjourn the debate until to-morrow morning was agreed to.

moved that the House go into committee on the following: “This committee concurs in the purchase by the Government of the share and interest of the Rhodesia Railways, Ltd., in certain remaining extent of the land known as ‘The First Railway Land Grant,’ Bechuanaland, including the company’s share and interest in the mineral rights of the whole area of the First Railway Land Grant, for a sum not exceeding £34,500 and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in a provisional deed of agreement dated June 6, 1912, entered into between the Government and the said Rhodesia Railways, Ltd.” He said that under Act 13 of 1890 and Act 23 of 1893 the Cape Government and the British South Africa Co. became possessors jointly of a certain 6,000 square miles in Bechuanaland in the proportion of two-thirds to the Cape Government and one-third to the British South Africa Co. The British South Africa Co. ceded their rights to the Bechuanaland Railway Co., and they in turn altered their name to what was now known as the Rhodesia Railways, and they were now the owners of one-third.

In 1907 the Cape Minerals Act was passed, and complications arose as to what the effect of that mineral law would be in respect of the rights of the Government and the company. Whilst the Government held that the ground would come under the mineral law, the company took the view that their rights were larger and were safeguarded by the agreement which then existed.

The mineral rights were reserved when the land was sold?

Yes, in all the sales. In all cases what was alienated was the surface right and the rights of the user of the land as farm property, the mineral rights being reserved to the company and the Government. He went on to say that in consequence of these questions having arisen, it was found by the Cape Government that it was difficult to continue dealing with the land until this question of the mineral rights was settled and certain offers were made on the one side and on the other, and at one time it came so far in 1908 that the offers materialised to the extent of a draft agreement. The claim of the company was quite excessive of what the Government were prepared to allow, and the only alternative provided for by the law and by the existing agreements was to go to arbitration. It would no doubt have been satisfactory in some respects in a big question of this kind to have gone to arbitration, but in one way and another it would have cost a lot of money and it was thought that the best solution would be to approach the company and see whether a satisfactory arrangement could not be arrived at.

Negotiations were opened on those lines, and ultimately an agreement was arrived at which was now before the House, and sought to be ratified. He thought hon. members who looked into it would see that the Government had, under the circumstances, been fairly met by the company, and that, without saying they had got anything dirt cheap, they had made a very satisfactory agreement. The amount paid for this 2,401 square miles of land, with the mineral rights, worked out at £34,500. Of this sum £22,500 represented the price paid for the land. They had also the mineral rights not only in this particular land, but in the whole extent of 6,000 square miles. For those mineral rights, past, present and future, the price paid by the Government was £12,000. The price of the ground worked out at 1s. 10½d. per morgen. The Minister mentioned that land had been sold in the Kuruman area, the average price paid in respect of an area of 395,000 morgen being 2s. per morgen. In the Mafeking district 254,000 morgen had sold at Is. 9d. per morgen. What they were paying was £9 7s. 6d. per square mile, as against £10 11s. 11d. per square mile actually realised by sales. He thought a satisfactory bargain had been made and that the ground to be utilised would be very handy for the schemes the Government had in view, especially with the help of boring which they intended to institute on a larger scale than had ever been done in the past. He was encouraged in saying that by the numerous applications made to his office.

seconded the motion.

said that the thing they really ought to do in a case like this was to have a Select Committee. He did not know whether there was time to do that. He gathered that this was one of those transactions they were asked to ratify. What he was going to suggest was that they should have laid upon the table of the House a memorandum showing the different dates on which they had dealt with this question. They had dealt with land in 1908-9, but they had only seen the matter on the paper that morning. He was only delighted in one thing, and that was his right hon. friend had said that the Government had made a most satisfactory bargain, because, if that were so, it was the first good bargain that ever a Government had made.

protested against asking the House to agree to these amendments at practically the end of the session. The present agreement was laid on the table of the House yesterday, and he did not suppose there were more than three or four members knew about it at all. It was not fair to ask the House to agree to this at such short notice. He objected to this on principle. There had been three agreements that had been brought into the House. The present matter was an old Cape affair that extended as far back as 1889, and the information that the Minister gave was of a very sketchy character. This ought to have been referred to a Select Committee for examination and report. He would move, as an amendment, therefore: To omit all the words after “that” and to substitute “the memorandum of agreement between the Government of the Union of South Africa and the Rhodesia Railways, Limited, relative to the proposed purchase of the interest in the land known as the ‘ First Railway Land Grant,’ Bechuanaland, laid on the table of the House on the 6th June, 1912, be referred to the Select Committee on Waste Lands for inquiry and report; and that this committee, which stands adjourned until Friday, the 14th instant, have leave to meet on Monday, the 10th instant, at 10.30 a.m.”

seconded the amendment.

hoped that the House would not accept that because the Minister had made such a good bargain which they should only be glad to ratify. He said that because he knew the territory. It was very good, and if there were water it would be worth very much more. He believed that when the Government had sunk their bores water would be found in nearly every part. When the Government were actually in possession of the ground he had no doubt they would get a great many applications.

pointed out that the Waste Lands Committee had adjourned and it would be necessary to revise the order for them to meet on Monday. The hon. member pointed out that the land was originally given by the British Bechuanaland Protectorate for the construction of the railway. A special clause in the agreement laid down that 10 per cent. of the mineral rights were to be retained by British Bechuanaland. In the agreement made with the company two-thirds of the Land went to the Government and one-third to the company. The title was given by the Cape Government because they were the sellers. The chief difficulty had arisen with regard to the mineral rights. Certainly the whole question was one that ought to be gone into by the Select Committee on Waste Lands.

The amendment was agreed to.

The motion as amended was also agreed to.

moved to omit the new sub-section (5) proposed by the Select Committee.

said that when the committee adjourned yesterday afternoon he stated that this clause really went too far in that it imposed a double penalty. As an amendment he would move: On page 16, line 67, after “miner who” to omit all the words to “miner” in line 4, on page 18; and in line 7, to omit “so doing,” and to substitute “entering such employment.”

said he left himself free in the Select Committee to vote against the clause, although he did not challenge a division on it.

said the clause was brought up by him originally. His hon. friend objected that a man might be convicted three times by the mine manager or shift boss and thus be disqualified. He (Mr. Merriman) then altered the clause to read that the man should have been convicted three times before a competent authority—the Resident Magistrate. The hon. member for Jeppe was not shy in expressing his views, and they might be pretty sure that if that thing went through the Select Committee without the hon. member calling for a division it was pretty plain sailing. If a man were convicted three times he might have to pay £450, which might be the full value of his pension, for every time he disobeyed the regulations he was liable to a fine of £150 or imprisonment.

said that the right hon. gentleman had distinctly impugned his statement. Was it not frequently the case that he (Mr. Creswell) allowed a thing to go through the Select Committee without challenging a division, but reserved his right to bring the matter up before the Committee of the Whole House?

hoped the committee would do nothing which would weaken the deterrent effect the Bill was going to have on miners’ phthisis.

Will the Minister accept the deletion of the whole clause?

No, certainly not.

moved the deletion of all words after “disease” in line 7.

I do not think it is an important point, and as the general sense of the committee appears to be against the sub-section I have no objection to deleting it.

Why is the Minister going to weaken down his whole Bill? Surely he must give some protection against the fraudulent man? It is a most foolish thing to do.

Suppose a man comes with a fraudulent certificate and contracts miners’ phthisis, he cannot lodge a claim, as the claim would be based on a false certificate. If a man has made a false entry he should not be entitled to the benefit, and if it is proved that he has used a false certificate wilfully he should not be entitled to get any benefit.

The clause which you are going to take out says that. Now you say in a light-hearted manner, “Take that out,” just because it is the opinion of some members of the committee. All that I can say is that it is a gross injustice to the people who will have to pay the compensation.

said that this would not be an ordinary court of law. It would be a specially-constituted court, and it was a question whether it would go into the question of fraud or not He would suggest to the Minister to leave the clause subject to the deletion of the words he suggested That would make it perfectly clear.

said he wanted to know what the words meant exactly. He wanted to know how a claim could be false.

moved that the words “his claim to be” be deleted, and that “that he is” be substituted. He thought that would meet the point raised by the hon. member for Fordsburg.

suggested that the much better way would be to insert a new clause in a simpler form. He moved that no person entering employment under a false certificate shall be entitled to benefit from either fund.

The amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis was agreed to.

The amendments of the Minister of Mines were agreed to.

said that he did not understand the clause as it now stood, and he suggested the substitution of a simpler one.

The amendment of the hon. member for Georgetown was agreed to.

The amendment moved by Mr. Creswell was negatived.

On clause 14,

moved: To add at end of sub-section (1) “or who furnishes satisfactory proof to the Board that he has worked as a miner at any of the mines included in the list referred to in section 2 of this Act at any time during the two years immediately preceding the commencement of this Act”; and to add the following new subsection: (3) Any employer who places upon any such discharge ticket any writing or mark relating to such person’s proficiency as a miner or to his character generally shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding £10, or, in default of payment, to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding one month. He hoped that this new sub-section would be agreed to, because it was a matter of very very great importance to the miners on the Witwatersrand. The system of discharge notes at present in vogue was very much objected to by the miners. It was a matter for the convenience of employers, and the marks put on these notes by employers had the effect of depriving men of the opportunity of earning a livelihood. Parliament was now making it obligatory upon every man leaving employment to have a certain discharge note, and he wanted this sub-section added, so that the note would be used for no purpose other than the purpose of this Act.

said that this new sub-section was unnecessary. The schedule stated what was to be put on the discharge ticket, and only the things included in the schedule could be put on. Nothing else would be legal.

said that the schedule did not say that an employer should not put anything on it. The marking of these tickets caused a great deal of hardship, and rendered it impossible for men to get employment after leaving one mine.

said that he could not agree with the legal interpretation placed upon the matter by the hon. member who had just spoken. The schedule clearly stated what had to be put on the discharge ticket, and nothing else would be legal.

said that one could not be too careful in these matters, and even at the risk of the sub-section being unnecessary legally he thought it would allay a great deal of suspicion on the part of the miners if the Act made it an offence for an employer to place any other note or mark on the discharge note. These discharge notes were issued not only to miners but to other mine workers, and the men on the Rand would soon have to go round looking for employment with a pass just as the Kafirs had to do. He considered that the employers should not be allowed to use this Government certificate for putting marks on it which might prevent men from getting employment.

