from A. J. S. Young, late messenger, Magistrate’s Court, Lions River, Natal.

for legislation providing for the direct popular veto.

from women residing in Natal, praying the House to consider the prevalence of crimes of violence by native males on European women and children, with a view to such steps being taken as may tend to mitigate the evil, and recommending more stringent forms of punishment in certain cases of outrage.

for legislation providing for the direct popular veto.

for legislation whereby the sale of intoxicating liquor to natives throughout the Union may be prohibited.

brought up the report of the Committee of Supply on the Estimates of Expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1913, reporting the Estimates of Expenditure and the Supplementary Estimates with amendments.

The amendments were severally considered and agreed to.

appointed the Minister of Finance and Mr. Van Heerden a committee to draft and bring up the Appropriation (1912-13) Bill, in accordance with the Estimates and Supplementary Estimates as adopted by the House.

brought up the report of the committee now appointed to draft and bring up a Bill to give effect to the Estimates and Supplementary Estimates as adopted, submitting a Bill.

By direction of Mr. SPEAKER,

The Bill was read a first time.

moved that the Bill be read a second time tomorrow.

seconded.

said that in another place they were anxious to proceed with the consideration of the Estimates, and members in that House were anxious to get home. He would suggest that, if the Bill could be printed in a few hours, it might be possible to suspend the business then in hand in order to take the second reading of this Bill.

said he did not think it would be necessary to hurry things to that extent, as they would probably be able to let the other place have the Estimates shortly after 2 o’clock to-morrow.

The motion was agreed to.

said that the amount to be contributed by the Railways to general revenue in respect of interest had now been settled, and had been approved by the Governor-General.

stated that his attention had been directed to certain clerical errors in clause 2 of the Fencing Bill, the last paragraph of interpretation of term “owner,” on page 2, having been printed as a sub-section (d) thereof instead of as a covering paragraph at the end, and the words “betekent eigenaar” having been allowed to remain in lines 59 and 60, on page 3, in the Dutch version.

The errors were ordered to be corrected.

Reports of Postmaster-General, Cape and Natal, 1909.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that the Orders of the Day stand over until after the notices of questions have been disposed of.

seconded.

Agreed to.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he is aware of the great drawback caused to the railway, the inhabitants of Uniondale, Kaminatie, Long Kloof, and Couga, and to the public in general, by the termination of the Port Elizabeth-Avontuur Railway at the farm Avontuur; and, if so, whether he will have a detailed survey made during the recess, with a view of extending the line from Avontuur through Kaminatie to Doorn River, to connect it with the South-western Railway?

replied that he was aware of a similar fact wherever a railway was required. (Laughter.) With regard to surveys, he wished to point out that several surveys and inspections had already been made for the extension of the line. The hon. member asked for a detailed survey, and he would only say that they were not in the habit of having detailed surveys made until the line had been authorised owing to the fact that the expense was very great. If it was necessary to have a further inspection it should be made.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) What number of meetings have been held by the Railway Board for the twelve months ended the 31st May, 1912; (2) what number of meetings were attended during the above period by each Commissioner; (3) what number of inspections have been made by the Board during the above-mentioned period; (4) what number of inspections were made during the mentioned period by each Commissioner; (5) for what periods during the twelve months ending the 31st May, 1912, were individual members of the Railway Board absent, other than on duty, from the headquarters of the Railway Administration, (6) what has been the cost to the country of each Commissioner for the twelve months ending 31st May, 1912, including salary, travelling allowance, and transport, calculated at current railway rates; (7) what has been the gross cost to the country for the year ending 31st May, 1912, of the Railway Board: and (8) were any railway lines proposed by the Railway Board since its inception, and, if so, what number were rejected by the Government?

said that he had not the information at hand, and he would suggest to the hon. member that he should allow his question to stand over until to-morrow.

agreed.

asked the Minister of Lands whether he is prepared to cause further inquiry to be instituted during the recess into certain irrigation schemes on the Marico River, in order to ascertain the most suitable place for settlement, so that he may be able to submit to the House during the next session a well-considered scheme for authorisation?

replied that in view of the amount of work required, it would not be possible to make the inquiry and be ready with plans in time for the next session.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether it is a fact that in addition to 100 feet expropriated on farms in the Orange Free State for railway purposes, an additional 200 feet on both sides of the line—making in all 500 feet—are required for fire-belts; (2) whether it is a fact that if an owner, over whose farm the railway runs, refuses to allow such a strip to be burnt the Railway Department demands that it should be indemnified against any damage which may be caused by sparks from an engine setting the veld of an owner on fire; and (3) if above questions are answered in the affirmative whether, seeing that the demands of the Railway Department constitute an encroachment upon the rights of the landowner, he will take other effective measures to prevent locomotives from setting the veld on fire?

said he would give the information to-morrow.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether the Government has considered the petitions referred to it on the 21st May, 1912, in connection with the case of H. J. Steyn, known as the “Cancer Doctor”; and if so, whether he will inform the House what steps the Government intends to take in the matter?

