from the widow of the late Luke Slavin, pensioner.

from J. J. de Lange, owner of certain lot from the title of which the grazing rights over the commonage of the location of Bergmanshoop had been omitted.

from V. G. Fenner-Solomon, owner of certain erf, on the deed of transfer of which the grazing rights over the commonage of the location of Readsdale had been omitted.

from J. S. Marwick, late of Natal Civil Service.

as chairman, brought up the Fourth Report of the Select Committee on Waste Lands, as follows: Your committee, having considered 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, referred to them, beg to recommend as follows: That the House concur in the purchase by the Government of the share and interest of the Rhodesia Railways, Limited, 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 thirty-four thousand five hundred pounds sterling (£34,500), and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in a provisional deed of agreement, dated 6th June, 1912, entered into between the Government and the said Rhodesia Railways, Limited.

The report was ordered to be considered in committee on Wednesday.

Memorandum on negotiations between the Government and the Rhodesia Railways, Limited. Government Notice No. 727 of 1912, having reference to a Regulation framed under section 4 of Act No. 19 of 1891 (Cape).

said: I beg to lay on the table a copy of the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the year ending March 31, 1913, under vote 20, Mines. His Excellency the Governor-General having been informed of the provisions of the proposed Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the Union for the year ending March 31, 1913 (vote 20, Mines), recommends the appropriation contemplated therein to the consideration of the House. I beg to move that these Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the year ending March 31, 1913, under vote 20, Mines, be referred to the Committee of Supply on the Estimates.

The motion was agreed to.

moved in line 14, to omit “12” and substitute “22”; and on page 4, to omit the definition “mortgagee,” in lines 36 and 37.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 2, Conditions upon which Transvaal settler obtains Crown grant,

moved to omit “in freehold” and to substitute “on perpetual quitrent tenure.”

asked the Minister of Lands to place the settlers in the Transvaal on the same footing as the Free State settlers in regard to instalments.

said the intention was to leave the present conditions as they were. These conditions might appear harsh in regard to the Transvaal settlers, who, whoever, were benefited in other ways.

urged that settlers placed on the land by the Imperial Government should also fall under this Bill.

said he had already dealt with the question at the second reading.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 4, Amendment of Agricultural Settlements Private Ordinance, 1907 (Orange Free State),

moved after “Roodepoort,” in line 27, to insert “in the district of Bloemfontein.”

The amendment was agreed to

The Bill was reported with amendments.

moved that the amendments be now considered.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

The amendments were considered and agreed to, and the third reading fixed for Wednesday.

put the new term “employer.”

moved as an amendment, in lines 13 and 14, to omit “or his legal representative”, and in line 16, after “act” to insert “or the legal representative of such person.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

put the proposed insertion of the words in sub-section (2) of clause 3. in lines 24 to 27, which was negatived.

moved as an amendment, in line 24, after “whatsoever,” to insert “An alternate so appointed shall represent the owners of mines or the miners, according as the person for whom he is appointed to act represented owners of mines or the miners.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

New clause 5,

put the new clause.

moved, in line 31, after “succeeding,” to insert “such commencement”; in line 49, to omit “as defined in,” and to substitute “determined as provided by”; and in line 53, to omit “amounts” and to substitute “amount.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

On new clause 7,

moved as an amendment, in line 10, to omit “current”; in line 11, after “year,” to insert “ending the thirty-first March, 1913”; in line 24, after “exhausted,” to omit all the words to “this Act” in line 25, and to substitute “when all claims mentioned in section 4 have been satisfied”; in line 26, to omit “compensation,” and to substitute “insurance”: and to add at the end “hereafter mentioned.” The Minister said the object of this amendment was as follows: He had made a calculation, and found that the amount which would be drawn from this £100,000 would be £50,000 for the first year, and £20,000 for the second, so that at the end of the second year there would be a balance of £30,000, and the proposal was that this should be utilised for the same purpose of meeting the poorer mines, and if there was any balance at the end of the five years, it could be put into the insurance fund.

seconded.

thought the object the Minister had in view was praiseworthy, but he would like to know if they included the amount of lump sum claims that would have to be paid.

The amendments were agreed to.

The new clause as amended was agreed to.

New clause 15,

moved to omit the word “miners” for the purpose of inserting “persons.”

seconded.

said these amendments were not inconsequential amendments at all. They were important amendments. As the amendment stood now the word “miner” included natives, and he thought it would be better to leave the clause as it stood.

moved after the word “persons” to add “native labourer as defined in the Native Labour Regulation Act, 1911.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

The amended amendment was agreed to.

moved in line 41, after “one-third of,” to omit “the miners,” and to substitute “such persons”; in line 50, to omit “his or such,” and to substitute “the”; and in line 40, after “employer” to insert “not being the holder or lessee of a mine which for the time being is included in the list published in the ‘ Gazette ’ under section 2 of this Act.”

seconded.

said miners might petition to be put on the list but employers would be more likely to petition to be put off it, in which case the definition as it stood was good.

The amendment was carried.

On clause 8,

put the amendment in line 70.

moved as an amendment, in line 69, after “mines,” to insert “which have at any time been”; and in line 70, to omit “any,” and to substitute “a.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 14,

put the amendment in sub-section (2).

moved as an amendment to this amendment, in line 52, after “period” to insert “The ticket shall be”; in line 53, after “schedule,” to omit “of” and to substitute “to”; and in the same line to omit “containing” and to substitute “shall contain.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 16,

put the amendment in line 44.

moved as an amendment, to omit “to such effect” and to substitute “accordingly.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 19,

put the amendment in line 65, sub-section (1).

moved as an amendment, in line 65, to omit “be or having” and to substitute “who is or has”: and in line 67 to omit “who” and to substitute “and”.

seconded.

Agreed to.

New clause 37,

put the new clause.

moved the deletion of sub-section (2), which is as follows: “Any miner who shall be convicted for 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, 1911.” The mover said that the Mines’ Regulation Act empowered the Minister to make regulations and to allot penalties suitable for the infringement of each regulation. The further power given in the sub-section appeared to be quite unnecessary, and if it had any force at all it appeared to direct that any contravention of the regulations was to be treated in a very much more drastic manner than the Minister would provide under the Mines’ Regulation Act. In the long run the person who suffered most through the neglect of precautions was the miner, who would suffer in his own body.

seconded.

hoped the House would not accept the amendment. He could see no greater offence than neglect to carry out these precautions. (Hear, hear.) They were using the most drastic penalties against the employers, and, therefore, it followed that they should use very drastic penalties against the men who had the matter in their own hands. His hon. friend used the odd plea that a miner who infringed the regulations would suffer a personal penalty, but the man might not have the disease—he might be a new hand, and leave the mine before he contracted miners’ phthisis—but others might be affected injuriously through his negligence. As far as he had been able to follow the discussion on this question, there was one universal complaint from those who were acquainted with underground work, and this was that the penalties were not carried out; that there was no punishment on the people for wrongdoing, although here and there a stray case might be brought up. The House should do what they could to make it seem that the offence was a very grave one. By imposing a fine not exceeding £100 they showed that they considered it a very grave offence indeed.

said that if it were at all necessary to have this clause in he would certainly support the right hon. the member for Victoria West, but it was not necessary. First of all, they did not take powers under this Act to frame regulations for the safety and health of miners. That was done under clause 4 (e) of the Mines and Works Act. Exactly the penalty which the right hon. gentleman wished to propose here was provided for in the Mines and Works Act. Under this Miners’ Phthisis Act they had no power to enforce any regulations. If any regulations were to be enforced or proclaimed, they were proclaimed under the Mines and Works Act. Since 1911, if there had been no regulations, or the regulations had not been observed, it was the fault of the administration, and not the fault of the law.

The amendment was agreed to.