said that he had been told that there was a great scarcity of good men, and that the employers were running after them. This was a question between the employer and employee, and he really did not see how the Board came into it at all.

said he was quite willing to submit the matter to any competent authority, to the satisfaction of the Minister of the Department, or anybody he liked, so that the man would be able to replace his discharge certificate as his only means of getting work.

said he did not think that the hon. member was really reasonable in this matter, taking the whole question together. First of all, he had objected to certificates. As regarded the second point, the employer was under a penalty in some of the sections for employing men who could not furnish the certificate. Surely they must have some protection. The hon. member wanted to make it possible for a man to come in and pretend that he had been employed somewhere, and he supposed he would like to put the onus on the employer of going to find out whether this man had worked somewhere or not, and the employer, by taking him on, might render himself liable under the other section for taking on a man who was a beneficiary under the Act. He thought the section as drafted was fair enough.

said that what he wanted was a provision so that a man could go to some competent authority and say that he had worked in such and such a mine for such a time, and, if he could prove that satisfactorily to the Board, the Board should issue a discharge certificate.

said he could not accept the first amendment. It seemed to him that to allow a man who was suffering from phthisis to go back and start work again was not doing him any kindness. As to the second amendment, the Select Committee recognised that there was a good deal in the point of the hon. member, and to meet him an amendment was inserted, which would be found in the second schedule of the Act. He thought that was sufficient protection.

said he thought the Minister might do something to meet the point raised by the hon. member, because it was rather hard lines on a man who might have a bad mark against him if he were compelled, as he would be under this Act, to present that to every employer. He would suggest that some word should be added at the end of the sub-section to make it quite clear. He did not think it was necessary to prescribe a penalty.

said that there was a particular form in which this certificate was to be given provided by law. A man could demand a certificate in this form. He had not the least objection, if the Minister liked, to put in the clause that nothing else should be upon the certificate. The whole of the discussion, it seemed to him, was quite unnecessary.

said that if the Minister were satisfied that this would meet the point, he had no more to say.

The first portion of Mr. Creswell’s amendment was negatived.

said he would like to know whether the Minister was prepared to do anything with regard to the second amendment?

said that he thought sufficient protection had already been provided by the Select Committee.

said in spite of all that had been said about their mental attitude, there was also a mental attitude of the employers, and each mental attitude was simply due to the different positions. He quite believed that 95 per cent. would not take advantage of this, but there might be one per cent. that would.

moved to add at the end of the clause the words: “and containing no information other than is therein prescribed.”

accepted the amendment. He said if a man did not get the discharge certificate, then he could go to the court and say so.

said that, in that case, they withdrew their amendment.

Mr. Duncan’s amendment was agreed to.

The second portion of Mr. Creswell’s amendment was withdrawn.

On clause 15,

On the motion of the MINISTER OF MINES,

put the proviso proposed by the Select Committee in lines 1 to 8 on page 20.

moved as an amendment: In line 2, after “apply” to omit “to,” and to substitute “in the case of”; to transpose this proviso to follow sub-section (2); and at the end of subsection (5) to make “fund” in the plural.

Agreed to.

The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

said he could not quite understand the following proviso: " Provided that this section shall not apply to any miner who produces a certificate from a medical adviser mentioned in section 27 that he is no longer suffering from miners’ phthisis.” He thought a miner who suffered from this disease was always a sufferer.

said he always said that if a man suffered from miners’ phthisis he would always suffer from it, and should never go underground again.

said that that was not his information. A man might have made a perfect recovery. It seemed very hard that these people who were only suffering from miners’ phthisis in the early stages should not be able to go to work again when they recovered. They should be encouraged to go away in the early stages of the disease and return to work when better.

On clause 17,

did not think the clause satisfactory, because it confined the compensation to native labourers. He contended also that a native labourer should only be considered as such as long as he was employed in that capacity.

moved: To add at the end of sub-section (1) “but no such medical practitioner while so acting shall be or become medical adviser to any Mine Benefit Society.”

Agreed to.

On clause 18,

moved: In line 57, after “phthisis” to insert “before he has made a claim as required by this Act such claim may be made by his executors on behalf of his dependants, if any, and if a miner die.”

Agreed to.

On clause 19,

moved: To add the following new sub-section to follow sub-section (1), viz.: (2) where such native labourer has died from miners’ phthisis any wife, child, parent, or other person, who shall be proved to the satisfaction of the Director (as in the Native Labour Regulation Act, 1911, defined) to have been dependent on such native labourer, shall be entitled to the sum of ten pounds.

said the motion was discussed in the Select Committee, which divided on it, the reason that influenced the committee being that it was not against the principle, but that it saw practical administrative difficulties in the way. However, he thought they could introduce safeguards to allow them to accept the principle, and he would move: In line 15, to omit “produced,” and substitute “been furnished with”; and that the following be a new sub-section, to follow sub-section (2), viz.: (3) In the case where a native labourer is proved to the satisfaction of the Director to have died of miners’ phthisis, and also to have had a wife, child, parent, or other person dependent upon him, such dependant shall be entitled to the sum of ten pounds.

said he must congratulate the House on the great liberality it was showing in this matter. He would like to read to the committee some remarks of a past president of the Transvaal Chemical and Metallurgical Society on the value of native labour to mines. This gentleman said that if they would take the trouble to instruct the natives on the mines the results would well repay the effort. “In some respects they were better than white men, their intelligence being more limited, and they stuck more to their duties. A native’s life was not worth much now on the £ s. d. principle, but at the beginning of last century a slave was a valuable article in the household inventory. If the natives were of the same financial value now the death rate on the mines would show a remarkable diminution.”The discussion at the meeting of the society at which the speech from which he had quoted was made shed a lurid light on the conditions of life in the mines. He was glad that the Minister had accepted the amendment which he (Mr. Merriman) had himself intended to move.

said hundreds of pounds were paid in compensation to native people whom it was never intended should have received the money. The natives employed on the mines were not Christianised, but were raw kraal natives, and in the event of the death of such a native his wife would marry deceased’s brother. He did not know a single case of money being paid for compensation to the person for whom it was really intended in cases in which natives were concerned. He did not see why unnecessary burdens should be placed on the mines. There were no destitute women at the kraals.

said the principle of the payment of £10 for injury to natives had been accepted by Parliament. Whatever the widow might do with the compensation money had nothing to do with the principle. He moved to omit “be entitled to” and before “sums” to insert “maximum.” It seemed to him that some difference should be drawn between legislation for injuries, small and great, and legislation providing for partial or total incapacitation from such a thing as miners’ phthisis. It seemed to him ridiculous that a native labourer should get £1, £2, or £3 for being partially incapacitated by miners’ phthisis. He thought that the committee should strengthen the hands of the Director of Natives and fix the minimum sum. He did not think that there would be a large amount of money payable in regard to natives, and he thought that the maximum amount of compensation for partial incapacitation should be £20, and for total incapacitation £50. These amounts were not too high. Supposing a native labourer was earning £3 a month, it meant that they would be paying him seven months’ pay for partial incapacitation and 16 months’ pay for total incapacitation. He did not think that was going too far, when they considered the amounts it was proposed to pay to European miners. He hoped that the Minister would accept his amendment.

said that he hoped hon. members would not be carried away by the eloquence of the member for Waterberg. The state of affairs he talked of referred to a quarter of a century ago, and to-day things were very much different. He thought that the committee should accept the Minister’s amendment, which provided sufficient safeguards.

said that if the amendments were carried it would be necessary to insert after the word “labourer” the words “or his dependant.” He moved accordingly.

agreed.

said that he wanted to know whether, seeing that “native” was defined under the Native Labour Regulation Act of 1911, he would be entitled to compensation after he left the employ of the mines, because after he left the mines he would no longer be a native as defined by that Act.

said that he was not opposed to the amendment proposed by the Minister, but he wished to point out to the hon. member for Zoutpansberg that the customs which he had referred to in his speech prevailed to-day. So far as the Native Labour Regulation Act was concerned, he was of opinion that hundreds of pounds were being paid out daily to persons for whom the money was not intended.

said that the main object of the institution of this Bill and the idea of insisting upon compensation was in order to prevent future injury and future disease if possible. He must support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Tembuland. He agreed that the maximum should be paid. He did not think they should leave it to an individual to graduate the payments.

withdrew his amendment.

said that with reference to the point raised by the hon. member for Commissioner-street, if the definition were not clear enough he would be prepared to amend it, but he thought the definition given in the Native Labour Regulations Act of 1911 was quite clear. If a native were recruited and went to Johannesburg and passed through the native compound and if he were examined and found to be suffering from miners ’ phthisis which he had contracted on a previous visit, he would be entitled to compensation.

asked a question about the case of a native who had completed his contract and left the mines altogether.

said the intention was that the native labourer should be examined by one of the medical examiners or practitioners nominated by the Act. As regarded the amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland, he was sorry he could not accept that, as it was outside the scope of the clause. He moved to omit in line 15 the word “produced,” for the purpose of inserting “has been furnished with a certificate.”

said he did not think the committee looked upon miners’ phthisis as a mere accident, but they had adopted the rules as being suitable in that case. It seemed to him that the higher sum should apply. He would like to ask a question. There were natives in the mines who were getting high pay. Since the discussion of the other afternoon, he had got some information from Johannesburg. There were people known as “boss boys.” There was a movement to do away with them, but on what principle was the Minister going to provide for coloured people if there were native boys in the same position as coloured men and receiving the same wages?

in answer to the hon. member for Jeppe, said that as it now stood a man who had been a native labourer, and had contracted miners’ phthisis and gone away from his employment, would get compensation; the point would be met by inserting the words “be or having been a native,” which he moved to insert after “native” in line 60. With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland, he could rely upon it that the Director would always give to the miners afflicted with miners’ phthisis a liberal allowance, and there was no danger that they would really suffer. He agreed that there was a difference between an accident and miners phthisis. If a man had got miners phthisis, he had got it. It was not like the difference between having a finger off or the whole arm, but it would be unwise to lay down that the maximum sum should be paid.