replied that the Government had considered the petition. In order to grant the application legislation would be required. There was no time for that now, though it might be possible later.

asked the Minister of the Interior: (1) How much of the sum of £11,000 of Vote 14 (F), for the financial year ending 31st March, 1912, has been paid for advertising and printing to each of the proprietors respectively of newspapers published in Pretoria, Johannesburg, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Bloemfontein, Durban, and Maritzburg; (2) who are the proprietors of these papers; and (3) to whom, and how much to each, has the balance of the said vote (if any) been paid?

replied that he had laid the information on the table.

asked the Prime Minister: (1) Whether the Government is aware of the very serious condition of affairs in the Transkeian Territories, owing to the ravages of East Coast fever, the non-completion of the railway through the country, the want of other transport facilities and the likely failure of the crops, whereby the cost and scarcity of the necessaries of life have been immensely enhanced, and the people threatened with the danger of absolute want of the means of subsistence; and (2) what measures the Government intends to take to alleviate this condition of things?

replied as follows: I am aware that serious loss and inconvenience has been caused in the Transkeian Territories owing to the ravages of East Coast fever, but neither the Minister of Native Affairs nor any Department have any ground for believing the situation is as serious as the hon. member indicates. As the hon. member is aware, the railway is being pushed on to Idutywa, and large numbers of oxen have already been inoculated, and are available for transport purposes, and more are becoming available daily. Up to April 30, 18,400 head of cattle were immunised, and eight veterinary surgeons are now engaged in the Territories inoculating cattle, preference being given to transport oxen.

moved that the petition from W. A. Morrison and 105 others, inhabitants of the districts of Herbert, Hay, Hope Town, and Griqualand West, praying for the construction of a line of railway from Kimberley via Campbell to Griquatown, or for other relief, presented to the House on May 27, be referred to the Government for consideration.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

urged that the railway accounts should close at the end of the calendar year instead of at the end of the financial year, namely, 31st of March. He considered it would be a much more convenient plan than the present one. With regard to this vote, he wished to point out that the Minister in his Budget speech said that he was dealing with the value of the rolling stock. The Minister stated that the value of the rolling stock was, in his opinion, very much higher than it really was, and that he was taking steps to have a valuation made. Now, he wanted to know whether that valuation had been made. Another point he wished to raise was in connection with depreciation and betterment. Parliament voted lump sums for depreciation or betterment as the case might be, and there was an end to it. For instance, here Parliament was voting £776,000 for depreciation, and there its control ceased. The expenditure of that large sum of money was left entirely in the hands of the Railway Department. That did not seem to him to be a sound practice.

He would like to draw the attention of the Minister to another matter, and that was the payment of overtime in his Department. A number of men at Uitenhage were called upon to prepare a special statement in connection with the work there. This work was very urgent and special, and the chief clerk obtained special men to do it. These men ought to be recompensed, but when they asked for recompense, their request was refused.

said, with reference to the remarks made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth and the suggestions he made, if they would refer to the Committee on Public Accounts they would find that these suggestions were recommended there. They would find that this question of expenditure and renewals was thoroughly thrashed out in committee. He hoped the Minister would give some consideration to this matter.

said there were one or two points that he wanted to make some remarks, upon. He noticed that Government had placed large orders for rolling stock, viz., 16 engines, 316 trucks, and 76 coaches. He was only anxious to know whether this new rolling stock which the Government had ordered was sufficient for the increased traffic upon the railway and if the engines would be ample for the work. Proceeding, the hon. member said that although on paper it seemed that there were sufficient trucks to cope with the output of coal on the railways, still in actual practice it was not the case, and he hoped the Minister would see that the collieries got the trucks they wanted in order to work to their maximum capacity. Another point he wanted to draw the attention of the hon. member to was the number of railway accidents that occurred in Natal. He would like to know if the Department had looked into this matter to see if these accidents were not preventable.

said he had been in communication with the General Manager of Railways with regard to the accidents mentioned by the hon. member for Durban, Berea. All he could say was that every precaution was being taken, and it had always been impressed upon the railway officials that the first consideration was the safety of all concerned upon the railways. Then with regard to the trucks he knew that the statement made did not give an accurate idea of the position, but he only spoke to give some idea that the railway was able to give sufficient trucks to cope with the output. This matter of additional stock was being carefully considered, and all the rolling stock that was necessary would be ordered. He must even say that there were some recommendations which were difficult to carry out, but as far as possible the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee would be carried out. Then as regards the small matter brought to his notice by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth regarding overtime, he could assure the hon. member he would make inquiries into this.

directed attention to the allocation of various sums. It was impossible to say whether certain large amounts were charged to capital or renewals.

said that on the discussion of the Railway Estimates last year he pointed out that it was impossible for the House to deal with renewals unless members had some information in front of them. The Minister should have a proper schedule prepared of all the rolling stock, which should be valued, and then the House would have some idea whether the amount written off for depreciation was sufficient. Personally, he did not think it was. (Hear, hear.) The amount of £365,000 written off for depreciation of permanent way was certainly not sufficient.

said he had a valuation made last year. He saw no objection to the hon. member’s proposal.

thought the Estimates should be presented in a different way, so that members could gather more information from them.