The new clause, as amended, was agreed to

On clause 1, Interpretation of terms,

moved, in the definition of “miner,” in line 26, after “person,” to omit “of European descent,” and to substitute “other than natives as described in the Native Labour Regulation Act, 1911.” He said he would have been glad if this question had not been raised at all, but, as it had been raised by the hon. member for Fordsburg, they were bound to meet it. The only way of meeting it, he thought, was by cutting out “of European descent” and excluding the native. There were yellow people and brown people doing the same work as Europeans, and, in fact, more highly paid work than that done by some Europeans. Then there were other brown and yellow people doing the ordinary work of native labourers. If they struck out “of European descent” and substituted the words in the amendment, that would, of course, leave these people to be dealt with afterwards. If they said nothing more, they would be dealt with on the same terms as European miners. They would be entitled, if they could prove their case, to get £8 per month and up to £400. That was manifestly beyond the circumstances of the case in some cases, although in other cases it might be quite right to give them that amount, because they might be earning wages that would entitle them to it. He proposed later on to ask that the Board should be given the power of deciding in each case whether a man belonged to the status of a native or to the status of a European employee. It would be absurd to treat these people on the same lines as Europeans. He had a difficult task to discharge, and he thought this was the best way of doing it, and a way that was more logical than the Minister’s proposal.

seconded the amendment.

said that if they were to accept this amendment in the definition of “miner” they would have to go right through the clauses, and limit wherever they had the word “miner” now to “European miner.” Under clause 21, for instance, if they accepted this amendment, the class they were now dealing with would fall in under the full benefits as provided in that clause, unless they limited the clause to “European miner.” It seemed to him, if they were going to deal with non-European miner and European miner, it was better to leave the definition now as it stood, and when they came to the new clause, instead of saying in the case of non-European miner, to say “in the case of the miner not referred to in the definition or not being a native labourer.” He would suggest that they should leave the discussion of the merits of this proposal until they came to it, but that they should not interfere with the definition of miner,” because that would throw the whole Bill out of gear.

referred to the position of boss boys, who were earning more than the ordinary native labourer, and asked whether it would not be possible to devise some way of treating their case on a higher basis.

said he thought the suggestion of the Minister was a good one. If they left the words “of European descent” in the definition of “miner,” it seemed to him that the proposal of the right hon. gentleman fell to the ground altogether.

said that their desire to omit the words “of European descent,” although it was made for a different purpose to the present one, would, if it had been carried out, have enabled them to avoid all these difficult points. It appeared to him that the proposal of the hon. member was objectionable in that it again introduced the precise principle which the right hon. gentleman so profoundly objected to, of treating people according to their earning powers. It did not appear to him to be quite a reasonable way of dealing with the matter, due regard being had in making the award to the class of work performed underground and the wages drawn by such claimants. It did not seem to him that it was a scheme that would work with great smoothness, and, further, the altering of this definition now would mean altering a large number of clauses later on, whereas the way in which the Minister proposed to deal with it would not require any alteration in this definition.

The amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) was put, and negatived.

On clause 9, Method of levying contributions to Insurance Fund,

moved to add at the end of sub-section (2) “provided that in the case of a miner being awarded compensation under this Act prior to the expiration of two years from the commencement thereof the amount of any deductions made from his earnings under this section shall be refunded to him in addition to the compensation awarded, and the amount of any contributions made by his employer in respect to such miner shall be refunded to such employer.” He said that he moved this amendment in Select Committee, but it was negatived, and he now moved it in the hope that hon. members would see the justice of the case. It was only fair that the contributions should be refunded to the miners. The money belonged to the miners, and they ought to have it.

seconded the amendment.

The amendment was put, and declared negatived.

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

moved that the following be a new clause: “0. In the case of any person who is employed upon underground work in any mine for the time being included in the list published under section 2 who is not a miner (as in section 1 defined), or a native labourer (as in the Native Labour Regulation Act, 1911, defined), who may submit a claim in the prescribed form the Board may deal with his case either under section 29, or under section 21, due regard being had in making the award to the class of work performed and the wages drawn by such claimant: Provided that in any case in which the Board shall decide to deal with the claim under section 29, the amount of the contributions collected on account of the wages drawn by such claimant shall be added to the amount of compensation, and paid over by the Board to the claimant or his legal representatives.”

seconded.

said that he thought the right hon. gentleman should have put his amendment in the form of a new clause, because it dealt with a special subject. The difference between this and the clause moved by him was that it gave the option to the Board to decide how a man was to be dealt with. If they dealt with him as a native then he got his contributions repaid to him. That no longer applied, because there was nothing in the Bill which compelled a coloured man to contribute to the fund. It was better to leave the option of contributing to the coloured man when he asked for employment. It seemed to him that that was a fairer way of dealing with this problem. He had consulted the Department upon this question. According to the wages earned, if they got one half as much as the white man got, then that would be a fair proposition. There was another class that was not covered, and that was the case of a coloured man who had already got miners’ phthisis, and who would not continue to work, and would come under the compensation fund. He had made inquiries, and found there was not a single case on the mines at present. He moved that the following be a new clause: “9. (1) Any person who is employed upon underground work in any mine for the time being included in the list published under section 2 who is not a miner (as in section 1 defined), or a native labourer (as in the Native Labour Regulation Act, 1911, defined), may elect that for so long as he is so employed deductions shall be made by his employer from his earnings in accordance with the provisions of section 9. (2) If the person so electing notify the Board in writing that he does so elect, he shall be entitled: (a) If his application be made within a period of two years after the commencement of this Act, to benefits within the discretion of the Board not exceeding one-half of those which may be awarded under this Act to a miner; and (b) if his application be made after the expiry of that period, to the benefits which may be awarded under this Act to a miner, according to the circumstances applicable in each case. (3) If such person does not so elect he shall be entitled to the benefits which under section 29 may be awarded to a native labourer in the circumstances described in that section and the provisions of that section shall apply to him for the purpose of enabling him to obtain those benefits.”

seconded.

said he could not understand what was meant by saying not to exceed half the amount. He could not understand why they should seek to make invidious distinctions. In paragraph (b) they left the amount to the discretion of the Board. Why should they not be left to the discretion of the Board in the other? He moved in sub-section (2), paragraph (a), to omit “one-half of”.

seconded.

said an employer would hardly run the risk of having to meet claims of £400. If they had to meet that risk, probably, it would mean the dismissal of coloured men. It would be much better if they allowed the coloured men to contribute. He moved that the following be a new clause: “9. Any person not being a ‘miner’ as defined by this Act, and not being provided for under section 29 hereof, whose regular occupation is underground shall be entitled to subscribe five shillings per month to the fund to be established under section 8 hereof and his employer shall in respect of him contribute five shillings per month during the first two years and thereafter ten shillings per month, and such person shall be entitled to benefits not exceeding one-third of the maximum referred to in section 21 and shall in other respects be and as to himself and his dependants subject to the provisions governing ‘ miner ’ under this Act.”

seconded.

said he preferred Mr. Merriman’s way of dealing with the subject. They must deal with the coloured person either as European or native—(hear, hear)—and he could not see where the injustice of this came in, either to the employer or employee. (Hear, hear.)

hoped that the House would adopt the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria West, in the hope that the definition of “miner” would be altered in another place. He did not think the Minister’s amendment would work out fairly to the employee, who was to be given the right to say whether he would contribute or not. By pressure of competition the coloured man would be driven into the same position as the native worker, as the mines would give preference to the man who would not contribute. Every coloured man who elected to contribute would be driven out of employment on the mines in favour of the man who did not elect to contribute.

said he could not help thinking that the further they got out of the mud the deeper they got into the mire. They were proposing to compensate men, according either to their race or their colour. As one difficulty, he might instance the fact that in Natal, Mauritians and people from St. Helena were regarded as Europeans.

said that on the Rand to-day no provision was made for these people, but there had never been any difficulty, for, broadly speaking, no coloured people were doing what was known as white men’s work. Under the proposal they might have a coloured man contributing and then becoming entitled to compensation as a full-blown miner. It would be a great mistake to disturb the existing order of things, under which a hard and fast distinction was drawn. There was no difficulty under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and there would have been no difficulty at all under this Bill, if the thing had been left as it was. On the whole, the best thing to do was to say definitely that they had to deal with coloured people as a class. Therefore he thought the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville (Sir L Phillips) was probably the best way of dealing with the matter.

said he was sorry he could not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville, because it would inevitably lead to the ousting of the white men from the mines. That argument also applied to the amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West. Every inducement would be in the direction of the mines employing coloured men. He had no objection to the employment of coloured men on the mines on fair and reasonable terms—(hear, hear)—but to give them this double pull was not right. If they had to draw a distinction let them go on the same lines as the Mines’ Regulation Act went, so that if coloured people contributed they would get the benefits, and if they did not contribute they would not get the benefits.

The new clauses proposed by Mr. Merriman and Sir Lionel Phillips, and the amendment proposed by Sir Bisset Berry, were negatived.

The new clause proposed by the Minister of Mines was agreed to.

On clause 21, Benefits to be awarded,

moved, in sub-section (c), to omit the words “would have” to the end of the line, for the purpose of inserting “the Board may decide, but not exceeding in all an amount representing the difference between four hundred pounds and any sums already paid to the miner under this Act and under Act No. 34 of 1911.” He said that he wished to restore the Bill to the position it was in when it came from the Select Committee. They were in rather a hurry, he thought, and inadvertently altered the Bill, and took away the discretion from the Board to give to the dependants a lesser sum than the maximum. The Select Committee decided that where a beneficiary died and his dependants came in for the balance of what was due to him, they should get such amount as the Board may decide not exceeding the maximum. He thought they made a mistake in taking away the discretion of the Board.

Have we not passed the amendment?

It has been passed.

Well, how can you restore it?

It can be put down on the third reading.

The amendment was, therefore, withdrawn for the present.