said he would like the whole of clause 29 to be deleted. He urged that legislation often had the opposite result to what was intended. The effect of that clause would be to encourage natives to get miners’ phthisis. At present they had the idea that by working six months out of the year they got clear of the disease. Natives, however, were such fools that they would be willing to run the risk of getting miners’ phthisis for the sake of getting the £10. (Laughter.) No native thought that he died as the result of the disease, but that he had been bewitched by someone. There was nothing deterrent about the whole Bill from one end to the other, and he considered the effect of that clause would be to encourage the natives to work longer periods than they were working at the present time.

thought there should be some qualification regarding the length of time a native had been employed.

made a comment inaudible in the Press gallery.

said that if a man had got miners’ phthisis he had got it and ought to be compensated. There was no miners’ phthisis except on the Witwatersrand, and natives were put in the most dangerous places in the mines.

explained an obvious misunderstanding as to what he had said, and pointed out that he had accepted the amendment of the Minister of Native Affairs.

thought there should be some qualification as to the length a native had been employed; a man might have got miners’ phthisis somewhere else. The employer might have to pay compensation where he had had no benefit.

pointed out that the very natives who were concerned in this matter were natives who were employed, not on one mine, but on several mines. The only natives who were likely to contract miners’ phthisis were natives who were employed for a considerable period in the mines.

said he would like to point out to the hon. member for Germiston that the amendment of the Minister of Native Affairs was “whenever a native, who is a native labourer”. If he were a native labourer, he was presumably exempt when he was recruited.

said that this all showed the difficulty of trying to tinker with the whole matter. The hon. member for Jeppe wanted the committee to agree to periodical examination of the natives, with particular stress laid upon examination of the natives who had got miners’ phthisis.

said that there was only one way of preventing the native getting miners’ phthisis, and that was by preventing him from working underground for more than six months at a time. This clause was only going to encourage natives to get miners’ phthisis.

The amendments proposed by the Minister of Native Affairs, the Minister of Mines, and Mr. H. W. Sampson were agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Schreiner was negatived.

New clause 20,

moved: That the following be a new clause to follow clause 19, viz.: “20. (1) All miners who are native labourers (as defined by the Native Labour Regulation Act, 1911), and who are employed upon mines for the time being included in the list published under section 2, shall from time to time be examined by medical officers specially appointed for the purpose, who shall conduct the examination in such manner and at such time as shall be prescribed by regulations. (2) The result of such examination shall be forwarded to the Director (as in the Native Labour Regulation Act defined), and the Director shall make the necessary application on behalf of such native labourers as are entitled to benefits under this Act. The sums so payable shall be paid to the Director, and shall be paid over by the Director to such native labourers. (3) Any native who may make a claim under this Act who is not at the time of making such claim a native labourer as defined by the Native Labour Regulation Act, 1911) employed upon a mine for the time being included in the list published under section 2 shall make his claim through the Director. The procedure for claiming or recovering any sum under this section shall the as prescribed by regulation made under this Act.

said that he could not accept the amendment. It differed from the principles which were laid down with regard to the white miners, and they deliberately came to the conclusion that it would not be practicable, though in a few years’ time it might be advisable, to have a general examination of all miners, and to clear out all those who had contracted the disease. If they did that today in regard to white miners, they felt that they would be doing an injury to the industry to such an extent that it could not face it. The committee unanimously came to the conclusion that at the present time they could not do it. Why should they depart from that conclusion with regard to the natives? He thought that the same argument as to the inadvisability of taking too great a step immediately in regard to general inspection and increasing the burden on the mines by one fell swoon also applied to the natives.

said he should like to hear from the Minister what were the reasons why there should be no periodical examination? If they took so much trouble and spent so much money they should know exactly where they stood. He would like to know the reason why this examination could not be made. It was necessary to know, he would say again, where they stood and it was necessary to have this examination.

said this was not a case where they were paying any money. The mine owners were paying the whole of this. This Bill did not deal with tuberculosis, but with miners’ phthisis, which was not an infectious disease, and in that case the question was whether it was necessary to have a periodical examination of natives. He would tell them one reason why this should not be done. They might over-regulate and over-legislate, with the best possible intention. It had been proved in England that benevolent legislation had done an enormous amount of harm by introducing the eight hours day. (Labour members: “No.”) Besides, these examinations would be a source of great annoyance to the industry, and he did not see it would be of any benefit to the natives.

said the right hon. gentleman had told them again and again about the responsibilities towards the native and now he told them these responsibilities must be abandoned because it might cause trouble with the mine owners. There was no reasonable objection to the sub-section. It only assured the native getting fair play.

said that what they desired to inculcate upon the natives was the desirability of being upon the mines for six months only at a time. The natives could arrange matters so that they could go home at the end of six months. Besides, there was nothing to hinder them from going to a doctor and asking to be examined. The probability was that if a miner has only worked six months he would not contract miners’ phthisis.

said that as a matter of fact native labourers were periodically examined now, certainly oftener than once in six months.

Mr. Creswell’s proposed new clause was negatived.

On clause 22,

moved, in lines 4, 5, and 11 to delete the word “miner” and to insert the word “person”. This was merely, he said, to give the Minister power to examine all persons. He also moved to insert the word “underground” after the word “employed”.

I accept that amendment.

Agreed to.

On clause 36, Investigations relative to miners’ phthisis,

said the Minister might appoint any number of committees, but he (Mr. Creswell) hoped they would not be merely a screen behind which the Mines Department would hide.

The committee will be a standing one, but for a special purpose.

New clause 37,

On the motion of Mr. MERRIMAN,

put the new clause.

moved that the following addition be a sub-section (2) of the clause, viz.: ‘ Any miner who shall be convicted of contravening any regulation framed or order given by a competent authority for the prevention or mitigation of the conditions causing the disease shall be liable to the penalties set forth in section 14 of Act No. 12 of 1911.

Are there no penalties for disobeying, regulations?

I do not follow whether the right hon. gentleman wants to repeat or to increase the penalty.

I want to do both. The penalties are not provided for under the Mines Regulations Act. A fine of £150 or 12 months’ imprisonment is not too much to impose on a man after two or three convictions.

hoped the amendment would not be accepted.

suggested that the amendment should be accepted and then he would look into the matter, and if the amendment were inconsistent with anything in the Mines Regulations Act it could be amended on the third reading.

said his hon. friends on the cross-benches were very anxious the other day to say that they must deal with the question of the fraudulent miner who would not obey the regulations, and who endangered his life. The moment, however, an attempt was made to do this objections were raised. That was not fair, and he hoped the committee would see that these people were looked after.

suggested that the amendment should be put on the paper so that hon. members could see what penalty the hon. gentleman was proposing.

The motion was put and declared carried.

called for a division, which was taken as follows:

put the new schedule.

moved, in sub-section (I), after “wife” to insert “Provided her marriage with the deceased miner shall have taken place at least six months before such miner’s death”; and to add at the end “Provided that the above dependants shall be resident in the Union at the death of the said miner and provided further if the said dependants are at the said date not resident in the Union they shall have the right to be paid one-half only of the aforesaid compensation.” The object was that there should be no inducement for any miner what was in the last stages of the disease, as he would be six months before his death, to marry. The higher compensation would be paid to the dependants resident in the Union, and those living in other parts, where the cost of living was much lower than in South Africa, would only get half, but that, in England, for instance, would be equivalent to the higher compensation received by those in South Africa. He referred to a case on the Rand that had come to his notice, of a miner who was earning £60 to £70 a month, who sent his wife, who was resident in England, a pound a week. When asked why he did not send more, he explained that if he did it would spoil the old woman. By adopting the amendment they would make the fund more solvent, and would be acting in every way according to the justice of the case.

characterised the amendment as most paltry. As a matter of fact, 88 per cent. of the miners were married, and because it was supposed that a certain small proportion of the balance of 12 per cent. would be guilty of such a thing, they were asked to support the first amendment. If any suggestion like that had come from the Labour benches casting a reflection on any section, the professional or trading class, or the mining magnates, what a howl of execration would have arisen from both sides of the House. It was a scandalous thing to insinuate that men would marry under such conditions in any considerable proportion. One in a million might. He had faith in the good feeling and good sense of the members of the committee, and was perfectly convinced that the amendment would be thrown out. There was something in the second amendment that might appeal to the prejudices of certain members in the House. He agreed that so far as possible, money earned in the country should be spent in the country, but it would be a cruel thing to say that these small benefits payable to miners’ wives and children should be halved because they went home to their relations. It was a scandalous suggestion.

said he agreed with the contention of the hon. member far Jeppe that the compensation should not be halved. The principle had been discussed in connection with the payment of pensions of people who went home, and there was not a single dissentient voice.

said he did not want to take up the time of the House, but he did hope the committee would not accept the amendments.

said that if the amounts involved in the amendments were very great he would have no hesitation in accepting them, but seeing that the amounts were so small he thought the hon. member for Yeovilie would be well advised to withdraw his amendments. The principle of the first amendment had been discussed by a Select Committee, who had come to the conclusion it was not worth while to do anything in the matter. There was a great deal more in the amendment to pay half benefit to dependants who went to live away. He thought it would be drawing too fine a distinction, and he did not think it was advisable to differentiate.

said he had no intention of pressing the matter, and expressed his willingness to withdraw his amendments.

The amendments were accordingly withdrawn.

asked the Minister of Mines for information as to a clause regarding coloured people.

said he was going to say that when they came to the title of the Bill he had got a clause drafted and he would put it on the paper for the next stage. That would apply also to the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe, which was on the paper, and of which he hoped the hon. member would give notice again formally for the next stage.

said that there were two amendments standing over.

I understand from the Chairman that we cannot go back to the clauses. We have passed this clause, and the only way in which we can deal with it again will be to re-commit the Bill. I, therefore, move now to report the Bill, and, if necessary, if we find the discussion of such a nature at the next stage that we should go back into committee, I will move it then.

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

submitted a message from the Senate transmitting the Bill with certain amendments, in which they asked the concurrence of this House.

The amendments were set down for consideration to-morrow.

submitted a message from the Senate, transmitting the Bill, with certain amendments, in which they asked the concurrence of this House.