On head No. 3, Running expenses, £1,774,078,

said that the Minister in his Budget statement last year mentioned that he had saved £500,000 through gathering up the stores and materials which had been found by the side of the line. What further steps had been taken in the matter?

asked the Minister to have a goods shed and general facilities provided at Welgelegen siding. He hoped the Minister would look into the matter. He also referred to the numerous losses of goods on the railway. Too much, he thought, was being paid for compensation for those losses, and it would be better to have more careful supervision so as to prevent loss.

said the usual complaint was that too little compensation was paid.

wished to know how the private lines stood.

replied that they stood much better; some which were in a bad way had improved to such an extent that they were paying.

Has the Commissioner received the second report of the Grievances Commission?

I laid it on the table of the House some time ago. (Laughter.)

then asked what was being done in the matter of the trip system?

I hope my hon. friend will not blame me for having forgotten the Grievances Commission. With regard to the trip system, we are going to have one system—which system I cannot say, but it will be announced very soon.

Do I understand you are going to extend the trip system?

No; I said we are going to have a uniform system.

said that the Minister had promised to reduce railway rates from the North. When were those rates coming into effect?

drew attention to the case of one Herbert Bayliss, who lost an arm and a leg at De Aar. He was taken to hospital, and remained there for some time. Compensation to the amount of £300 was paid, but most of this went to meet medical expenses. He pointed out that Bayliss had a wife and a number of children, and he asked the Minister whether it would not be possible to employ this man for some light work. He understood that the Department were trying to give this man some employment, and he did feel it was their duty to show some consideration in cases of this sort.

drew attention to the question of loading and delivery of goods. The tariff book laid down an allowance of 48 hours for a man two miles away. A man who was ten miles away was allowed three days; a man over ten miles 14 days. He considered that this was a very unequal scale, and he thought that the man who lived eight or nine miles from the station had a distinct grievance. He thought that the Minister might make some alteration in this respect, and allow a man who lived four miles away four days and a man five miles away five days, and so on. A more important aspect of the question was the amount of goods which had to be carted away. If a man got one ton and was allowed three days, that was all very well, but when it came to 20 tons then the committee would see the force of his contention. He wanted to labour this point a little for the reason that small places had not got Chambers of Commerce, and could not send large deputations to the Minister. He recognised the difficulty of formulating such a large volume, but he thought the ability that had framed the volume could find a way out of the difficulty.

said that with regard to the man Bayliss, he would take up an appointment as soon as he got an artificial arm and leg. He pointed out that cases of this sort were treated with great liberality. Referring to the question of the hon. member for Barkly, he said that this matter had been brought to his notice on many occasions, and they were endeavouring to arrive at a better solution. At the same time, he would point out that if goods were allowed to remain at stations for too long a time additional storage accommodation and rolling stock would be necessary.

In regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, as to the proposed reduction of rates to the extent of three-quarters of a million, he announced some time ago that the Government had decided to make reductions to that extent on the present financial year. The matter was taken in hand, and the Railway Board, with the assistance of their advisers, had given this matter their very serious consideration, as also had the Government and reductions of rates, such as, he thought, it would be in the interests of the country, and would conform to the requirements of the South Africa Act, had been settled, he meant by the Railway Board and by the Government. But under the Convention which existed with the Portuguese Administration, they could not proceed to touch any rates affecting the conveyance of goods from Lourenco Marques to the interior, to places within the Union, without reference to that Administration. He was in the happy position of being a member of two Boards, a member of the Cabinet, and Minister of Railways, and he was also responsible to Parliament, to the Press, and other agents. (A laugh) The place of meeting of the Board dealing with traffic from Delagoa Bay to the interior, and dealing with the question of apportioning the proportion of traffic between the different ports of the Union and Delagoa Bay, was Lourenco Marques, but he represented to his colleagues on the Board whether they would not oblige him by meeting in Cape Town, as the Union Parliament was in session and he could not leave. They very considerately agreed to come to Cape Town. They came here about a fortnight since, and Sir Thos. Price and himself met them and put before them the suggestions of the Union as to the character of the proposed reductions. They said before they could give any definite decision on the point that they would have to communicate with their Government. Well, as sometimes happened where they had Parliamentary Governments, they had recently had a crisis in Portugal which had delayed the necessary authority. This morning he had heard that a communication had been received from Lisbon in reply to the representations made by the Portuguese representatives, and the Joint Board was to meet to-morrow, and he hoped that, after the meeting to-morrow, he would be able to make an announcement to the House as to the character of the proposed reductions and as to the time when they would come into operation.

said that he understood that £750,000 was the basis of the reduction on the year’s work. If that were the case and, owing to the fact that the reductions would not come into operation before the end of this month, and would, therefore, only cover a period of nine months, the Minister’s estimates would be swollen by £187,000. He would like to put it to the Minister that that money should be placed to the Railway Rates Reserve. There was nothing that was going to set back the industries of the North more than if they had once reduced their rates, they raised them again owing to a depression setting in. He would also like to ask the Minister in connection with this matter, whether the House would have an opportunity on these Estimates or on the Railway Appropriation Bill, of discussing the character of the reductions. Would the Minister tell the House generally the basis upon which these reductions of £750,000 were to be carried out?

asked the Minister whether the agreement which they had with the Portuguese in connection with railway rates only applied to the question of the competitive area. They had no influence, he understood, upon the rates within the Union, except within the competitive area.