On clause 11,

moved in sub-section (1) to add the following paragraph (d): To the dependants of a miner who not having lodged a claim with the Board is proved to the satisfaction of the Board to have died of miners’ phthisis and to have been qualified to receive an award under this Act such monthly payments as the Board may deem fit not being less than eight pounds per month and not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of four hundred pounds.

seconded.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 14,

moved to add at the end of sub-section (1): “Or a certificate from the Board that he has proved to its satisfaction that he has worked as a miner in one or more of the mines included in the list referred to in section 2 of this Act, at any time during the twelve months, immediately preceding the commencement of this Act”; and to add the following new sub-section: “(3) Any employer who refuses to furnish to a miner upon leaving his employment the discharge ticket specified in sub-section (2), shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction to a fine of £10 or in default to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a period not exceeding one month.” Dealing with the first part of his motion, the hon. member said that they discussed this matter in Committee of the White House, and he tried to meet every objection that was raised then. Let them take the case of a man who had been away three months. They ought to remember that up to now this practice of a discharge certificate was quite unknown to the law, and it was not necessary for a man to have it. Now, unless he had got it, he must submit himself to medical examination. He might have a very small amount. He may not be able to get the paltry sum of £8 per month, and he had got to be dismissed. With regard to the proposed new sub-section (3), the hon. member said that when they were discussing this in committee it was pointed out that with the amendment then put in the employer would be subject to giving this discharge certificate, and if he refused to do so, the miner could go to the High Court and get an interdict. Now they wished to obviate the miner being put to such an expense, and accordingly proposed that there should be a penalty, as there would be in the mining regulations, that the employer had got to give this certificate.

seconded the amendment.

said that, with regard to the first amendment, he was sorry he could not accept it. They were doing such a man no kindness by allowing him to go back to the mines. If a man had been in the mines before, and had already got the disease, and could not get his certificate, they would do that man a good service if they told him that he should not go underground again. As regarded the second portion of the amendment, he thought that stood on a different footing. A great deal would depend upon the certificate in future for the men already in the mine, and, though there was a system of discharge certificate at the present moment, it had not yet been recognised, and he thought it would be an advantage if these certificates were put on a better footing. He thought that, under the circumstances, the employer should be compelled to give a certificate, and that it would be in the interests of the employers, as well as the employees, if the matter were regulated in this way. Consequently, he would accept the proposed new sub-section (3).

said he should like to know from the Minister whether under this clause it was to be understood that only one discharge certificate was given.

said only one official ticket could be given.

said that, if anything clashed with giving a certificate, he thought it would be very objectionable. He thought under this amendment it might be said that they were prevented from giving any other certificate.

said he thought that the Minister had made a mistake in accepting the second part of the amendment. He did not think there was much in it from the point of view of the employer, but it seemed to him that it was more likely to act against the men. Under the present state of affairs there was never the slightest difficulty, if a man wanted a certificate, in going to the works and getting one. Now, if an employer were to be looked upon with this suspicion, which the hon. member for Jeppe put into everything he touched in this connection, and the employer were to be penalised for not giving one, of course, he would give one, but if a man had lost it the employer was not going to give him a second.

The proposed addition to sub-section (1) was negatived.

The proposed new sub-section (3) was agreed to.

said that he had got another amendment on the same clause, as follows: To add at the end “no employer shall oblige an applicant for employment, as a condition of such employment, to submit himself to other medical examination than is required by section 24 of this Act.” He said that he took this opportunity of calling the Minister’s attention to what was a considerable danger as the result of this legislation. Of course, he understood from the hon. member for Germiston that, if one regarded an employer as a person who might not spend his days from early mom to dewy eve in anxious solicitude for the welfare of the men, one was adopting a suspicious attitude, but he submitted that, whatever the small amount of compensation that was being given in the early stage, it would be a calamity to the men themselves to have to leave off work at that early stage. They would resent it. It was not as if they gave them, as the Workmen’s Compensation Act did, a lump sum of £375, which was something that would enable them to get into some other occupation, something to tide over the difficulty, but they were only going to give them a paltry £8 a month.

Obviously it would be a great advantage to employers to get rid of men at £8 a month, and there would be a strong tendency to weed them out and throw them on the streets. Whilst he was submitting this amendment for the purpose of having it put on record, he hoped the Minister would keep a very close watch on the working of the Act, and not hesitate to take further powers into his hands if he found that the intention of this Act was being evaded.

seconded.

I understand that the hon. member is not pressing this amendment; he only wants to have it on the paper for record purposes. Well, I have no objection to recording it at all.

Won’t you accept it?

I can’t accept it.

The amendment was put and negatived.

On clause 19,

moved an amendment to entitle natives who were partially or totally incapacitated to obtain the maximum sum provided by section 22 of the Native Labour Regulations Act (1911). He said that he moved that amendment in committee, but owing to some misunderstanding, it was not pressed to the vote, and that was why he moved it again to-day. If the House had to determine the question of compensation to natives suffering from miners’ phthisis, apart from any previous legislation with regard to compensation for accidents, he thought nobody in his senses would propose that a native partially incapacitated by miners’ phthisis should receive compensation from £1 to £20. It seemed to him that the Minister had taken over section 22 of the Native Labour Regulation Act of 1911 as an easy way of deciding the matter. A native who was partially incapacitated by miners’ phthisis must leave the mine in which he was employed for a year, in order to recuperate, and £20 as the maximum was not too much compensation. Supposing a native were earning £3 a month, it was not too much to expect that he should be given seven months’ wages for partial incapacitation. That would amount to about £20, and if he were totally incapacitated it was not too much to give him a lump sum of £50. That was the effect of his amendment, and he hoped that the Minister would accept it.

seconded, and hoped the Minister would accept the amendment. He said there was no provision made for anything like a reasonable sum, and he did not know how the Minister proposed that the sum should be estimated. It was left to the Director to pay £1 or £20 in the case of partial incapacitation, and from £30 up to £50 in the case of total incapacitation, but he thought they should fix the amount. It was not excessive. Another matter which he wished the Minister to consider was that he should arrange that a native should not stay longer than six months at a time on the Rand.

said that he hoped the Minister would accept the amendment. He thought the maximum amount was small enough. If they left the fixing of the amount to the discretion of the Board, on what basis would they go? There were only two stages of the disease, and he thought that the amounts should be fixed in the Bill.

urged that the matter should be left to the discretion of the Department.

said it seemed to him there was a very strong case for making the amount assessable by the Director of Native Labour, and he thought the House might accept the clause as it stood.

said the whole intention was to deal with the matter as under the native labour regulations; the same machinery was provided. The amount was to be assessed by the Director, and he would be guided by the medical certificate. The hon. member for Queenstown would know that although a man fell in class “A” or “B,” there were different stages in the disease, and, therefore, to fix a maximum was not right.

thought that the Minister contended wrongly that they could make different assessments according to varying degrees of partial incapacitation and total incapacitation, but he (Mr. Madeley) urged that there were no such degrees. It was laid down in the Bill “shows definite signs of having the disease”; that was clause “A.” Clause “B” required no further remarks from him. The Minister had told them that the sums were to be assessed by the Director; but how were they to be assessed? He would like to know how the Minister classed in his mind the phases he assumed to be present. How could they assume whether a native was either partially or totally incapacitated? There was no authority for any particular stage of the disease at all during the last twelve months. Since the passing of the “Doles Act” to miners—as he would call it—they had had definite proof as to how such assessment would work out. Ultimately, it would come down to some definite standard. The Act of last year provided that up to £250 would be paid to the miners, but very few received the maximum. It ultimately crystallised into paying £8 10s. a month for six months, and they would get something of that sort; down to some level that would not be the maximum. He thought the maximum should be paid in all cases.

said his hon. friend (Mr. Madeley) was advocating the cause of the coloured men, but he was suspicious that the object was to enhance the cause of all labour.

supported the amendment. They should not leave it to the Director or anybody else to say that a certain sum should be paid.

said: the hon. member for East London had not understood their (the Labour members’) position. They did desire to see the natives treated on the same fair terms as anyone else, and they were particularly suspicious of measures supposed to be in the interests of the white man that left the native out. That the native should be treated with the same measure of justice as the white man they believed to be right, but the effect of placing upon the employer of a white man a greater burden than upon the employer of the native simply meant that the white man did not get the same chance.

The amendment was put, and the SPEAKER declared that the “Noes” had it.

called for a division, with the following result:

moved to insert the words “to be assessed by the Director” after “1911”.

seconded.

The amendment was agreed to.

moved that the following be a new clause: 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 claim 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.

seconded.

This was negatived.

On clause 20,

moved in line 50, after “labourer” to insert “or other person”; and in line 54, after “miner” or “other person not being a native labourer.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

The remaining amendments made in committee were agreed to, and the third reading was set down for Wednesday.

moved that the report be now considered.