The amendments were set down for consideration to-morrow.

moved, after “provided that,” in line 31, to insert the following paragraph: “(a) the necessary expenses to be incurred by the person subpoenaed, in going to and returning from the court where out the subpoena was issued, and his detention at the place whereat, and for the purpose for which his attendance is required, shall he tendered to him with his subpoena.”

Agreed to.

New clause 12,

moved: That the following be a new clause, to follow clause 11, viz.: “Every warrant for the execution of any sentence passed in a criminal case by a superior court or by the Natal Native High Court may be issued either by the judge who passed the sentence or by any other judge of the said Court.”

Agreed to.

moved to omit old clause 12, which, he explained, dealt with the abolition of the Kimberley Court.

The motion was agreed to.

On clause 13,

moved, in line 51, to omit “the date fixed under the last preceding section,” and to substitute “a date fixed by the Governor-General and notified by proclamation in the ‘Gazette’”; in line 51, to omit “holders,” and to substitute “holder”; and in line 61. to omit “thereof,” and to substitute “of such records.”

said that in regard to the abolition of the office of Crown Prosecutor of Griqualand West, he would like again to ask the Minister whether there was any specific object in abolishing that office. He could see that there might be some object in reducing the expenditure in connection with the office. He would like to ask the Minister what he proposed to substitute?

said that the object was to put the position of Grown Prosecutor at Kimberley in the same position as they had on the Rand. If they simply reduced the expenditure, it would grow again. He had not concluded his statement, when.

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

moved that the items be taken seriatim.

said he did not see the necessity for this as it was a very simple vote. (Laughter.)

said it was a very heavy vote, and it would be much better to take the items seriatim.

The motion was agreed to.

On sub-head A, £58,900,

said he had a few amendments to move on the item Commandant-General and Inspector’s salaries, two at £1,200 and one at £1,000. He moved the following amendment: one at £1,250 and one at £1,200 and one at £1,000. He moved also to increase the Inspecting Ordnance Officer’s salary from £800 to £900, and to reduce the item for contingencies by £150.

The amendments were agreed to.

thought it would be a wrong thing to remove all important military displays from the Native Territories and to remove the Ordnance from the Transkei. He did not refer to the band, which was only a mild matter and a purely sentimental affair. (Laughter.)

said he had done his best to hear the hon. member, and as far as he could understand his query there were sufficient stores kept for all reasonable purposes at Umtata, but they must concentrate their stores principally at the centres.

Might I ask what the item to extend language proficiency means?

said it had been a time-honoured custom to recompense and encourage a man for proficiency in languages, both native, English, and Dutch.

said he hoped the Minister would give some assurance it was the headquarters of the C.M.R., and it was there from which they drew their ammunition.

said that sufficient would be kept there for all reasonable purposes.

asked for information regarding the defalcations in connection with the accounts of one of the Transvaal volunteer corps.

I do not know what purpose the hon. member wishes to serve by raking up this affair. An officer of the corps disappeared some time ago—(Mr. NATHAN: “I know”)—with the funds of this unfortunate corps, which the officers have had to make good. I think the action of the officers in doing this is most meritorious. Now my hon. friend rakes up the case.

I must object. I am asking a question arising out of the report of the Auditor-General.

thought the Cape Mounted Riflemen were insufficiently paid.

asked for information with regard to grants to the Natal Rifle Association for the upkeep of rifle ranges.

said he found it impossible to continue paying the capitation grant of 10s. to the members of Natal Rifle Associations when such payment was not made in the other Provinces. However, as the result of inquiries made by the Natal Commandant-General, he was quite prepared to meet the Rifle Associations on the point of the expenses they had incurred in regard to their rifle ranges, but he could not make a grant of 10s. per head. On the Estimates appeared the vote “Natal Rifle Association last year £500; this year £1,000.” That grant, however, would have to be reduced to some extent because of the grant to the Rifle Association.

said he was not quite clear as to the extent to which the Union defence scheme would alter the basis of the expenditure on militia and volunteers.

said the new scheme would not come into operation till next year, so that this part of the Defence vote remained unaltered this year.

stated that the existing organisations were most friendly disposed towards the new Defence scheme, and with a few exceptions they would all come in. That was the spirit which, he was glad to say, was actuating all these organisations to-day.

brought up the case of the Woodstock Naval Volunteer Cadets, an excellent little corps which he believed would have to be disbanded owing to want of funds. The corps consisted of 100 boys, and the capitation grant was only £1, in consequence of which the corps was indebted to the Commanding Officer to the extent of £70. The corps, which was doing a very good work indeed, had been most favourably reported on by one of the officers of H.M.S. Hermes. It would be a great pity if the corps had to be disbanded. He did not want the Minister to answer that night, but he wished that he would make a note of the matter.

wished to know whether it was intended to make grants to schools which accommodated Boy Scouts.

replied in the negative.

On sub-head F, special service, £207,750,

acknowledged the increase that had been granted to the Natal Rifle Association, but urged that it was in the nature of an Irishman’s rise. In view of an item lower down he maintained that Natal had gone down £1,500. As to the amount which the Minister had stated he was adding for rifle ranges, he would like to know where the amount appeared in the Estimates.

said he deeply regretted that the contribution to His Majesty’s Navy was not more than £85,000, and he hoped that next year the Minister would see that the amount was one they need not be ashamed of. He went on to ask for some information regarding Durban Harbour.

pointed out that the matter was secret. They were acting entirely in consultation with the British Admiralty. He thought in the end that for the money to be spent on Durban Harbour they would see there a system of fixed defence which the Colonial Defence Committee considered adequate for the purposes of that important place.

rose, apparently to continue his inquiries, when there were cries of “Order,” and he resumed his seat.

who had been on his feet, took credit for trying to preserve the secrets of the Government. The Orange Free State Rifle Association got a grant of £500 last year, and he thought the time had now arrived when he should ask for a little more. Natal made a great noise about the grants they got, but he found that the Free State got 50 per cent, less than the other Provinces. The Minister would agree that these associations were doing a great deal of good work, and would help the defence scheme, and he thought the Minister might be more liberal to the Free State Association, which only got £500, whereas Natal with only half the white population got £1,000.

wished to know, in connection with the subsidy to the Transvaal Bisley, whether Sunday drilling would be allowed. He understood the Minister had given permission for such Sunday drilling, and hoped this was not the case.

said on the subject of rifle associations he had a suggestion to make. He thought they should try to encourage the holding of one central meeting in the year for the whole of South Africa to attract the best shots. They should endeavour to do something to have a South African meeting, and get the best men from all over the Union. He thought Natal would be better for a local show with £500, and there would be a saving on smaller meetings.

pleaded for an annual shooting competition for the whole Union, and asked whether any provision was made for rifle associations in the Transvaal. He saw Transvaal Bisley mentioned, but no rifle associations. The cost of ammunition should be reduced.

replied that the effect was the same.

urged that the Natal Rifle Association was the parent body and it would be better to add £500 to extend the scope of their activities than to have a central meeting as suggested by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth. The other associations were only small ones, and it would be a pity to disturb them, seeing that it was only a matter of months before they were taken over, and he thought it would be better if the Minister did not do anything that might cause them to die out.

also expressed his disappointment at the £500 grant for Free State rifle associations, which should receive not much less than Natal. He hoped the Minister would realise the interest taken in this matter in the Free State and look into their demands. He was not in favour of a central Bisley for the whole Union, as this would be highly inconvenient, but he urged that a central Bisley should be held in every Province. As regarded the question of ammunition, he hoped that in future sufficient ammunition would be distributed to local magistrates or other authorities to provide the wants of all rifle associations. He emphasised that it was extremely difficult for such associations at present to obtain ammunition. He was therefore glad to see that the item, administration of Arms and Ammunition laws, had been increased.

said that the Minister would remember the conversation which took place between himself and some other members with regard to rifle associations in Natal, and he thought that they had convinced him of the need of the smaller associations. They had to remember that on their borders they had one of the most warlike races. These natives represented ten to one of the white population, and it was necessary that their youths should be taught not only to use a rifle effectively but that their practice should be kept up. These small rifle associations required the support of the Government.

said that there had been a great deal of talk about rifle associations in the different Provinces. He hoped that the suggestion of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton) would be adopted. If they examined the different votes they would find that the Cape of Good Hope got far less than any of the other Provinces, but with that humility which age had given them down here they did not ask for more because they knew they would not get it. (Laughter.)He thought that they should get rid of all this provincialism in regard to rifle associations by accepting the suggestion of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central. He was in favour of centralisation. They were a Union now, and the matter of having one association was worth considering. He would suggest to the Minister that next year he should consider the question of Boy Scouts. There was no movement that was doing more to make manhood out of the youth of this country than the Boy Scouts, and the Minister should give a little attention to the matter.

The hon. member for Durban had spoken very forcibly upon the question of the small contribution of £85,000 to the British Navy. The British Navy were policing the high seas and protecting their trade, and in view of the vast improvement in their imports and the wealth the country was rapidly accumulating, the contribution was an unworthy one. They must never forget the fact that the British Navy was protecting the highways between here and Great Britain and elsewhere, and he hoped the Minister would give his attention to this and the other matters he had mentioned.

said that there was no vote which he was more ashamed of than the vote of £85 000to the British Navy. That was the amount that was paid by the Cape and Natal before Union He considered that the vote should have been doubled at the very least. If the Union contributed according to its revenue as much as the Cape and Natal did, the amount would be at least a quarter of a million. He thought that one of the first acts of the Union Government should have been to make an increased contribution to the Navy. He felt that nothing would knit them together and knit them to the Empire more than by making a more liberal contribution.

asked what was the meaning of the £1,000 grant to the Transvaal Bisley, and whether the smaller rifle associations obtained allowances?

was understood to say that this was for the Central Association.

moved that the words “Natal Rifle Association” read “Natal Rifle Associations.

agreed with Mr. Wilcocks that ammunition should be sent to the Magistrates. At present large amounts had to be paid to shopkeepers for ammunition, and he urged the Minister to meet the rural districts in this matter.

said that several speakers on the Opposition side of the House had made reference to the small amount of the contribution to the Navy but they did not indicate the amount that should be paid, with the exception of one member, who went so far as to say that it should be doubled. He would like to point out that even if they doubled their contribution and made it £170,000, what would they have done? If their object were to relieve the British taxpayer, would they have relieved him of 1d. per head? And if their object were to increase the number of ships in the British Navy, what would they have done? To his mind they would simply be taking a little more out of the pockets of the people of this country. He entirely agreed that they should do more than they were doing, and he would suggest how they could do something tangible for the British Navy and at the same time assist themselves. For instance, if they built a fleet of fast ships, say, to the number of ten, they could do what the British Government did in regard to the Cunard Line. They could have ships built according to a certain specification whereby they would be able to carry passengers and cargo in times of peace and be Convertible into warships—fast cruisers—in times of war. The British Government recognised the value of these ships, because it had subsidised the Cunard Line. With regard to the point that we should make a large contribution to ensure our sea-borne commerce, he asked whether that would ensure our sea-borne commerce, because the time to ensure our sea-borne commerce was in time of war? In time of war, in all probability, the British Navy would be concentrated somewhere in the vicinity of the British Isles. The result would be that our commerce would be left absolutely unprotected, and we could not blame Britain, inasmuch as she would want to protect her route for food supplies, that was the route between Canada, America, and England.