That is so.

said that there was no reason, therefore, why the reductions which had been settled should not take place in other parts of the Union. He added that the percentages of traffic through Union ports had not yet been brought into their proper relation.

was understood to say that he would take an opportunity of discussing the question of the share of traffic received by Union ports with the Portuguese representative. He added that he thought it would be hardly courteous for him to make an announcement as to the reductions until he met the Portuguese representatives tomorrow. He hoped to make an announcement to-morrow. He could assure the hon. member that, whatever reductions may be made, they would be of such a character as to make the cost of living in the re-moter parts of the Union substantially less.

said he hoped the Minister would take into consideration the desirability of applying this saving on the reductions to the Rates Reserves Fund.

said he would like to call the attention of the Minister to the case of Guard Lambert, who was recently killed on the railway at Wellington. This man had left a widow and eight children. From information that he (Mr. Madeley) had received, the death of Guard Lambert was wholly due to the negligence of the Department itself. He would like to know whether the Minister had made the inquiry which he had promised, what was the result of that inquiry, and whether the Administration were going to compensate the widow and children of this unfortunate guard? As to the question of reduction of railway rates, he put it that railway rates should not be reduced, when at the same time they ignored the claims to better wages and conditions of labour of the men who helped to make these reductions possible. He wanted the Minister to consider what would be the effect of the reduction of £750,000 in the railway rates upon the consumer. To his mind, it would be of no benefit to him. The great bulk of the reduction would go to the wholesale merchant, and the remainder to the retailer. He considered that the Minister should increase the wages of the men who were receiving from 3s. to 5s a day. They had the first claim. Their just demands should be satisfied first, and the question of a reduction of rates considered afterwards.

drew the attention of the Minister to an accident which had occurred at an open railway crossing at Middelburg, some time ago, when a farmer and his wife were most seriously injured. These open crossings, he declared, were death-traps to an unsuspecting public, and he urged the Minister to have the matter looked into. They were not even lighted at night time. Another grievance he had was in respect of the rates for the carriage of coal. Last year the Minister made certain promises in this connection, but nothing had been done to carry them out. A deputation consisting of Senators Krogh and Wolmarans and himself waited upon the Minister on this matter, and the Minister then promised to take them with him in his coach to Lourenco Marques to look into the question. The Minister had since passed Middelburg twice en route to Lourenco Marques, but he had not carried out his promise. (Laughter.) A conference of the managers of the coal mines was held last year, and their claims for a reduction of the rates was urged upon the Minister, but nothing had been done, although plenty of promises had been made. The coal industry was the hen that laid the golden egg, and the railway service was being run at the expense of this industry. Surely it was not wise to kill this hen. (Laughter.) There was another matter which was causing considerable annoyance—and that was in regard to natives and white people travelling in the same compartments. A deputation of Transvaal members waited upon the Minister on this subject, and the Minister promised to alter the state of affairs. He was informed, however, last week that stationmasters had not received any instructions on the subject. The people were getting so annoyed that they felt like taking the natives out of the carriages and throwing them in front of the trains—and the Minister would be responsible. (Laughter.) It seemed that the Minister thought he only represented one part of the Union and that he had nothing to do with the rest. (Laughter.) Who was the Minister’s “Baas” who was standing behind the door, and preventing him from carrying out his promise? (Laughter.)

said he wished to ask the Minister whether it was fact that he had decided to close down the Railway Printing Works in New market-street, Cape Town, at the end of this month, and, if so, what was the reason for this change of policy? Printing, on the whole, was done cheaper in Cape Town than in Pretoria, and he would like to ask the Minister if these works were to be closed and if he intended to call for tenders. If that was the intention, what was the reason of spending more money on the works at Pretoria?

said that in reply to the question put by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. W. B. Madeley), the widow Lambert would receive compensation. With regard to the question put by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), the Minister said that wherever the work could be done best, whether Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, or Pretoria, it should be done there.

said he wanted to refer specifically to a reply given him by the Minister when he was good enough to say that his (the hon. member’s) remarks were in the air. He stated then specifically that his demand was made for three thousand daily-paid men on the railway systems. The Minister himself said that these men had amounted to 1,775 in 1910, and 2,581 in 1911, and that the number had since increased. He had made very careful inquiries into this matter, and he was told that, roughly speaking, he could put the number down at 3,000. These men were being paid, roughly, at 5s. a day, at a cost to the State of £9,000 per annum. He did not refer to men who had cottages and were able to keep stock and cultivate a garden. These men were monthly-paid men, and were on the establishment, but he referred to men who were underpaid and underfed, and were unable to do a day’s work properly. Unless these men were fed in some better way it would be impossible for them to work as thoroughly and efficiently as they should. He had clearly shown that the annual cost of these men to the Department was £9,000 per annum, and the increase he proposed would only amount to another £4,000. The Minister’s reply had been accepted in a very unsatisfactory manner in that part of the country from which he came. It was clearly the duty of the Government to raise these people above the state of a white Kafir.