Agreed to.

read the report.

said with regard to this report they had fully considered the matter and had taken a great deal of evidence, and from the standpoint of the agreement they had come to the conclusion as laid down in the Majority Report. The Transvaal Government prior to Union went to a great deal of pains to try and get people to build up an iron industry in the country. They applied for tenders, the application being responded to by four tenderers. The first tender accepted was that of Mr. Walker but it was found that he was unable to carry out his contract. In the contract he was given a monopoly for twelve years of the scrap steel belonging to the Railway Department. In these circumstances, the Government were faced with having to call for fresh tenders or to accept the tender of Mr. Horace Wright. This latter course of action they decided to adopt. In the first instance, Mr. Wright’s tender was objected to on the ground that he did not comply with the regulations, and it was thought that under the circumstances Mr. Walker’s tender would be the best. With regard to the matter of the electric furnace, the authorities to-day were not quite certain as to its utility. Mr. Harbord in his evidence said the furnace was fast approaching a success, and it would be the best type for this country. Mr. Wright maintained that in order to smelt iron ore, it was necessary to have a blasting furnace, and even Mr. Harbord considered it necessary to have a small blasting furnace. The whole idea was to try and make some experiment in regard to the steel and iron deposits in the country. That was why Government were so anxious to get someone to go into the business. There were only four tenders, and the Government, after a lengthy consideration of the different proposals, accepted Mr. Wright’s tender.

Referring to points raised in the Minority Report, Sir T. Cullinan said it was found necessary to extend the agreement to 16 years, because nobody wished to put money into a concern limited to a few years. Mr. Wright tried to obtain a 21 years’ agreement. That was why the Majority Report said that Government was more or less forced to make this agreement with Mr. Wright. The Minority Report said that Government could have called for fresh tenders, but that would not have been fair to those who tendered first. When once they called for tenders and obtained the tenderer’s terms, it would be a perfectly immoral proceeding to advertise for fresh tenders. No tenders were arranged on these terms. It would have been very unfair, for the Government, having sucked Mr. Wright’s brains, to utilise that knowledge in getting fresh tenders. The Minority Report also contended that the agreement created a monopoly. The position was this—if the company spent £200,000 on the works, all it could turn out was about 10,000 tons a year. The requirements of the railways alone were 80,000 tons, and the mining requirements about the same; therefore, the contractors were going to put up a small furnace in a country where at least 200,000 tons of imported material were used. That could not possibly constitute a monopoly. If the company produced all the iron and steel required, which ran into a million pounds’ worth, then only would it reap the advantage. If it were possible for the company to establish such an industry, the country would be pleased, because the company would have to spend a million of money in order to bring the thing nearer to being a monopoly.

He did not think the monopoly part of it could be proved at all. The contract was that Government was to offer the company its scrap, but if the company did not take it within fourteen days, Government could deal with the scrap as it liked. There, again, he did not think there was a monopoly. As to the financial arrangements, the final agreement had still to be signed, and if there were any idea that the capital was not available, then the Minister of Mines would be able to have the matter properly arranged. Exception had been taken to the Government being represented on the Board, but Government naturally would appoint one of its technical men to see that the agreement was carried out, and it was necessary the Government should have some supervision. There was an idea in the Minority Report that these people might say they could not establish an industry. All the witnesses connected with the business had assured the committee that their object was to experiment with ore right away, and he failed to see how the company could fail to spend the money mentioned in the agreement. The witnesses said that they required 25 per cent. of imported pig-iron to sweeten up their iron, but that it would be to their advantage to get local iron at once. He thought the Government were quite justified in entering into this agreement, at the time. Since 1903, Mr. Wright had been trying to work up an iron industry in the Transvaal. He then obtained a concession, and had stuck to the business all through. He thought if hon. members took into consideration the trouble that this man had taken and the anxiety of the Government to get something started, they would feel that they were perfectly justified in entering into this agreement with Mr. Wright. He, therefore, moved the adoption of the Majority Report.

seconded.

moved as an amendment that the Minority Report be adopted. He said he was happy to say that one could not impute any mala fides to anybody in connection with this agreement. It was stupidity, and crass stupidity, in his opinion. There was no reason whatever for this agreement being completed while Parliament was in recess. Scrap iron did not decrease in value. It could not fade away. As to the agreement itself, in the first instance, the agreement of Campbell and Walker was accepted. They had a furnace, but they failed to find the necessary capital to put a company through, and they were turned down. But he was bound to say this, that they were never offered the privileges which were given to Mr. Wright. On the point that this was a monopoly, Mr. Rockey quoted from the evidence given by Mr. Wright before the Select Committee, and he remarked that, from the evidence of the successful contractor, it was a pitiable business for the Government to be mixed up in. The policy of the late Crown Colony Government in the Transvaal was the abolition of monopolies. It was an extraordinary thing that the first commercial agreement under the first Parliament of the Union should have re-introduced the principle of monopolies. It was a regrettable and reprehensible thing. After what had happened in connection with the withdrawal of the Government nominee on the directorate of a banking institution, it was too futile and too silly to expect that the Government would go and mix themselves up with a concern like this. The original idea of starting a great State industry was, he considered, quite a good one, but with this agreement they were not going to get anywhere near it. It was really, as he had said on a previous occasion, merely a scrap iron shop. These people need not spend a penny more than £5,000. It was a case of “Heads I win, tails you lose.” Why was such an agreement as, this made? The answer was that the parties thereto had no business acumen whatever; they were simply clay under the potter’s thumb, and they were moulded by these astute men whom they were dealing with. They could not have made this agreement with their eyes wide open. This was an agreement extending over a long period of years, there was no urgency, Parliament would soon have reassembled, and he claimed it was the duty of the Government, when Parliament was in recess, to put off all such matters until Parliament met, and let Parliament give judgment on the affair. He thought if Parliament had been consulted this one-sided agreement would never have been entered into.

seconded the amendment.

said he would like to ask a question. As he understood it, this contract was signed, was it not?

The contract with Wright is signed.

said they could not break the contract. If they did break it, these people would drag them into Court, and they would be subjected, he had no doubt, to heavy damages. The only thing that prevented him from voting for the Minority Report was the fact that it happened that it said that this contract should not be completed without the consent of Parliament. But it was completed.

The final agreement has not been signed.

said he would explain to the fight hon. gentleman. A contract had been entered into with Wright. Under that contract there was a clause that when a company had been floated, to give effect to this contract a new contract in terms of the other one was to be signed with the company, but they were bound under the contract with Wright.

All I can say is, in the circumstances a gross wrong has been done to this country. (Hear, hear.) We had no right whatever to enter into this commercial arrangement for 16 years, practically creating a monopoly in this country, without consulting Parliament, or without having the contract subject to the ratification of Parliament. A gross wrong has been done to the other tenderers—(hear, hear)—because the thing upon which this contract mainly rests is the monopoly, or the so-called partial monopoly. This gives terms to the man who tendered who was not the lowest tenderer far better than the lower tenderer. The lower tenderer could not carry out his contract under the terms of the concession. You then go and give an advantage to another man, who has negotiated with you, and you give him better terms. Well, sir, I do not know that I have ever in my experience known a case like that, and I do not think it is one which any Parliament would be prepared to tolerate, because you are dealing, not with the goods of the Government, but you are dealing with the goods of the taxpayers of this country—(hear, hear)—and you enter into a contract which I say is prejudicial to this country. Proceeding, he said he would like to invite the attention of the House to clause 7 in the contract, which was to be signed when the company was formed. He spoke under correction, and he was sorry there were no legal gentlemen to assist him. Let his hon. friend opposite (Sir H. H. Juta) imagine himself for a brief space in a more familiar atmosphere. Let him imagine himself bringing an action against the Government under this clause. It said that the Government were bound to give an order to these people under certain terms for all the goods that they should produce in this country. They might produce a rail, or two or three tons of rails. It might by an astute lawyer, he should think, be argued that they were bound to get a contract for 50,0 tons of rails, or whatever number were required, which would be very much to the advantage of these people. But how would they supply it? How did the dynamite people who had a monopoly of dynamite in the old Transvaal supply it? They imported the goods, and sold them, packed them up under a contract like this, a contract which the Volksraad, with the best possible intentions, ratified, thinking that they were going to start a valuable industry in the Transvaal. The result was that they started a lucrative importing industry. He might be wrong in his reading of the clause. The law might protect them sufficiently, but he did not know whether it did or not. They saw here a beginning of what his hon. friend the member for Pretoria East elegantly called a “new start in this country.” The steel monopoly in Canada had cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, and had roused the farmers of the Dominion to protest against, the enormous burden cast upon them. It began in a small way, with the best possible intentions to utilise the resources of Canada and so forth, but it ended by imposing upon the farmers of the Dominion an almost intolerable burden.

They had had some experience of monopolies in this country—a good deal—and he wondered what the spirit industry in the Transvaal cost South Africa. He thought they had to pay £200,000 to get out of it.