If we would protect our own sea-borne commerce, we had to build our own ships. In view of the fact that the mail contract had expired this year, it was worthy of the Government’s consideration whether we should build our own ships. Let them assume that it cost £5,000,000. Five millions could be borrowed—

Make it ten. (A laugh.)

Hon. members are trying to be facetious, and they signally fail.

You are talking about something you don’t understand.

The hon. member is the best judge of what I don’t understand. (Hear, hear.) All the same the hon. member is not going to brow-beat me into sitting down. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) I think I may be equally reasonable, possibly superior, to the hon. member in that respect.

Hear, hear. (Laughter.)

said let them assume that it cost five million pounds to build ships. Our mail subsidy would practically cover this. Let them take the White Star Line. He noticed from the cables the other day that that company had just paid 60 per cent. in dividends, in spite of the fact that it had just built two leviathans.

said that the hon. member was travelling rather wide of the question.

said he was endeavouring to point out the advantage of building our own ships He thought it was worthy of the consideration of the Government. His ideas may be crude, as the hon. member (Colonel Crewe) seemed to think, but the idea was there, she germ was there, and if the Government would bring their gigantic brains in collusion with the gigantic brains of his hon. friend (Colonel Crewe), to bear on a subject of this description, they might evolve something out of it, if they wished to.

wished to know whether the £1,000 for the central Bisley was only for the central association of Johannesburg. If that was so, and the other societies did not benefit, he would move the deletion of the vote.

said the amount was paid to the central association which represented the other associations. In future there would have to be another policy in which all rifle associations would be helped, but for the time being they had to proceed as in the past. In regard to the South African Bisley, he thought that was an idea which was worthy of recommendation.

said that they were anxious to know whether this amount was to be divided amongst the various associations in order to relieve the difficulties which they had at present.

said he thought his hon. friend was absent when he gave the explanation to the hon. member for Umlazi, who put this question to him. He had told the hon. member that, in response to the representations that were made on that occasion, he had instructed the Commandant-General in Natal to go into the case of these rifle associations and to see how far it may be possible for him (the Minister) to meet them in the necessary expenses to which they were put He had told him (the Minister) what the state of affairs was, and he was going to meet them. Replying to Mr. L. Geldenhuys, he said that no Sunday shooting was indulged in by the Central Association. Only Volunteers went in for Sunday shooting, but he hoped that hon. members would await the report of the Sunday Observances Commission before dealing with this matter.

said he wished the Minister would consider a matter that he had brought to his notice last year in regard to the pay received by soldiers and sailors stationed in this country. He understood that they only got the same amount of money per diem as if they were serving in England. As they knew, the purchasing power here was much smaller.

asked the hon. member what item he was referring to.

The contribution to His Majesty’s Navy. May I raise the question of sailors under that?

held that it would be out of order.

moved that the vote be taken by sub-heads.

This was agreed to.

On sub-heads A to D, Administration, £44,089,

moved on page 123, sub-head A, to omit “1 Law Adviser at £1,100—£1,500a. 2 Assistant Law Advisers at £1,000—£2,500a”; and to substitute “2 Law Advisers at £1,100—£3,000a 1 Law Adviser at £900—£900a”; and a consequential reduction of provision on sub-head A of £100.

said he wished to call attention to a matter on which there was a considerable amount of dissatisfaction, and see if he could get from the Minister of Justice any explanation of the extraordinary attitude which had been adopted by him and his Department in connection with the filling up of a vacant Field-cornetcy in the district of Stoekenstrom.

Proceeding, the hon. member said that a vacancy had occurred in Ward 4 of the Stockenstrom Division, which was next to the Hertzog Ward—an appropriate name. The procedure had always been that the Divisional Council were called together and afterwards sent nominations to the Government. Previous to nominations being called for, owing to the resignation, the Magistrate had asked a certain gentleman if he would kindly act in that position. When Mr. Long (resigned there was a gentleman of the name of Hatton, who was field-cornet in the Balfour Division. The Divisional Council, which represented all sections of the people in that district, the Magistrate, and the local people thought that all interests would be served if Mr. Hatton, who resided in the Hertzog Ward, should be allowed to resign his position and take up a similar position in the other ward. At the same time the Divisional Council proposed that Mr. Stumbles should be appointed in the Balfour Ward. One would have thought that under these circumstances the ordinary procedure that had always been adopted would have been followed, and that the recommendations of the Divisional Council would have been adopted by the Minister of Justice and by his Department, more especially as the names of the gentlemen which had been brought forward had received the strongest approval of the Magistrate of the district, who was the ex officio chairman of the Divisional Council; but instead of that having taken place, the extraordinary attitude had been adopted by the Department of his hon. friend of refusing to accept the recommendation of the Divisional Council, and instructions had been sent from the Department of Justice, that as there was only a vacancy in the Hertzog Ward, the Divisional Council would make a recommendation for that ward alone. The Divisional Council, under the circumstances, held a meeting on May 12, 1911; and the hon. member proceeded to read an extract from the minutes of that meeting. He next read a resolution passed by the Council, which was to the effect that the Council resented the action of the Minister of Justice in refusing to accept the recommendations made by them for field-cornets in Wards 2 and 4, and refused to make further recommendations unless a good and sufficient reason were given for such refusal. The hon. member read another letter which was from the Minister of Justice’s department, and was to the effect that if the Council persisted in its present action and did not make any further recommendations he would have to appoint a suitable person as field-cornet for Ward 4. The Council had then passed a resolution to the effect that it adhered to its resolutions of May 12. Mr. Van Wyk had been appointed. The Resident Magistrates had written to Mr. Stumbles that his duties had been performed in an eminently satisfactory manner.

Having quoted from further correspondence, the hon. member went on to say that on the 18th January of the present year a letter had been received by the Divisional Council from the Resident Magistrate, stating that he had received a letter from the Department of Justice (Pretoria) that the Minister of Justice had decided not to alter the appointment of Mr. Hatton to Ward Balfour, and that, as Mr. Stumbles did not reside in that ward, his name should not be considered for the vacancy. He noticed from the papers in connection with that matter which had been laid on the table that they included the correspondence other than confidential letters. He wanted to ask what were the characters of those confidential letters. The correspondence was of such a nature that the whole of it should be laid on the table so that hon. members had an opportunity of judging the whole matter, especially in a case of that sort, where recommendations of that kind had been made by the Divisional Council, and not accepted by the Department over which the hon. member presided. Surely the manner in which the correspondence had been carried out in connection with the extraordinary attitude of the Department of Justice was of such a character that the whole of it should be laid upon the table of the House. (An Hon. Member: “They don’t dare to do it,”) His hon. friend had said what he believed to be the real case. That matter had left upon the minds of the public in that district a most unfortunate impression. If the Divisional Council had suggested a gentleman who was considered unsuitable by the inhabitants of the district, it would have been a different matter, but they had selected a gentleman whom the Resident Magistrate considered a suitable man. In both cases the Divisional Council had unanimously made the recommendation, and notwithstanding that unanimity the Department of the Minister of Justice had gone back on those recommendations, and had taken a high-handed action, appointing a gentleman (Mr. Van Wyk) who had not received the sanction of the Divisional Council, which body was representative of all the sections of the district.

said if the hon. member could only control himself a little better he would be able to digest matters better.

I would have been able to digest the confidential correspondence.

Yes. I have no doubt, (because there is so little in it.

There is quite enough in this.

I wish to tell the hon. member, after the furious state into which he has worked himself, that I am very sorry for his constituency. Proceeding, he said that certainly as far as the Divisional Council was concerned he had not the least consideration for them, and he would not have the least consideration for any Divisional Council acting as that Divisional Council did. (Ministerial cheers.) And he might say that in every case of a similar nature he would treat them in exactly the same manner. (Ministerial cheers.)

I have no doubt about that.

said that if the Divisional Council, evidently taking after the hon. member, found it impossible to control their tempers—if they had really been able to restrain themselves they would have been able to have written to him a better letter than they did, and they would have been able to understand the letter written to them by his Department. But, like the hon. member, they evidently worked themselves into a state of fury, and then began, like some volcano, to spout forth. (Ministerial cheers.) The facts of this case—he had not the papers—

They are all there, except the private correspondence which the Minister did not give.

said that, in the first case, those gentlemen made a recommendation to his Department to have the field-cornet from; Ward 3 exchanged, and shifted over to Ward 4. When the papers were brought to him, he said that he had no right to take a man from the one ward and appoint him to another unless he first resigned, and so a letter was written, in which the Department said they could not allow the exchange.