said he had quite appreciated the motives which had actuated the hon. member when he last put this before him. He had misunderstood the hon. member, however, when he (the Minister) had said it would cost an additional £360,000 to give the increases. What he understood the hon. member to say then was that all the people who received less than 7s. 6d. per day should be increased to that amount, but now it appeared that he referred to a much poorer class. This was a matter to which he had given a great deal of attention. The hon. member might rest assured that it would be the endeavour of that Department to do as much for this class of poor whites as possible.

said they had heard a great deal of the Railway Board. He did not want to go over all that ground again. He wanted to impress upon the committee the necessity of having the functions of this Board clearly laid down by statute. This was all the more necessary because, from the references that had been made, it seemed to him that not only members of the House, but the Minister himself, had come to look upon this Board as a kind of excrescence—in fact, they seemed to look upon it more as a nuisance than anything else. It was quite clear that the Board had not fulfilled the functions laid down by the Act of Union. The Act of Union stated that the control and management of the railways would be vested in this Board, subject to the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council. That seemed to him more than an Advisory Board. It meant much more than that. It meant that the Board should actually carry on the railway system subject to the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council. The Minister was to preside over their deliberations, so that he could bring to the notice of the Government the opinions of the Board, and if they were not accepted he would be able to inform the Board. What was going on just now was not very clear in the report of the Public Accounts Committee that he would quote from. Several members of the Board were asked whether the Estimates that were brought out were theirs. They replied “Yes,” but with this reservation, that the time at their disposal did not permit of their giving them that scrutiny which they ought to receive.

Who said that?

Sir Thos. Price. Continuing, the hon. member said that it was further stated that the Estimates had been changed since they were submitted to the Board. The hon. member admitted that in the hands of the Government lay the final decision, but if they were dealing with the Board they ought to know whether they approved of these Estimates or not, otherwise the functions that were intended by the Act of Union would be entirely defeated.

Nobody knew whose Estimates they were. When the Minister came before the House with the railway construction programme, the House had an almost impossible task before it, if it meant to fulfil its duty, as there was nothing to show how any particular line fitted in with the general requirements of the country as a whole. If the Board discharged the function which it ought to discharge, it ought to consider the whole of the requirements of the land, and it ought not merely to rush through the country by motor-cars. (Hear, hear.) Instead, it should from month to month think out the railway requirements of the Union. Then schemes would be put before the House, not isolated, but part of a complete whole. The House required from the Board a considered scheme of railway development for the Union as a whole. The House should have before it the material which the Constitution intended that it should have when it considered railway construction, otherwise they would have the old system of log-rolling. (Hear, hear.) If the Board did its duty, it would not interfere with the responsibility of Government, for the Governor-General-in-Council could overrule the decisions of the Board. The three members of the Railway Board drew in all £6,000 by way of salary, and £1,000 as an allowance. What was the allowance for? Then the Board had a financial secretary, drawing £1,750—£250 more than the head of the Finance Department of the Union. The next time the members of the Railway Board were asked whether the Railway Estimates were theirs, they should give a more satisfactory answer than they did on the last occasion. Only one man, except the Minister, knew anything about the Estimates, and that was the General Manager. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, Mr. Duncan asked if the Government intended to put the functions of the Board on a statutory basis?

quite agreed that there seemed to be only one man who knew anything about the Estimates—the General Manager of Railways. The Financial Secretary should have entire supervision of the Estimates. When was the House going to have the report of the General Manager of Railways for the past year? In the report, the Minister should give details of the working of the branch lines, in the same way that they were published in the report of the General Manager of the Cape Government Railways. In conclusion, Mr. Jagger pointed out that the Railway Board had asked for some decision to be come to with regard to the payment to the Railway Department of a sum in return for the free passes which were issued to members of Parliament and the Provincial Council.

said he saw that there was an estimated saving of £56,000 on the construction of the railway from Riverside to Llewellyn. Could not that money be utilised in extending the railway to Kokstad?

said the hon. member for Fordsburg ran away with a very exaggerated idea of the Railway Board. The hon. member forgot that people had their limitations. He (Mr. Fawcus) at one time had great hopes of the Board, and the good it might effect, but his hopes were in great danger of being damped. If they were to judge of the Board by its reports on new construction, he thought the possibilities of the Board had proved a failure. The Board had asked in its report for time to be given it in which to make inquiries into proposed new lines, but if the House expected the Board to report intelligently on railway construction proposals, the House was expecting a great deal too much, for the Board had its ordinary work to do in addition.