£290,000.

Well, I won’t quarrel” about £90,000. Under the terms of that agreement, it was possible they would have to pay very considerable sums to get out of it: the thing was done; the contract was signed, and it was no use trying to get out of it. They could only lament that it had been done. A more inept contract, bad in principle—thoroughly bad in principle—and unsound in its provisions, he had never seen. It began with a proposal to sell railway scrap iron, and had developed into a monopoly that was going to end in disaster to this country. He thought it right to say that as a warning. It was not the moneyed men, but the people here who had landed property, and had to struggle hard to make a living out of it, who would suffer. He would vote for the amendment, but he did not want to land the Government into a lawsuit These people would point out what a handsome thing they were going to make out of it with the Government monopoly—he did not believe they would—but they would say so. He was afraid they would have to sit down under it now. In conclusion, Mr. Merriman expressed his regret that time did not permit him to table a resolution that no contract of that kind should be entered into for a certain sum, unless it was subject to the ratification of Parliament.

said he wanted to point out to the hon. member that affairs were a great deal worse than, even he thought. (Hon. Members: “Oh!”) In clause 7 of the agreement there was no limitation that the iron and steel goods had to be produced within the Union. Under the agreement with Mr. Wright there was no such limitation, and a letter was sent by Mr. Marks—with what authority he did not know—but there was a letter from Mr. Marks to Sir Thos. Cullinan, the chairman of the committee, to the effect that he was willing to have inserted in the original agreement with Mr. Wright, “within the Union of South Africa.” But there was nothing whatever to show that there was going to be any such limitation with the Steel Corporation. In the contract, as printed in that report, there was not a word about it, nor was there anything to show what authority there was from Mr. Marks to bind the Steel Corporation to alter the agreement. It did not propose to do it in the letter; it might be an oversight, but the agreement by which the country would be bound was the one in which it did not appear. The question was whether it was proposed to sign this contract without the insertion of the words referred to. If so, the country would be committed to something very terrible indeed. The contract signed would read that the Government of this country is to take all such iron and steel goods as the corporation shall from time to time produce. The question arose whether the contract in any way prevented the corporation from importing its iron and steel. There was an undertaking to put all orders in the hands of the corporation for steel goods, to be produced in the Union—taking the limitation to be put in. He was inclined to think that this corporation could import all its iron and steel, and they say that all orders shall be put into their hands. Did the Government intend that? Was that in the minds of the Government when they entered into the contract; that this corporation should be in a position to import its iron and steel and then to make articles here which the Government would have to buy from them, or was it the intention that the corporation should produce the articles here out of the scrap-iron procured from the Government? It seemed to him to be a most serious question indeed, and he did not think the House ought to agree to the adoption of the report until they had had further information upon it. Was it the intention of the Government to see that goods should be produced of iron and steel produced in the country and not imported. If that was their intention, then let them put it into the agreement. Here, also, they had very good cause either to amend the contract or put it aside altogether. He thought it would be better not to confirm either the report or the contract until they had more time to consider the matter.

said that the hon. member had made two points upon clause 12, but he had overlooked the clause which said that the Government must approve of a site where the iron must be manufactured. Another point was that the company could import raw material, but he overlooked the fact that whatever the Government bought they must be satisfied as to the price and quality of the article. Surely if the Government could buy an article made in the country of as good a quality as that made oversea, and buy it at a cheaper rate, what objection could there be?

said before the question was put he would like to tell the House what he knew about this case. He knew something of the original negotiations. The idea was that the scrap iron that had always been shipped oversea at a very cheap rate should be used in the country. It was also considered that if possible an iron and steel industry should be established and so the Government got out an expert, named Mr. Harbord, who went through the Transvaal and reported that there was no suitable iron ore for the establishment of an iron industry. The contract provided that a certain amount of iron ore was to be used, but the whole object was to work the scrap iron. This was a very small matter, but if the contention of the right hon. gentleman were correct then it was a matter that they would have to consider very carefully. The real question was whether these people had the right to start works and to import raw iron to make articles here. They might have a tremendous appeal that here they had a local industry which must be protected at all costs, and that if they were not allowed to sell at prices higher than the others, then the industry would collapse. They had heard arguments in the past which counted very heavily with the Minister in the establishment of local industries. Whilst they were all anxious to see such industries thrive, so that the country might be self-supporting through its manufactures, they saw that it was quite possible, with this contract, that the country might be saddled with a most serious responsibility in the future. It was not too late to confine this contract to the original object and insist that the contract should apply exclusively to scrap iron and iron produced in the country. Then they would have a position which was not dangerous and which would carry out the conditions of the original contract and, if they found that the industry was flourishing and they were able to use local iron ore, then it would be a very good thing to have this industry. But if there were any question as to the rights of them to import any articles and sell them to this country without competition and without this country having any article to compare with them, then he thought the contract was a dangerous one. The whole thing really was surrounded by pitfalls, and he did not think that the country was sufficiently safeguarded against considerable loss and inconvenience.

It being five minutes to 6 p.m.,

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

The debate was adjourned until Wednesday.

called attention to a verbal error in the Bill, viz.: In clause 87, line 61, the word “incorporate” should read “un-incorporate.”

On the motion of the Minister of Mines, seconded by Mr. Myburgh,

The, error was corrected, and Mr. Speaker was authorised to amend the message already approved by the House, transmitting the Bill to the Senate for certificate.

said that he wished to know if the Minister’s attention had been drawn to the paragraph in the report of the Estimates Committee with reference to the expenditure on circuit travelling. The committee, without making any specific recommendation, suggested co-ordination and a reduction. The committee had before it accounts which gave the cost of the circuits in the Cape, the Free State, the Transvaal, and Natal, but which did not give any details as to the number of persons concerned. He had taken some trouble to ascertain the number of persons, and he found that the average cost per person on circuit in the Cape averaged 27s. 1d., in the Free State 62s., in the Transvaal 50s., and in Natal 18s. 6d. He suggested that some system should be devised by which the cost per person could be more fairly based.

said that he wished to draw attention to a matter under the item of Registrars. There were four Registrars in the Union, one of whom, of course, was in the Free State. In 1910, the Free State Government, of which the Minister was then Attorney-General, reduced that official’s salary by £100 or £150 per annum, but he was compensated at the time by being allowed to charge commission on sales in execution. He had been informed that since the salary of the Registrars had been fixed under Union the Government had deprived the Free State officer of his right to charge commission, and he (Mr. Botha) wanted to know if something was given in lieu thereof. He did not know if he could ask for an increase of salary on behalf of the official, because the scale of salaries had been fixed, but surely it was hard on an official who had served a great number of years, both in the Cape and in the Free State, to have his salary reduced by £100 or £150, and then deprived of the right to charge commission on sales which was granted to him as compensation for the reduction in his salary.

drew attention to the fact that jurymen had to go from Elliot to Cala. That meant that jurymen had to go from a white district to a coloured district. The practice of the Circuit Court sitting at Cala was inconvenient, and he urged the Minister to change this so that in future the Circuit Court should sit at Elliot.

said that in regard to what the hon. member (Mr. Venter) had said, he had a word to say on the other side, because Cala happened to be in his constituency. He said that so far as the business of the Circuit Court was concerned it was better to hold the sittings in Cala than in Elliot, because most of the cases, witnesses, etc., came from the native portion of the Territories. With regard to the question of trial by jury, he said that the natives felt that they had a grievance in not being allowed to serve on juries and being tried by white juries. He would ask the Minister of Justice whether, in regard to certain classes, of cases, it would not be better to have trial by judges instead of by juries. That was the feeling that was spreading very widely amongst the natives and coloured people.

urged that, on account of the protracted period which juries had to serve sometimes in the Circuit Courts in the Native Territories, it was very desirable that two sets of juries should be summoned instead of one.

said that, as to the question of trial by jury, there had been an agitation in this country on the part of certain people in favour of abolishing a principle which, after all, had stood the test of centuries, the principle of trial by jury, and he hoped that the Minister would not consent to set aside that principle for the sake of any temporary agitation which sprang up here and there. Under the present system the prisoner got justice in 99 cases out of every 100.

Does the Crown also get justice?

Yes, the Crown also gets justice in 99 cases out of every 100.