What did the Divisional Council do? Instead of saying, if they did not understand the letter, “What is the reason?” they gave expression to feelings of resentment and insisted upon an exchange. He simply wrote back that they could not exchange. He did think that the feeling in the Divisional Council was due, to a great extent, to the contagious state in which popular feeling was at that time in regard to his Department. They simply wrote back an impudent letter that they resented his action. He wrote back asking them to make another recommendation. They wrote and said they had no other man, and, like their representative in Parliament, every time it got a little worse, and this time they were belching forth. (Ministerial cheers.) And they said they refused to make a recommendation, and he said, “Very well, he would make the appointment himself.” (Ministerial cheers.) Then he made inquiries who was the fit and proper person, and after the inquiries he appointed a man without their recommendation, as he would do in every case when he met with such conduct, whether it be from a Divisional Council or from his hon. friend (Sir T. W. Smartt). (Ministerial cheers.) With regard to the private correspondence, of course, all those papers were called for some time ago, and laid on the table of the House. When the papers were called for, he said he would not give the private correspondence, and appealed to the Speaker about it. He thereupon adopted a course which he would adopt in every case, no matter what his hon. friend the hon. member for Fort Beaufort said. (Ministerial cheers.) And he might say here, regarding these confidential papers, there were two letters. The one was a private letter addressed to him and marked confidential, by a man in the district, who wrote to him privately that there was this vacancy, and he would like a certain man appointed. He suggested two or three men. To this his (the Minister’s) private secretary replied by way of an ordinary letter, simply as far as he remembered acknowledging receipt of his letter.

Well, those two papers were among the papers, and he took them out, and that was the extent of the private letters: but whether they went to that extent or any other extent, he would certainly not have private correspondence or confidential letters of that kind laid on the table of the House, except under extraordinary circumstances; but not in ordinary cases. Well, that was what happened; and what had taken place there he was quite prepared to see take place again any day; and if men like the members of that Divisional Council and others thought they were going to bluff him they were mistaken. He would resent it, and he would certainly not allow them to do it.

said he thought the extraordinary explanation given by the Minister of Justice should not be allowed to pass without some comment; but he believed it was hopeless to bring it home to the Minister of Justice. Perhaps he might to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, who had now heard it stated, by an important Minister of the Crown, that secret documents passed between individuals and the Government in connection with appointments, and that they would not be laid upon the table of the House. When he moved for the papers some few months ago, the hon. Minister moved for the protection of the Speaker, and asked to be allowed to withdraw from them certain private memoranda, and he (the hon. member) then stated what he stated now, that he did not think that there should pass private memoranda between officials of the Government and individuals which they were not prepared to place upon the table now. It was a very serious state of affairs, and if that was the way in which the Minister conducted his Department he did not wonder that there was such an amount of dissatisfaction. The Minister of the Interior would know that in the course of ordinary correspondence through a department, when papers were circulated, minutes were very often put on the side or on the back.

He also knew that there was another practice in which a memorandum was writ ten on a separate piece of paper which was always attached to the original, so that any remark a Minister made, and any remark a high official chose to put on that paper, came up with the correspondence, and was laid on the table of the House. He understood that that was a wholesome custom which the Minister of Justice had departed from, according to his own explanation, and all he (the hon. member) could say was that if that was allowed, the Government must take the responsibility, because it was not a healthy state of affairs, and was going to lead to serious irregularities. (Opposition cheers.) He hoped hon. members would not treat this as if it were a party question. (Ministerial laughter and Opposition cheers.) If hon. members on the other side would choose to look at the names of the Divisional Council of Stockenstrom, they would see that they did not treat it in that manner.

Look at their be haviour.

Yes, look at it. I will give it to you. Proceeding, he said the Resident Magistrate wrote stating that the Field-cornet was resigning, and proposing to get Mr. Hatton transferred from Balfour, Ward 2, to Ward 4, Hertzog, and asking: “Will you be prepared to accept nomination for that? I trust you will.” The letter was signed by the Civil Commissioner of the district. In the Divisional Council it was proposed that Mr. F. A. Hatton, Balfour, Ward 2, should be transferred to Ward 4, Hertzog, and Mr. Stumbles be appointed to Ward 2, Balfour; and that was carried unanimously. If there was anything in the argument of his hon. friend the Minister, instead of saying that the Divisional Council was impudent, it would have been for him to say that before he could agree to the nomination the law provided that Mr. Hatton must nominally resign his post so that they could nominate him.

They knew that in the Cape Colony the Field-cornets had most important duties to perform. One of the most important was the compilation of the voters’ roll, and, notwithstanding this fact, the Minister had deliberately departed from the recommendation of the Divisional Council; and he would say, unhesitatingly, had adopted an attitude that was unknown in any previous occasion in the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope. And he would say it was no wonder that the people began to view with suspicion actions of that character, and it was no wonder that the people in the district of Stockenstrom would like to know the nature of the correspondence which had been withheld. Proceeding, the hon. gentleman read a letter which he said gave the whole of the details of this business, and in which it was stated that it was understood that private correspondence was carried on between General Hertzog and one or more gentlemen in the locality in connection with these appointments. Continuing, the hon. member said that these letters should also be produced. It was some of the private correspondence that had not been laid upon the table of the House. All he could say was that the explanation of the Minister was not a satisfactory explanation. It was not satisfactory to him, and he was perfectly certain it was not satisfactory to the people of Stockenstrom, whom he had the honour to represent, and he could only say this, that so long as these things occurred it was the duty of hon. members to bring them up so that it would be made impossible for administration of this character to be carried on in the Union of South Africa.

said that with regard to the practice of laying departmental minutes and papers of a confidential nature on the table of the House, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort stated that this had always been the rule. He (the Minister) challenged him to produce one single instance in which it had been done by him. He had specially—because the point had been raised last night—asked Mr. Lansdown if this had been the practice, and he replied that this had never been done and that he was not aware that the practice was followed anywhere else. He (the Minister) had, on one occasion, laid confidential papers on the table of the House, but that was for a special reason. To make this practice a rule would be to seriously interfere and make it almost impossible to transact public business, and he challenged the hon. member opposite to point out one instance in which he had adopted this course. He (the Minister) had not written to a single correspondent in the Stockenstrom district.

said that for some days he had heard in the lobbies rumours of a great debate, and now they had to listen to all this nonsense. In other matters the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had always expressed the opinion that no notice should be taken of the desires of the people as to whom they wished to have as field-cornets, and he could not understand his present motive. He (Mr. Kuhn) wished to congratulate the Minister on his effective reply.

thought that as the Minister or Justice got into touch with the real democracy—(laughter)—he would know better how to act under such circumstances. He would find that these simple farmers meant no harm, although they were sometimes a little bard in their feelings. With regard to the item of £792 (Law Clerk), he would like to ask the hon. Minister if he considered this appointment a necessary one?

said the Minister of Justice had given the reason why the appointment referred to had not been made, but in the days when Sir Thos. Smartt was in office, he remembered a case of a Field-cornet being appointed totally against the advice of the Somerset Divisional Council, and without any explanation being offered. Eventually an inquiry had been held and this Field-cornet had been obliged to resign, and the person recommended by the Divisional Council was appointed in his place. He strongly deprecated the attitude of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort.

said he would like to call the attention of the Minister to the appointments on the Licensing Courts. As those who had knowledge of the subject in Cape Colony knew the Resident Magistrate of the district presided over these Courts. There was also the Mayor, three representatives appointed by the Divisional Council, and two Justices of the Peace nominated by the Government of the day. Well, some time ago, there was considerable discussion in regard to appointments made by the Government in regard to the Licensing Courts. That was to say, regarding three Government nominations. In some cases men who had done these duties for years were displaced, and the only explanation given was that they wanted new blood. In February last papers were called for with reference to these appointments, and papers were laid upon the table of the House which disclosed a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. It was the custom in the Cape that Government appointments were made on the recommendation of the Resident Magistrate of the district, who was always asked to recommend them. These nominations were always on the side of the Magistrate; that was to say, on the side of law and justice. So far as they could judge by the papers, and so far as they could judge from outside, the custom was being departed from. Some outside nominations had been taken, but where the Minister got these from the papers did not reveal. He would like to refer to some of the correspondence in connection with these nominations. Take, for instance, the case of the Montagu Resident Magistrate—Mr. Case. On November 8, he wrote proposing Dr. Wessels and Dr. Muller as Government representatives upon the Licensing Board. The Minister telegraphed substituting the name of Mr. Du Toit for Dr. Muller. The Magistrate wrote in reply stating that Dr. Muller was a gentleman eminently suited for the appointment and, although Mr. Du Toit was an estimable and worthy gentleman, he was not so well qualified for the post as Dr. Muller. A letter was received stating that the Minister was opposed to the appointment of medical men on these Boards, and asked the Magistrate again to substitute the name of Mr. Du Toit Mr. Du Toit wrote thanking them for the honour, but begged to decline. A similar case took place at Fishhoek, where a gentleman was nominated to the Licensing Court at Simon’s Town in the same way, but also declined. Now the Resident Magistrate at Richmond wrote evidently with regard to the same outside nominations. He referred to a letter received enclosing a commission as Justice of the Peace, but had the honour to inform the Minister that the nominee was debarred from serving as he was a shareholder in a bottle store. In another case the Department, against the advice of the magistrate, nominated a Mr. Du Plessis. The magistrate reported that this gentleman had left the district for the Orange Free State. The Department replied that it was presumed that his absence was only temporary, but ultimately the magistrate reported that Mr. Du Plessis had left the district permanently. There was a case at Springbokfontein, in which the Department had to give way, and to accept the nomination of the magistrate. The Resident Magistrate of Beaufort West —Mr. C. W. Broers, who was at onetime stationed in Cape Town—recommended that Senator Weeber and Mr. R. T. Wylie be appointed members of the Beaufort West Licensing Court. The Minister of Justice replied, stating that he proposed to substitute Mr. J. A. Louw in place of Mr. Wylie. Thereupon the magistrate replied that the Minister was not cognisant of the fact that Mr. Wylie had been a member of the Court for several years, at which he was a regular attendant, invariably performing his duties conscientiously and to the best interests of the public. The Department replied that the Minister of Justice was in favour of the principle of introducing new blood from time to time, and under the circumstances proposed to appoint Mr. Louw in place of Mr. Wylie Mr. Broers was then in Cape Town, and on his return to Beaufort West wrote “On resuming duty. I find on instructions contained in your letter, that Mr. J. A. Louw had been nominated Justice of the Peace for the purpose of being appointed a member of the Licensing Court in place of Mr. Wylie. Since my appointment as Resident Magistrate here I have done everything in my power to smooth over the ill-feeling between the different sections of the community, and my efforts have not been without result. If Mr. Wylie is removed, a great deal of ill-feeling will be caused, and I am urging as strongly as possible that the proposed appointment of Mr. Louw be not made.” That letter, however, had no effect, and Mr. Louw had been appointed. With regard to the supposed feeling against the doctors, he (Mr. Jagger) would point out that the Magistrate of Oudtshoorn wrote submitting the names of Mr. T. Smith and Mr. Leach as members of the District Licensing Court. The Minister of Justice, however, replied proposing to substitute Dr. Du Plessis and Mr. Fourie.