The reports and recommendations this year were not one whit better than those of last year. If one examined them carefully one found just enough to criticise; last year there was nothing to criticise. There was, for instance, a proposal to construct a railway of 220 miles, at a cost of £1,133,000, in the North-west. He found that the report in connection with such a huge scheme covered twenty lines of a foolscap sheet. They were reporting on a railway in a district which had not yet been surveyed. There were practically no reports at all. It was apparent that they were prepared to give it as their conviction that a railway should be built in this district or that on the very meagre information which they had at their disposal. There was the proposal in connection with a line to Bothasville, in the Free State. The Board remarked that if the opportunity came later it could be joined up with the line at Kroonstad. That sounded like the report of people who had never seen the country. Any person who justified the construction of a line—

said that the hon. member could not discuss the details.

said that he understood that he was able to discuss the details.

Not the details of the Bill.

said it appeared to him that these recommendations were made on the slightest information concerning the proposed lines and the country through which they would pass. In connection with the Natal proposals, they actually recommended a two-foot gauge line to connect up with the main line on the 3 ft. 6 in gauge basis. That did not seem to be the fault of the Railway Board, but the information which the Board had at its disposal. If they were going to continue the ward system which prevailed at present, they would have to get double the number of members on the Railway Board if things were to be carried out properly He would like to make a suggestion to the Minister in connection with these railway proposals. The South Africa Act laid down that all proposals for the construction of new lines should be considered by the Railway Board before being submitted to Parliament. There was nothing in the South Africa Act which prevented the Minister from going to the Provincial Council for recommendations with regard to the construction of new lines. The point was that when recommendations were made under such a system, the people who made the recommendations would know what they were talking about. The Government could easily say to the Provincial Council of each Province that it was prepared to spend such and such a sum of money, and that these Councils might make recommendations as to the most suitable places where these lines should be constructed. He thought that recommendations coming from such a quarter would be of a most valuable character. He threw out this suggestion as a forlorn hope, and because a drowning man clutched at any straw. He thought that such a scheme would be far better than the system under which they were working at the present time.

said he would like some information with regard to the amount of £5,500 that was set down for insurance premiums. He wanted some statement from the Minister on the subject. The other day, when he broached the question, the Minister of Commerce and Industries stated that the Government was undertaking its own insurance, and yet they found a sum down on these Estimates for premiums. Was the policy in this regard to the Railways and Harbours different to the policy pursued in other departments of the public service? He had done the best he could with the Chinese puzzle that was before him, but he could not ascertain how this sum was made up. He hoped that the Minister would be good enough to give the committee some information on the subject.

drew the attention of the Minister to the anomalies in connection with railway rates as between the South-Western Transvaal and Bechuanaland. He had brought this matter up before, but he hoped that this was the last time that he would have to do so. If they contrasted the rates from Port Elizabeth to Maquassi, and the rates from Port Elizabeth to Vryburg, they would find that there was an appreciable difference in favour of the Transvaal. The Chamber of Commerce in the district had made repeated representations to the Minister on the subject, but the result of their efforts had been fruitless. They were told that this was owing to the competition with Lourenco Marques; but he did not see why the rates on his side of the border should not be altered in favour of the people concerned. With regard to wool, he would point out that whereas the people of the South-Western Transvaal paid 2s. 5d. per 100 lb., the charge levied on farmers in Bechuanaland was 3s. 8d. That was a big difference, and he thought it was a point which the Minister of Railways and Harbours might consider.

said he would also like some information with regard to the amount that was set down for insurance premiums. Then he would point out that there was no contribution to the insurance fund. Last year the amount was about £20,000. He went on to quote a witness before the Public Accounts Committee. The witness stated, in reply to a question, that the balance remaining to the fund had been cut down owing to heavy losses that had been incurred. He hoped the Minister would supply the required information.

asked what the Minister’s intentions were in regard to dangerous crossings, and what he intended doing to prevent whites and natives travelling in the same carriage?

said that the administration of the railway was given in charge of the Railway Board with the object of moving it out of the sphere of political or party influence, and he thought that much of the animadversion which the Minister’s administration had met with was due to his desire to carry out this view, and was therefore undeserved, but still they did not know the conditions under which the Board had been doing its work, and things did not seem to have reached a fixed stage. He thought the Railway Board should be placed upon an actual business basis not connected with politics. He would like to ask the hon. Minister when the General Manager’s report for 1911 would be out. It was of great interest, and ought to be ready by the end of March. He would like to know also when the extension to Idutywa would be finished. He wished to point out the urgency of the completion because of the position of things in the Transkei. He had received a telegram stating that local crops there were a failure. Potatoes were £2 a bag, mealies 26s., and everything else proportionate. This state of affairs was the result of the want of transport. He did not want to go into the question of new construction, but with regard to the Transkei the survey had been made some eight years ago, and he would like the hon. Minister to see that something was done in connection with a line from Idutywa to Umtata. Railway communication should certainly be extended there.