Proceeding, he referred to the question of transporting men under sentence of death from the place where they were sentenced to the place where the sentence was to be carried out, and called attention to a recent case in which a condemned man had been conveyed in a post cart to Cape Town to be hanged, and had been the subject of great curiosity in the villages through which the cart had passed. He contended that the old system was a much better one, under which the law was carried out at the place where the man was sentenced to be hanged. The hon. member also referred to the question of the employment of native interpreters in the courts in so far as native witnesses were concerned, and alluded to the subtleties of the Kafir language, whereby it was extremely difficult for a white man to grasp the full meaning of evidence given by natives in their own tongue. He added that he did not think it was unreasonable that native evidence should be interpreted by natives. He also said he should like some information with regard to the item of “allowance to five bilingual stenographers, £200.”

put in a plea for the restoration of the old system in the Supreme Court, Cape Town, whereby during term an additional shorthand writer was employed for the Third Division.

said that, as one who had had the temerity in that House to advocate the abolition of trial by jury he welcomed what had been said, because he thought, it was a sign that the prospect of his ideas in that respect being carried out was improving. He also asked the Minister of Justice when they would be likely to get the criminal code which he had promised for the whole of the Union, and whether he would have it published as soon as possible?

said that he would like to ask the Minister of Justice what his constituents had done that Queenstown should have been selected as the place where prisoners who were sentenced to death should be hanged. (Laughter.) They had always been a most loyal people, they very rarely had a murder, and he had no doubt that the Minister in sending all the people to be hanged there was for the purpose of encouraging the others. (A laugh.) Really he thought it was a scandal that condemned men should be dragged all over the country for the purpose of being executed at one particular spot. It could not be on the score of saving money. At all events, his constituents wished him to enter a protest against Queenstown being selected for these executions, and unless there were some valid reason which could not be got over, he hoped the Minister would exempt the town.

said with regard to the question of trial by jury, he remembered that 40 years ago it was the ordinary topic of debate. As for himself, he had had the experience not of being on the jury, but he had been in the position of judge, and also in the position of counsel. As far as the practical working of the suggestion to get three judges to try criminal cases was concerned, he would say at once that they could not do that. He was speaking of that portion of the Union he knew most about, namely, the Cape Province. Neither in the East nor the West would they get three judges to take criminal cases. They would require twice as many judges before they could possibly do so. The question was purely an academic one. If they were going to have criminal trial by judge it would be criminal trial by one judge, and no man on the Bench would like to be put in the position of having to decide alone upon a case. As for three judges, there was neither time nor a sufficiency of judges. It would be a mistake to allow one man to decide on criminal cases, and even if they got three judges, any man would hesitate very much before he would accept the responsibility. Questions of fact were exceedingly difficult ones to deal with. It was all very well to sit holding the scales, but it was very different indeed having to decide upon the guilt or innocence. He was not sure that a different result from what hon. members had in their minds would be arrived at. He hoped the hon. Minister would keep to the system which exists at present, and which had worked fairly well. Mistakes had been made, but mistakes had been made by Courts of three and even five judges.

He hoped the Minister would alter this tremendous delay in the execution of the death sentence. He would like to know the cause of this unprecedented delay between the passing of the death sentence upon a man and the carrying out of it. It had happened that it had taken more than a month before an unfortunate man had been informed whether the penalty was to be carried out. When a man had been condemned to death, it almost amounted to torture to keep him three or four weeks before he knew whether it was to be carried out or not. The Minister would say these things had to come before the Executive, but they should be brought before the Executive at once. That was a point of far greater importance than trial by jury.

asked the Minister of Justice whether it was his intention to draw up regulations giving the amount of leave that will be granted to each judge. The aggregate amount of leave, according to a report that had been submitted to the Senate, was 9½ years for 30 judges, but they were not in a position to say whether any judge had too much leave or whether any judge had not had the leave due to him. Under the system they had at present they might have the willing ones doing the lion’s share of the work.

said it was time they gave questions regarding judges a rest. With regard to leave, they should leave the matter as it was at present for the Chief Justice and the judges to arrange amongst themselves.

said that with regard to the delay in carrying out the death sentence, things in Natal had been far worse than in the Cape Province. He instanced one terrible case in which certain natives sentenced to death in October, 1910, were not executed until the following February. It was really a shocking state of things, and he hoped that the Minister would see that nothing of the sort occurred in future. There had been an enormous increase in the number of executions of natives in Natal during the past two years. In many cases they had been young boys who had been incited by chiefs and others to commit political murder. Prisoners had been tried on hearsay evidence without any jury. In the days when they had trial by jury there were not so many instances of capital punishment, and he thought there must have been some miscarriages of judgment under the existing system. The hon. Minister had inaugurated a new system of public prosecutors, in which an attorney got his opportunity in due order of prosecuting for the Government. He (Mr. Meyler) was in favour of that, because the young ones got their chance of coming forward. But in Durban the clerk of the peace was dismissed, when there was already a circuit sitting. The Minister never took the trouble to find out how long the sitting was going to last. He found that he had no prosecutor; the clerk was the only person who knew anything about it, and agreed to go on with the work at £10 10s. per diem. His salary was £400 a year, but he was paid £200 for 20 days. He would like to know the cost under the new system.

said that with all due respect to the opinions of the learned member for Cape Town, Harbour, and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, the native people, not being called upon to serve as jurymen, considered that they did not always receive justice at the hands of white juries, and under the circumstances he thought the Minister would be well advised to allow certain cases to be tried by Judges instead of by juries. Again, if the railway had been built—

Order, order. The hon. member cannot speak on railway matters here.

I only wanted to point out, Mr. Chairman, that if the railway had been built there would have been no necessity of conveying the prisoner mentioned, by post cart, to the discomfort and inconvenience of other passengers. (Laughter.)

said the hon. member for Tembuland seemed to think that natives did not get justice from white juries. That, however, was not his experience. (Hear, hear.)

said as a result of the efforts of the Minister of Justice, for which they were grateful, Circuit Courts were now being held at smaller places, such as Jacobsdal. One of the objects why this was being done was that a good influence should be exercised by the Judges upon the public. But he regretted that these efforts went for nothing, as the Judges did not speak Dutch, but what was worse, the Registrar, who spoke Dutch, refused at Boshof to speak in Dutch, and everything was done in English through an interpreter. This was a distinct slight on the Dutch language, and it was most disgraceful that such a state of affairs should exist. He, therefore, appealed to the hon. Minister to see what could be done. What would they say if a Dutch speaking Court came and sat in an English speaking district?

said that with regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, the matter had been occupying his attention for some time. The discrepancy was a very big one, and it should not be allowed to go on. With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Bloemfontein, most of the facts of the case he (the Minister) was familiar with. The individual mentioned had his salary reduced, but he was allowed compensation in the shape of fees for sales in execution. He did not know the reason why these were taken away. Perhaps he might have overlooked them, but he would endeavour, however, to see if anything wrong had been done that it was remedied. With regard to the holding of Circuit Courts at Umtata, they were very anxious that that Court should be held at Elliot instead of Umtata, but the Judge pointed out various difficulties, which were very great, at all events he did not see his way to deviate from the course that had been followed. The question was whether they should have a Court at Elliot and at Umtata as well. With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Tembuland as regarded the objection of natives to having their cases tried by white juries, he did not think there was any real hardship, although he quite believed that in the Native Territories many natives would like to have their cases tried by judges instead of juries. He hoped that the day would come when natives would have this privilege, if they so desired. The hon. member for Griqualand referred to the out-of-pocket expenses of jurymen. That was a question that he had had under consideration, and he had asked the Attorneys-General to go into the matter, and advise him. There was no doubt that jurymen were being very hardly dealt with, and he hoped that this condition would be altered. With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, he would give him the assurance at once that he was perfectly at one with him with regard to the jury system. He fully agreed that the jury system was the best. It might have its faults here and there, but he was sure if he were to be tried himself that he would prefer to be tried by jury. A jury could exercise discretion, where the judges very often were bound by the formality of the law. It might be that in special cases a special court should be established, but he was not speaking of a few special cases.

said that the Minister was somewhat disingenuous in saying that he accused the Native High Court of Natal of carrying out miscarriages of justice. What he had said was that the judges of that Court should be paid more. He had said that the system was wrong in having natives tried without a jury, and partly by hearsay evidence, and he thought it was possible that there were miscarriages of justice.