The alte Mr. C. Shaw Nicholson submitted to the Department the names of Mr. C. W. H. Kohler and Mr. J. H. Duur as members of the Paarl Licensing Board. The Minister of Justice, however, desired to nominate Messrs. Zadare and Leroux. Mr. Nicholson replied that for many years Messrs. Kohler and Duur were Government nominees, but that some three or four years ago he (Mr. Nicholson) substituted the name of Mr. Myburgh for that of Mr. Kohler, but the then Secretary of the Law Department wrote saying that the Minister considered that unless there were strong reasons for not recommending Mr. Kohler, he thought it wise that no change should be made. There was no doubt, added Mr. Nicholson, that both the old members would feel aggrieved if any change were made, especially as they had always attended the meetings of the Court, and done their duty. He would not on his own initiative have recommended one of the new Government nominees as he did not consider his standing to be sufficient to warrant his appointment as Justice of the Peace. At the same time he knew nothing against the gentleman’s character or conduct.

Coming still nearer to Cape Town, Mr. H O. Badnall, late R. M. of Woodstock, submitted the names of Mr. William E. Moore and Mr. D. D. van der Merwe for appointment as members of the Woodstock Licensing Court. The Under-Secretary of Justice replied that the Minister of Justice proposed to appoint Mr. H. L. M. Nelson in place of Mr. Moore, if the Magistrate had no objections to offer. Mr. Badnall replied that Mr. Nelson was convicted in February, 1910, of selling adultearted milk, and fined £2, while judgment and damages had been obtained against him for selling watered milk.

Was he appointed?

Where do these names come from? Mr. Moore was born in the district; everybody in Woodstock knew him. He was a lawyer, and hale and hearty to-day. Mr. Nelson had been sued eight times for goods sold and delivered, and judgment had been given against him in three of those cases, the other cases being withdrawn.

Was he appointed?

I should say not. I would not do my hon. friend the injustice of thinking he was appointed. But it showed the folly of going outside the usual channels. He had taken only a few specimens of cases where men had been displaced after many years’ honourable service, and not one man had been displaced for a good cause. The policy had been extremely unsatisfactory, and it had not increased the influence of the magistrates in the districts, but had caused a good bit of discussion and a deal of dissatisfaction. He would ask the Minister to go back to the old practice of leaving it to the magistrates to recommend the best men of their districts. In following that method, no mistakes could be made, and they would get the best possible men in the districts on their Licensing Board.

referred to the undesirability of appointing professional men as doctors and lawyers on these Boards. Both these had their clients and it was a matter that would appeal to everybody that a man who was appointed would require to be impartial. But men were human whether lawyers or doctors, and it was not improbable that one of their clients might be an applicant for a licence. It would not be fair to place a professional man in the position of having to decide where one of the applicants was a client or patient, and he might even be unfair towards such applicant. He would like an assurance from the Minister of Justice that he would, as far as possible, avoid placing professional men in these positions where they could not always do justice to themselves or their clients.

said he wanted to move the reduction of the Minister’s salary by £1—(laughter)—in order to draw attention to the following fact. About a year ago in Johannesburg there was a dispute between the Tramways Committee of the Town Council and their men, and in consequence certain steps were taken by the committee. The police were drafted into the town. Pick handles were used and barricades erected, in fact, the town was placed in a state of siege. Now he wanted to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the right of holding public meetings was denied the citizens of Johannesburg on that occasion. He was not referring to the strikers themselves, but to the citizens as a whole. A notice was posted up all over Johannesburg, and he thought it was advertised in the papers, prohibiting the citizens from holding meetings either on the Market-square or anywhere else.

It was signed by—

It was signed by—he spoke subject to correction—the Mayor of Johannesburg, one of the Magistrates, and, he believed, the Chief of Police. Notwithstanding that notice, however, a meeting was held, because it was believed that the notice was an illegal one. As the result two citizens were summoned to appear before the Magistrate to answer to a charge of having held an illegal meeting. The law under which this notice was issued was passed some time before the war, he believed 14 or 15 years ago. It came out eventually that the notice was an illegal one, and the charge of breaking the law fell through and the men were not punished. Now what he wanted to point out was that not only were the citizens prevented from holding meetings in the public places in the town, but they were prevented from meeting in private places. A private meeting of citizens was to his knowledge prevented from being held. He was in the Trades’ Hall and Workmen’s Club in Johannesburg one Sunday during the time the strike was on. The Trades’ Hall and Workmen’s Club was a private institution, and nobody except members were admitted. On that particular Sunday a private meeting was to be held by the members of the Johannesburg branch of the Typographical Union of South Africa. The members, not dreaming that the notice posted all over Johannesburg would refer to this club, turned up to attend the meeting. They wanted to discuss matters affecting their Union, quite apart from the tramway strike—(Ministerial laughter)—although possibly it might have had some connection with another strike which took place in Cape Town at the same time. So far as the police authorities were concerned, they did not know what the meeting was going to discuss, and had no right to know; but they insisted that the meeting be broken up, and sent men there for that purpose. He thought that that was an extremely dangerous state of affairs. It caused a great deal of inconvenience to a considerable number of law-abiding citizens in Johannesburg, and he moved the reduction of the Minister’s salary in order to get some explanation of the conduct of the authorities in Johannesburg at that time. He considered that the denial of the right to hold public meetings was trespassing upon what he believed to be the liberty of the subject.

said he also wished to bring a case before the Minister. In the Alexandria district a Mr. Weeks, who had been a member of the Licensing Board for 16 or 17 years, was this year displaced, and there seemed to be a feeling that an injustice had been done. He did not suggest that there was any political move in this matter, but there was not the recommendation of the magistrate, which was the point urged by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. The feeling was that some influence had been brought to bear upon the Minister privately. He happened to know of another case where influence was brought to bear privately upon the Minister, but he was glad to say that he did his duty and acted upon the nomination of the Magistrate. He hoped the Minister would do justice next year to this gentleman whom he had mentioned as having been left off the Licensing Court.

said he wished to refer to the item of legal expenses, £9,650. He would plead with the Minister that when the Estimates came to be framed next year he should give hon. members a little more information. It was really impossible from the information which appeared on page 124 to know what this £9,650 represented. They had got an item of “cost of civil proceedings, £6,000.” He wanted to know whether, for instance, that £6,000 included the cost to which the Government had been put in the immigration cases which they had lost. He would like the Minister to give some information as to the two large votes of deportation expenses (Europeans), £1,000, and deportation expenses (Asiatics), £2,400. He would admit that these same items appeared on last year’s Estimates exactly the same amount to a pound. But last year they appeared, as hon. members would see, from the footnote, £1,000 under the vote of superior Courts, for deportation of prisoners, and £2,400 under immigration and Asiatic affairs. He believed it was the practice—he did not say it was a legal practice unless the prisoner consented—to deport prisoners at the expiration of their sentences. Now he did not think it was a bad practice—that where a man was sentenced to a long term of imprisonment, if he agreed to leave the country he should be let off a portion of his imprisonment. Hon. members might be of opinion that the £5,400 represented the money which had been spent on deporting prohibited immigrants. That was not the case, because every prohibited immigrant who came to this country did not cost this country a penny, as they were deported at the expense of the shipping company.

said, in answer to the hon. member for Georgetown, he thought he had already made a statement last year in regard to this particular case. What took place was under the law which obtained in the Transvaal, and it was the law of the Transvaal.

Are you going to repeal it?

And a good law, too.

was understood to say that he thought it would be to the advantage of us all if they were to have a Jaw to cover the field covered by that law. They must not forget that a meeting of men might at a certain moment get out of hand, and they wanted a law to enable them to do what should be done at that point in order to prevent worse things from happening. The Act itself had a good object. He had hoped to go into the whole question during this session.

What about breaking up the meeting in the Trades Hall, a private meeting?

I do not know anything about that at this moment. But one thing is certain, that could only have been done under the aegis of the law. Proceeding, the Minister said that, of course, they could not interfere with the discretion of the authorities on the spot.

With regard to the question of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton), with regard to the law clerk, that officer had been appointed for the special purpose of taxing extra-judicial work on behalf of the Government. It had been found that too much was paid for that work done for the Government. (An Hon. Member: “Who were the lawyers?”) They had been spread all over the Transvaal, and were now spread all over the Union. That officer had been appointed to see that the fees which were charged for the various kinds of work were not more than what was payable, and should be paid. That officer’s work had spared the Government year after year over and over the amount of his fees. The last Civil Service Commission had gone into that, and pointed out that it was really economy to have him. He knew by experience how things were constantly going—appeals were made to him, and in a few cases a compromise had been struck by him between the Government attorney and the lawyer. Besides that, that officer did a lot of work, and got up a summary of the review and other cases for the Magistrates, and sent that monthly summary of all these cases to Magistrates, so that they might have these as a guide in their decisions, especially in regard to review cases and so forth. That was a very important work, and took a very large amount of his time. He must say that he would be very sorry to see that position abolished. As to what the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander) had asked, there were a great many people who had to be sent out of the country every year—Asiatics and Europeans—people they did not want there. With regard to the vote, deportation of Asiatics, that was for Indians and others deported under existing laws. As to the big question of the Licensing Courts, he found it necessary, when he had come into office, to do with the Licensing Courts what had been done in the Orange Free State before, i.e., in the first place, there had been so many complaints of cliques in various places that it was necessary that a change ought to be made, and that more fresh men should come in. Complaints had come in that in some of these places things were not done as they should have been—in some cases suspicion had been aroused, and so forth. He had decided that they ought to see that they got fresh men, so as to make sure that if there was anything wrong it should be done away with. At the same time, he decided that they must have in country places representatives from the country as well as the towns. These two things he said he had to do, and he had carried out that system in the Transvaal and in the Free State. Then he had said that he was not going to allow professional men on these Courts. Experience had taught him that it was not advisable to have these people.