said that he had been able to enlist the sympathy of the hon. Minister, but so far he had not succeeded in getting much more than sympathy from him. He did think that something should be done to increase the wages of the lower paid men. He wanted to draw attention to a case of a, sub-ganger on the railway, who was not in his constituency This man had been in the service of the Railway for 7½ years. He had a wife and children. He had to pay 13s. 6d. a month for the cottage he occupied and 15s. 6d. a month for the education of his children, out of the magnificent wages of 6s. a day. The other day he heard a beautiful word-picture drawn in the House of the difficulty the Ministers had to eke out a living on £3,000 per annum, and he could not help contrasting their cases with that of this man with 6s. a day. He thought it would be a good thing if the Minister would devote some of his surpluses to increasing the wages of some of these low paid men. The Ministers were not only directors for such matters as running lines of railway, but were also the guardians of people of the Union, and in a country like this where there was a large native population they ought to see that the white people were well looked after. They rightly did a good deal to try to raise the standard of the black people, but he thought that first attention should be given to people of their own colour.

sought to enlist the interest of the hon. Minister in the Technical Schools at Salt River. The schools were handed over to the School Board a year ago, and had been a great success. The number had increased to 370, which was 110 more than last year. That was a huge increase, but they were much hampered by the want of accommodation and apparatus. The principal reported a great improvement in the work and earnestness of the students. But there was one thing, however, wanting; some encouragement should be given to lads who passed the higher standards, and he suggested to the hon. Minister that, say, half-a-dozen of such should be retained each year in the railway service.

said he would like to congratulate the member for Border upon his attitude with regard to this matter of the increase of wages. He rose, however, chiefly to draw the Minister’s attention to a matter of vital importance to his constituency of Springs. He referred to the desire of Springs to be placed in communication with Geduld. He did not know if the Minister was quite clear as regarded the facts of this case.

I am quite clear.

inquired whether the Minister understood that Springs was a Government township, and when the stands were sold, it was publicly stated that the railway to Witbank would go through Springs. They took it about three miles away—in fact, they had taken from Springs what it formerly held, and had generally done their best to depress the town. Now people thought that another railway, which was under contemplation, would mean absolute isolation to Springs, which was the centre of a very large agricultural district. With regard to the statements he had made, he had several supporting telegrams, which he already had presented to the Minister. One was from a large representative Agricultural Society, which had large stores at Springs for the storage of produce. Springs was rapidly going down, mainly because the construction of the railway which had been promised had never been carried out. The country round Springs was very flat, and he did not think the construction would cost more than £2,000 or £3,000 per mile, and, besides, it would be a great help when the Benoni-Welgedacht railway was under construction for the Minister to have the engines repaired at Springs.

drew attention to the inconvenience which was caused to thirty school children by the accelerated train service on the Midland Section, and hoped the Minister would look into the matter. He also drew attention to the kind of carriages which they had to travel in on that section. It was an extraordinary thing that the train that leaves Cape Town for the Midlands had only one carriage without the electric light, and that carriage was labelled “Port Elizabeth.” Again, there was a law in force in certain areas of the Cape Colony with regard to the prevention of ox-wagon traffic in competition with the railways. Why should they make this applicable only to the Cape Province? It was unfair, and it was interfering a great deal with the wants of the people. Proceeding, the hon. member referred to the Alexandra line, which, he believed, the Minister took a great deal of interest in. This was a line that had almost doubled the price of ground in the district, but he thought it was a wrong thing to put old Natal carriages upon it. The hon. member said he had drawn the Minister of Finance’s attention, when the Post Office Estimates were under consideration, that they had started a parcel delivery business in connection with the Post Office. They were contractors for carrying mails, but why were they carrying butter and other perishable material in these carriages? He wanted the Minister to tell him if they went in for a parcel post why did they not fit up their carriages properly for carrying butter and other things of that sort? What was the use of advertising this parcels delivery if they spoiled the goods in transit? He was glad to see the Minister had raised the wages of the poor white railway workers upon the Midland Railways from 2s. 8d. to 3s 4d. a day. He hoped, however, the hon. Minister would not stop at that, but that he would raise them to 5s., and then to 6s.

said the hon. member for Middelburg had asked him whether they took every precaution to assure the safety of people passing over the railway lines where there were level crossings. In reply to that, he would say that he had given instructions again and again that every precaution was to be taken. The hon. member had also asked a question with regard to the natives travelling upon the trains. He told him some time ago that he had given instructions, and he had repeated his instructions again to the General Manager, who said he had transmitted them to the officials. He had ordered by cable additional carriages from Europe, so that natives and Europeans should be kept separate. Then with regard to the query of the hon. member for Three Rivers with regard to the carrying of butter, he had given instructions to see that butter should be carried in the way that it should be carried. (Laughter.) In regard to this railway carriage, he was not aware that a Natal carriage had been placed where the hon. member for Three Rivers stated, but he could assure him that there was no ulterior motive, but if a carriage was going to have the remarkable effect that the hon. member had referred to, he thought he would send another carriage there of first-class order. (Laughter.) He must say that he had to send these carriages somewhere.

said he could not say it was a settled policy, but he quite agreed with the hon. member that, if it were done, ample notice should be given.