I am sorry I misunderstood the hon. member.

said that he gathered from the Minister that he was going to adhere to the present system of transporting condemned prisoners to a central place to be hanged, and one of the reasons he had given was that he wanted to avoid publicity. Their objection to that system was that it gave every possible publicity. He hoped that the practice would not be continued and that the old practice in the Cape Province would be reverted to, carrying out the sentence in the town where the man was sentenced to death.

said that, as to the question of concentration of executions, he thought he was quite correct in saying that at every place where these prisoners were sentenced to the extreme penalty of the law, there were equal facilities for carrying out the sentence. Surely it would be a much more easy arrangement to carry the instrument to these places than to bring the prisoner to a centre.

moved to reduce the amount by £616, being £300 from the item “magistrates,” £129,361, on page 131, and £316 from the item “General Transport and Subsistence Charges,” £20,900, on page 132. He said in the first place he thought it would be quite fair to reduce the item of the salaries for Magistrates, because, apparently, under the new regime they were not considered so fitted for their work or so valuable as they used to be. Why he said that was because apparently new methods had, since the Minister of Justice took charge, been brought into vogue. In the old days, Magistrates, when they were to be transferred from one district to another, were asked whether there was any good and valid reason why they should not be shifted Apparently, now-a-days, it was quite sufficient for them to get a telephone message or a telegram to say that on a certain date they must shift to So-and-so. He would quote one case. In order to disabuse the Minister’s mind of suspicion, he might say that the Magistrate concerned in one case had a better Dutch name than the Minister himself The Magistrate had a French Huguenot name, whereas, he understood, the Minister’s was German. (A laugh.) That very Magistrate was treated in the most curt and discourteous manner by the Department, and he spoke his mind pretty freely, and he (Mr. Struben) thought he was justified in doing so. He wanted also to reduce this vote because, apparently, the Magistrates were now by no means so well fitted to carry out their duties, as the representatives of the Government, where nominations to Licensing Courts were concerned, as they used to be. He wished to point out to the committee that in the following cases protests varying in degree and intensity were sent by Magistrates, many of them men of tried ability and proved impartiality on the Bench and what not, to the Minister of Justice: Beaufort West, Bedford, Barkly West, Dordrecht. He wanted to say, in regard to Dordrecht, that the Magistrate recommended for the position of nominees on the Licensing Committee the names of Messrs. Halse and Whitaker, who, he said, were on the Court for 1910. The Minister proposed Mr. Marais in place of Mr. Halse. The Magistrate objected to recommending Mr. Marais unless and until Mr. Halse resigned, and pointed out that the latter was a prominent and influential farmer of the district. The Minister simply wrote and over-rode that. He had nothing against Halse, and preferred new blood. He said further that steps would be taken to appoint Marais. In that case he went dead against the Magistrate’s recommendation. Then there was apparently a communication between Mr. Greyling, a member of the Provincial Council, and the Department, who returned the letter from Mr. Halse to Mr. Greyling and said in that case General Hertzog was sorry he could not make any change, as he had adopted the principle of adopting new blood. Mr. Struben instanced other cases, and with regard to the statement of the Minister that he disapproved of doctors being appointed on Licensing Courts, mentioned a case where there were two doctors, Muller and Wessels, nominated by Magistrates and Dr. Wessels was kept on. In another case detailed by Mr. Struben, the Minister had actually proposed a doctor in place of a layman proposed by a Magistrate. The Minister not only relieved doctors when it suited his purpose, and put them on when at suited him, giving two or three different reasons, but he actually proposed doctors against representatives proposed by the Magistrates, who were not doctors at all. He had given the Minister the cases in order to give him an opportunity of replying. In addition, the Department was apparently urged over and over again by the Magistrates to complete the appointments so that they could get on by sending out their notices, but very scant notice was taken. He gave instances in which such representations were made three or four times.

He would like to ask the Minister where he got the recommendations for the appointments. He had told them from members of Parliament, but the letters were not disclosed, and he (Mr. Struben) would venture a prophecy that there was not a single member of Parliament who was not a member of the Nationalist party who received any letter asking him to recommend any man for the appointment of a district surgeon. That was done by the hon. Minister, who accused attorneys, agents, and teetotallers of partisanship. He wanted to remove any suspicion in the mind of the Minister as to how these matters were brought out The Minister jumped to the conclusion that the whole of his Department had been telling stories, but he could disabuse his mind of that idea. As to teetotallers sitting on Licensing Courts, surely the Minister did not go so far as to say that because a man did not want to drink, perhaps on health account, he was unfitted to sit on a Licensing Court. If the Minister were to say that if a man were a member of a temperance society and it was against his conscience to let anybody have drink, he was with him. But if he said that teetotallers were not fitted to sit on Licensing Courts, he did not know where he was going to get to when he had finished. Mr. Struben went on to give particulars of a case of a Magistrate recommending a gentleman who was part-owner of a bottle store, and for that reason was unable to sit. But the curious part of it was that the Minister wrote to the Magistrate saying that two gentlemen had been suggested to him as suitable persons, and both were part-owners in a bottle store.

He wanted to know where the Minister got this suggestion from and how much inquiry he made into the matter before he recommended them. He knew a case of a man who dealt in liquor and yet was a teetotaller. He would like to refer to this question of introducing new blood. The Minister was quite determined to substitute new blood for old. They had the case of Mr. De Villiers, at Simon s Town. His commission was sent down, and he wrote back thanking the Minister for the honour, but stating that he was 73½ years of age and he would sooner not sit. Then they had the case of Neft at Ladysmith. He was not a proper person to sit. Then they had a case at Humansdorp, where the Minister recommended Dr. Wentzel and a Mr. E. E. Ferreira. The Magistrate said he had nothing to urge against Dr. Wentzel, but Ferreira was dead. What sort of new blood did he call that? Then he came to rather a nice case at Wynberg. There the Magistrate recommended a Mr. Ponder and a Mr. C. T. Milne, but the Minister opposed the appointment, and, seeing that he had excluded lawyers, bankers, and the rest, including parsons, he proceeded to appoint a wine farmer, one Lategan. He had excluded excellent doctors and parsons, and in this Licensing Court, where gentlemen were supposed to be unbiassed, the proper person he considered to put in was a wine farmer. If the Minister were ignorant of these cases, why on earth did he not trust his Magistrates? In cases of this kind, which concerned the welfare of the public, the Minister had no right to make party political appointments based on partisan statements and unworthy suspicion.

said there was a case which he would like to bring to the notice of the Minister, and that was the case of Mr. Albert Samuels, who had been Assistant Magistrate in Johannesburg for a very long time. He was an Oxford man, a solicitor of the Supreme Courts of England and the Transvaal, and was Public Prosecutor in Pretoria in 1906. He understood Mr. Samuels discharged his duties to the satisfaction of the Chief Magistrate of Johannesburg. Mr. Samuels was superseded in his position as Assistant Resident Magistrate, and put into the position of Chief Clerk. He wrote to the Secretary of Justice, asking for information regarding his leave of absence, and desiring to resign from his position. He was told that his case was under consideration, but it could not be settled on account of the Minister s absence in Cape Town. Shortly afterwards Mr. Samuels was told that his resignation had been accepted. He was, therefore, robbed of the four months’ leave to which he was entitled, and also of all his contributions to the Pension Fund. The hon. member said he would say nothing more just then. He merely brought the matter up for the purpose of endeavouring to get something done in order to do justice to Mr. Samuels.

said the evidence brought forward by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Struben) would need a good deal of explanation. Why a man should not be allowed to sit upon a Licensing Court simply because he was a teetotaller, he failed to understand. Continuing, the hon. member referred to a decision of the Port Elizabeth Licensing Court, which had been upset by the Appeal Court in Cape Town. He would like to ask whether the Government would defray the costs of that action. It was illegal for a man actually engaged in the liquor traffic to sit upon a Licensing Court. With regard to the appointment of a wine farmer, he did not say that in the past wine farmers were not allowed to sit on Licensing Courts, but if anyone were interested in liquor, then the wine farmer was just as much interested as any. He wished to deal with the question of native interpreters. The Minister had stated that he had received a petition from the Orange Free State asking to have a European interpreter instead of a native interpreter. Well, he (Mr. Schreiner) had received a communication from the secretary of the Orange Free State Native Association, containing a resolution passed by that body, pointing out the serious consequences which would follow the replacement of native interpreters by white interpreters. He felt it would be a great injustice to native interpreters who had served many years in the Civil Service, and had given satisfaction, to dismiss them and substitute Europeans.

With regard to the question generally, the Minister had told the committee very frankly that he was rather in favour of white interpreters, and that was reflected in the seventh and eighth reports of the Public Service Commission. The Commission could not recommend that native interpreters be done away with, and European interpreters put in their place; but it went as far as it could. There was no doubt that as a rule the native interpreters could interpret native views and idioms better than the general run of Europeans. He had been overwhelmed with letters about interpreters from the Transkei and other parts of the Cape Province. The natives feared that the policy of the Government was to do away with native interpreters, however well they might have performed their duty in the past, and there was a feeling of unrest and uneasiness.

said it appeared to him that the arguments as to white men being unable to interpret native languages were used with the object of trying to oust the white interpreters and provide careers for natives. To say that a white man could not properly interpret what a native said because he did not know the idioms was all nonsense. If the native understood the native idioms better than the white man, then the same applied to the white man who was better acquainted with the European idioms. Personally, he had on many occasions interpreted native languages, and had never experienced any difficulties. Native languages were usually poor in words and expressions, so that it was easy for a white man to interpret a native’s views or intentions.

said that the other evening he put a question to the Minister in regard to the appointment of Licensing Boards in the Transvaal. He did not succeed in getting an answer, and he would put it again. At the outset he wanted to say that the present system of appointing members of Licensing Courts on the Witwatersrand was giving rise to a widespread impression that the appointments were made wholly and solely for political reasons, and that impression was not altogether without fact. For instance, there was the case of Germiston. In the Transvaal the Licensing Courts consisted of Magistrates and of members appointed by the Government, local authorities having no representatives. At Germiston, which could not be called the stronghold of the Nationalist party, there were six members of the Licensing Court—the Magistrate, the Mayor, and four pronounced Nationalists. The same thing had happened from end to end of the Rand, but he would not have said a word if the members had been selected because they were the best men. Let the Minister give them an assurance that he would not make his appointments on political grounds.