Why not?

Because the necessary impartiality was not sufficiently guaranteed. The doctor might not be inclined to do anything that might hurt a client. The result was that he said that in the first place there were to be no medical practitioners, and in the second place they were to have no parsons—

What?

Parsons (Laughter.) In the third place I decided that there were to be no teetotallers, no attorneys or law agents—(laughter)—no managers of banks. (Laughter.)

Overdrafts. (Laughter.)

They are not to be on these Boards. These banks lend large sums of money to these licence holders, and the manager might be prejudiced to allow something or other to go on in order to save his bank.

Whom do you consider eligible? (Laughter.)

What have you got left? (Laughter.)

Well, you have journalists—the hon. member for Port Elizabeth could go on the Board. (Laughter.)

I am a politician. (Laughter.)

said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, need not be afraid, for he had left a place for him. (Laughter.) Continuing, the Minister said that a great many complaints were brought to him, and people from these places said that this or that or the other thing was going on. And these were complaints made by perfectly impartial men. When last this question was before Parliament he was severely criticised, not by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, for not looking into these matters himself, but leaving them to his clerks. Now, when it was found that he did look into these matters, he was told that he had not left sufficient for “local government.” Now it was argued that he should not go into these matters, but leave them to be dealt with by his magistrates and clerks. Memories seemed to be very short. Continuing, he said that he had ascertained what had been the previous practice in regard to these matters, and he had found that the practice was very much the same as had been stated by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, that evening. The Magistrate made the recommendations, and these were sent up to the office. But they were never laid before the Minister, nor was the recommendation of the Magistrate ever interfered with, except where a new man was being appointed in the place of an old one, in which case the permanent head of the Department dealt with the recommendation by confirming it. Mr. Lonsdale put it to him that what was stated in Parliament earlier in the session, to wit, that Cape Ministers always personally attended to these recommendations, was not correct. They never did so. At that time it was a great point made against him. Now he was criticised for dealing with these matters himself instead of leaving them to his clerks. It was not advisable to leave these matters to the Magistrates.

Why?

For very good reasons. Continuing, he said that he would not leave it to the Magistrate for the reason that he was very often a partisan. He could show instances to the hon. member if he took the trouble to come to the office. They had had so many complaints of this description that he was forced to take notice of them.

In favour of liquor?

No, no. Cliques are formed in these places, and eventually the Magistrate takes a side. The Magistrate took a side like a member of the public, and the result was that he was constantly shifting these officials for their own sakes. Hon. members opposite blamed him for nominating these people. But he did not nominate them. What he did was this. Naturally there were many people, especially members of Parliament, who came to him and said: “Look here, when the time for an appointment comes round, get somebody else"—(laughter)—and in the majority of cases they recommended someone; and if they did not he went out of his way to find out what were the circumstances of the case. When a name was brought to his notice, he went to the Magistrate and asked him if he knew anything against the man. He considered this was the position in which a Magistrate should be placed. He (the Magistrate) had not the right of appointment, but was supposed to know everybody in the district. In the case of Nelson, he did not know the man. Somebody must have suggested his name to him. (Cries of “Who?”) He thought there must be about 1,000 people in the Cape who had recommendations to make, and did hon. members suppose he could remember who spoke to him on behalf of Nelson? Personally, he did not know who Nelson was, or what he did. He had to meet the difficulties of selection in the best way possible, and when information was not available from Magistrates he would consult members of Parliament, who were in a position to know who the decent people in the district were. He did not think there could be anyone better able to judge, because sometimes a magistrate might be new to the district, consequently his knowledge would be limited. Concluding, the Minister said that his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) might differ from him in policy, but he had to follow more or less what he thought best, and although his hon. friend might differ from him, he could not censure him for the line he had taken up. The country must be represented in these matters. He could assure his hon. friend that he had devoted many hours to see that they got the right men, and to see that they set about the whole thing in the right way.

said the hon. Minister had admitted removing all doctors, bankers, lawyers, and teetotallers from these Courts. He would point out to the Minister, however, that he had evidently not omitted the politicians, because on the Rand there was a strong feeling that most recent appointments were given to persons who supported a certain political party. He would like to know from the Minister whether he could tell them that he set himself against that sort of thing. He did not want to go any further than to ask the Minister if he would tell them that he set himself against any practice of that kind.

What practice?

The practice of influencing Licensing Court appointments by political considerations—the appointment of political partisans. If the Minister will tell us that he will set himself against that I shall be satisfied. Continuing, Mr. Duncan said he was not much reassured when the Minister told them that he had departed from the recommendations of the Magistrate because they were partisan, and instead had adopted the recommendation of members of Parliament. He (Mr. Duncan) could not imagine any system more likely to arouse suspicion than that. He did not care to which party a member of Parliament belonged, it was inevitable that the member for that district should recommend his supporters. How many of his colleagues on the Rand had been asked for their recommendations? He was afraid that in that district the Minister went to other sources than the local members of Parliament for his recommendation. Magistrates were far more likely to be impartial than members of Parliament were. On the Rand the appointment of members of the Licensing Courts was a very important matter, because the illicit liquor trade was the curse of the Rand in regard to its vast native population. This illicit liquor trade was not carried on by the obscure persons who were hauled before the police courts, but by men of a different social position. According to the police reports a large amount of the liquor used in the illicit liquor traffic came from men actually licensed as bottle-store keepers, and it was from these men that the illicit dealers drew their supplies. There should be no suspicion whatever as to any motive for appointing members of Licensing Courts, except that they were men of standing, who would see that the law was carried out. These nominations should be absolutely removed from the taint that appointments were made for political considerations. The Minister could remove that suspicion, and he should do so.

urged the desirability of delegating the duties to local bodies. Members of municipalities were elected by the public. The municipal bodies should deal with the municipalities and the Divisional Councils with their own districts. If legislation were introduced on those lines it would do away with the idea that Government was acting from a political point of view.

expressed his extreme regret that the Minister of Justice proposed to debar doctors and lawyers from sitting as members of Licensing Courts. Doctors had so many clients that they could afford to be independent of any odd number of their clients. He could say from a large experience that people did not go to a doctor to encourage him, but to be cured. A doctor was not forced to go on a Licensing Court if he did not want, and wherever a doctor took up that position they could rely upon his being quite fearless. Doctors were fairly independent men and could take up an independent position.

He wanted to bring to the notice of the Minister the question of the registration of diamonds. There was a registration tax of one-half per cent. on diamonds sent from one district to another. There might not be any reference to this question in this vote, but when the Diggers’ Union wrote to the Department of Mines they were referred to the Department of Justice. Now, when the Transvaal was a separate country one could understand a tax being collected in the Cape on diamonds sent to or through the Transvaal, otherwise the revenue which came from that tax would be lost to the Cape. But now that they had Union it seemed very hard to him that men who took their diamonds from Warrenton to Bloemhof, because they could get better prices, should have to pay one-half per cent. tax. At the present time a double registration fee was collected.

On a point of order, does this matter come under this vote?

The more appropriate time would be to bring it up under the vote of the Minister of Mines.

said that that was all very well, but the Minister of Mines might say that he had told these people that the matter had been referred to the Department of Justice. If the Minister of Justice said that he had nothing to do with it, he would not press the matter.

said that he had nothing to do with the matter.

said that in view of that the Minister of Mines could not say that he had referred the matter to the Minister of Justice, as he stated in his letter to the Diggers’ Union.

said that he would refer to the question raised by the hon. member for Fordsburg in connection with the nomination of members for Licensing Boards. It was physically impossible for the Minister himself to know individuals. On the Witwatersrand there were constituencies from one end to the other, only two of which were Nationalist supporters. These places were Labour or Unionist. But in every case the appointments to the Licensing Boards happened to be Nationalists.

If the hon. member would waive “every case,” he would ask him to take the proportion and ask him whether there was not some outrageous discrepancy, something that he (the Minister) had a right to demand an explanation of? The people took hold of this and said “This is bias and this is what the Minister of Justice has done,” and they held the Minister of Justice responsible for political appointments in every case. It was impossible for the Minister to know these people who were appointed. There must be some channel which he drew upon to put in only people of a certain kind.

said he thought it would be a pity to bring the liquor question into municipal elections. He was opposed to the principle of having elective Licensing Boards. The proper way to do it was by legislation allowing the people to vote by ballot upon the question, of to what extent the liquor traffic should be carried on in their midst. Recently there had been a great to-do about the decisions of a Licensing Court not 100 miles from Cape Town. If the two nominees of the Government had been at that Court, and done their duty, there would have been no trouble about it. They did not attend, and he thought the Minister should take a note of this, and remove men from office who did not attend to their duties. He referred to some members of a certain Licensing Court who were in favour of the Saturday hours being reduced being outvoted every time by the brandy vote.

said that the composition of the Cape Town Licensing Court was not representative of the people of Cape Town at all. There was now no Divisional Council in Cape Town, but there was a Raral Council, which had nothing to do with the municipalities of the Cape Peninsula, yet it had the power of appointing half the elected re presentatives of the Licensing Court in question. The result of that had been seen recently, when it had decided to extend the hours of a large number of public-houses from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m., which, he thought, was contrary to the wishes of the community. (Hear, hear.) He hoped that the Minister would devote attention to that.

said that a strong commission was appointed, and the report had almost been completed. He hoped this would be one of his laws next year.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Andrews was Withdrawn.

The amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice was agreed to.

On sub-heads E and F, “Attorney-General’s Division,” £19,144,

moved on page 124, sub-head E, to omit items “2 Crown Prosecutors at £900—£2,500f; 4 Professional Assistants at £800—£3,200f,” and to substitute “2 Crown Prosecutors (1 at £1,100, 1 at £900)—£2,500f; 4 Professional Assistants (1 at £900, 3 at £800)—£3,300,” and a consequential increase in provision on sub-head E of £100.

Agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave granted to sit again on Monday.