But as long as the Minister went to members of Parliament for recommendations so long would the impression cling that he was making the appointments on political grounds, because he did not go to every member of Parliament on this matter. He (Mr. Duncan) ventured to say that not a single representative of a Rand constituency was consulted. (Opposition and Labour cheers.) Even if the Minister had gone to members of Parliament on the Opposition side, it was not the right thing to do, because members as a rule recommended men who had helped them to get in.

I am awfully sorry for your side. (Ministerial laughter.)

If our side were where the hon. member’s side is that policy would not be followed. (Opposition cheers.) Nothing can be worse than that appointments to Licensing Courts should be made on political grounds. Proceeding, Mr. Duncan said the people who wanted licences or who had them got the idea that the main thing was not particularly to care about their conduct, but to play up to certain political bosses who might have influence with the Courts, or who might be members of the Courts. That was what would happen if this policy were pursued. The liquor question on the Rand was a matter of national importance. It was no use talking of stopping the illicit liquor trade if the source from which licences were given out was to be tainted by political influence. (Hear, hear.)

said he would like to support what the hon. member (Mr. Duncan) had said. In the case of the Rand he thought its Parliamentary representation showed that at all events the majority of the people living there were not supporters of the Government. The fact was that these appointments were nearly all of one political type. No hon. member sitting on the cross-benches had been approached on the subject, nor did they desire to be. It was possible, however, that the Minister had consulted members of Parliament for the Rand, possibly the hon. members for Vrededorp (Mr. Geldenhuys) and Krugersdorp (Mr. Langerman). He hoped the Minister would assure the House that he was not going to allow political bias to enter into these appointments any longer. It was absolutely the case that there was an impression throughout the Rand that all these appointments were made from partisan considerations much more than from impartial consideration as to people’s fitness for the post.

said there was widespread dissatisfaction as to the appointment of members of Licensing Courts in his constituency. Proceeding, he referred to the appointment of the Magistrate of Rietfontein in the Kalahari, who suffered great hardships. The present Magistrate had been banished there away from civilisation for seven years. Rietfontein was 14 days away from the nearest post office or railway. Officials should be sent there for a few years only.

said that, in regard to the appointment on the Woodstock Licensing Court which he mentioned the other evening, he might say that he had since obtained further information, and it had been brought to his notice that this gentleman (Mr. Nelson) was an active supporter of the Nationalist party.

said that, as to the magistrate at Rietfontein, the present magistrate would shortly be removed. As to the case of Mr. Samuels, he thought he should say a word or two about that, if for no other reason, because of the noise which had been made about this case. Mr. Samuels was at the time getting £475. Mr. Roux, who was sent up when the opening occurred, was receiving on the Transvaal basis £470. Mr. Roux had been acting as magistrate for years. He had passed his Civil Service Law, and was 11 years senior in service to Mr. Samuels. One of the reasons why he appointed Mr. Roux was because he wanted as soon as possible to make a start with making people feel that they were inter-changeable throughout the Union. He was very sorry that Mr. Samuels had resigned, because he was a good man. He asked for leave, but it was a rule of the Treasury that when a man resigned he was not entitled to leave—(hear, hear)—and that had been the rule in every case. As far as his Department was concerned, he was positive that there was not the least intention of doing anything unfair to Mr. Samuels, and that there had been no unnecessary delay. As to the question of interpreters raised by the hon. member for Tembuland, no native interpreter had been displaced, but when a vacancy occurred he had endeavoured to see that he had got a European clerk-interpreter, as recommended by the Civil Service Commission. He thought there were ways of dealing with this question which, he hoped, would meet the wishes of the hon. member for Tembuland. As to the other point raised by the hon. member, the hon. member seemed to hold the Department responsible for the judgment in the late case against the Liquor Licensing Court of Port Elizabeth. He did not know whether the hon. member knew that the judgement was really upset on account of the non-qualification of one of the members of the Liquor Licensing Court, a man who had been on the Court for years. It was merely because he happened to be a member of a syndicate interested in liquor, and he knew nothing about it, or rather he did not know it was a disqualification at all, nor did anybody else at that time. He thought the Government would pay in this case, but he could not definitely say so, as the law advisers will have to be consulted. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Fordsburg the other night and repeated again, he had in every case tried to get good honourable men wherever he had made appointments to Licensing Courts. There was the complaint that the appointments had been of a party character. It was quite possible that the greater proportion of the newer appointments in the Transvaal, or anywhere else, were men belonging to the Nationalist party, but he wished to put it to the hon. member for Fordsburg to look at this thing from another point of view. In the first place, he (the Minister) did not think the hon. member would say that because a man belonged to one party or the other he was not an honourable man. There could be no doubt that after the war, in Cape Colony as well as in the other Provinces, men were appointed to different positions very much because of what had preceded, and if they were to call for those who had served on these Commissions and so forth—let the hon. member tell him if he were not correct—they would find the vast majority, by far the greater proportion, were members of one political complexion.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

I am going to say that it is not a wrong that I am doing. The result had been that now that things had changed, any man in his position would immediately say, “Do not let us go on in that way.” (Ironical Opposition cheers.) “Let us, as much as possible, see that the appointments are from both sides.” (Opposition cheers.) It may be that where one or two had fallen out there was a majority still.

It had never been a question with him of appointing one from a certain political party, it was more with him a question of the two races. They must co-operate. As long as one side felt that an injustice had continued from the past, co-operation could not come to pass. What he had insisted on was to see that the two sections were fairly represented in every case, and he had done his best to see that the men appointed to the positions were men who had the right to be there according to their qualifications. A case had been mentioned of two doctors, one of whom had been retained. Both these men were Dutch-speaking. Until the discrepancies of the past had been rectified, he would feel it his duty to do what he could to rectify them. He knew very well they would be brought up year after year as instances of race-hatred, but he was quite prepared to run the risk of those accusations so long as he knew that what he was doing was right. He could give no better assurance, and he would do his best to see that the men appointed were fit and proper persons.

said he could quite understand the desire of the Minister to get co-operation, but he did not explain why he did not go through the proper channels to get his names. The manner he had gone about his work had been most unfortunate. Let them have co-operation of both races by all means, but let them not go outside the recognised methods of getting the nominations.

said he was glad to hear from the Minister that he intended looking into the matter. He quite believed that after the war, especially in the Transvaal, appointments of this kind were confined more or less to one race, but what the Minister should have done was to have adjusted the balance. There was one other matter which he had forgotten to mention, and that was the question of the Magistrates’ Courts in Johannesburg. There was a serious congestion of business there, and persons who were awaiting trial could not get their cases heard because the Magistrates were unable to take them. He noticed that, acting under the advice of the Public Service Committee, instead of increasing these Courts they were reducing them. He noticed that the Magistrate’s Court at Fordsburg had been closed. This Court was a great convenience to the inhabitants of the district, and he hoped the Minister would look into the matter and see that it was re-established.

said his attention had been called to this congestion, and he would look into it during the recess.

asked the Minister while he was looking into these things, if he would also consider the possibility of making Benoni a separate magisterial district?

said he would like to ask the Minister to put out of his mind any idea of adjusting the balance of races. What they wanted to get was good men. In one particular case where they did not represent 10 per cent. of the population, every one of these appointments was given to men of one particular party. Something must be done, and he earnestly hoped the Minister would take the advice of some of his own officers. This was not a matter of two races or two languages, but the fact that these people were partisans upset the public.

said a great deal had been made about these appointments to the Licensing Court, but what was the difference? With the exception of the two members whose appointments rested with the Government, the constitution of these Courts remained the same. For instance, the Magistrate still presided and the Mayor was a member, besides there were two members elected by the Divisional Council. The Government had no power within the Cape, at least, to interfere with these other appointments.

said that for the benefit of the hon. member for Caledon, he wished to say that in that district there were twelve J.P.’s, and another name was suggested to the Minister from somewhere. He withdrew his amendment.

The amendments were withdrawn.

On vote 17, Masters of the Supreme Court (£25,582),

said that he did not see any provision either in the Estimates or in the Supplementary Estimates for the Assistant Master in the Cape Province, and he thought that it must be an oversight on the part of the Minister.

said that this was one of those cases in which he had been advised not to put it in either the Estimates or the Supplementary Estimates.

On vote 18, Police (£1,420,240),

suggested that progress be reported.

agreed.

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