On head No. 7, Interest on loans and capital, £2,653,306

asked why the £600,000 at 5 per cent. on the Klerksdorp-Fourteen Streams line had not yet been paid.

said the amount in question had been paid.

said that they had a question raised the other day by the hon. member for Durban in regard to the sale of Colonial and English beer on the railways. They were told by him that English beer was sold on the Gape Government Railways at 9d. and Colonial at 1s. They were told by the Minister, (in reply, exactly what he said two years ago when this matter was before the House, that the Railway Department had a big stock of English beer on hand. He (Dr. Hewat) found on inquiry that they had 700 barrels, and 140,000 quart bottles of English beer on hand. He (the Minister) also stated that it was owing to the popularity of Colonial beer that they had had to reduce the price of English beer to get rid of this stock. Was this, hon. member asked, fair to the Colonial brewer?

What am I to do with it?

asked whether it would not be wiser to put an end to this unfair competition on a Colonial industry, and sell this imported beer by public auction?

What am I to do with the beer?

Drink it. (Laughter.)

said that he intended to divide the House upon this matter. There was no reason why beer imported into this country should be sold on the railways at a cheaper rate than Colonial beer, more especially as he found, on making inquiries, that the Colonial beer sold by the Railway Department showed a profit of from 200 to 500 per cent.

It was not fair to the South African brewers to sell their products at more than the price of the English article.

said he entirely sympathised with the hon. member, but the English beer had been in stock for some time, and he wanted to get rid of it. He was anxious to support Colonial industries. If the stock of English beer were sold by auction it would mean a very great loss, and the buyers of it would the better be able to compete with the Colonial article than they were now, so that the South African beer would still suffer. Under the circumstances he thought the course now being pursued was the best. He hoped that when the hot weather came on there would be an increased consumption. (Laughter.)

said that when he was in office it was strongly urged upon him that the stock of English beer should be, sold as it was now being done. The attitude he took up, however, was that the Cape Parliament had determined to support Colonial industries, and that the railway catering department had gone out of its way to purchase, as far as possible, only articles produced in this country. Owing to the action of the Cape Railways, Cape wines had largely been advertised throughout South Africa. (Hear, hear.) He believed that that policy, together with the improved quality of the wine, had done more than anything else to encourage the sales of Cape wines in the North. At that time the Cape refused to sell English beer at less price than the Cape beer when the railways were in a bad state. Surely now, when the railways were in a flourishing condition, it ill became the Government to penalise the industry by selling the imported article at less than the Colonial. Travellers by the trains, when they saw that imported beer was sold at 9d a bottle, and Colonial at 1s., got the idea that this country was not capable of producing an article at a reasonable figure. (An hon. member: Who bought the beer?”) He did not buy it—it was bought years ago, and he thought £4 000 or £5,000 would cover the lot. They must let the travelling public choose what they wanted to drink, but they should not be encouraged to drink imported beers because they were cheaper than the Colonial beers. He always thought that the Minister of Railways over-ruled the Railway Board and everybody else, but in this case the Minister had allowed himself to be over-ruled by the admirable officer at the head of the catering department, who, of course, was anxious to show a profit.

said a most shocking state of affairs was revealed. He saw that imported whisky had been sold to the amount of £17 000 as against only £215 (pounds’) worth of Colonial whisky. Why did not the hon. member (Sir T. W. Smartt) start drinking Colonial whisky? (Laughter.) As to the beers, £35,000 worth of South African had been consumed, as against only £11 000 worth of imported. He did not see how the Minister could do anything but what he was doing. The figures he had quoted clearly showed that no damage was done to the Colonial article.

said the only solution was to have a Beer Board. (Laughter.) They already had a Brandy Board, and the Minister of Commerce had a Board which might take the beer. He agreed with the hon. member for Cape Town in supporting the action of the Minister in this matter.

said that if the whisky to which the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, referred was produced in the Cape, he hoped the Minister would take steps in the matter, because its sale was illegal in the Cape under the Act of 1906. He imagined that the whisky consisted of rectified spirits of wine with whisky essence added; it was not a whisky at all.

referred to the “miserable display of fruit in the railway dining cars” which, he said, was a disgrace to South Africa. (Hear, hear.) He disapproved of the Minister’s attitude in regard to the beer, and remarked that the profit on the sale of Colonial beer was 300 per cent., and on Colonial stout 250 per cent. He moved to reduce the sub-head, salaries and wages, by £100.

said the fact that less was charged tor English than Colonial beer on the trains, gave people the idea that something was wrong with the former. So far as the catering on the main line was concerned, it was equal to the best in the world. He believed that the department was now paying, and he thought the officials must be congratulated on the work they had done.

said he understood that it would take seven or ten years to get rid of the stock of beer. If there were any German beer in stock, he thought it should be exported to Luderitzbucht. He thought the catering was excellent; but on this particular point he thought the hon. member for Wood-stock was right in his contention. He thought that the Colonial article should be protected, and he hoped the matter would not be allowed to drift on to the next year

thought that “selling off beer” should be marked on the wine list. (Laughter.)

said that they could sell the English at a cheaper rate so long as they were fair to the Colonial article. He moved the reduction of the vote, and would divide the committee even if he had to walk over to the other side of the House himself. (Laughter.) He moved a reduction of £50, as a protest.

said he hoped the Minister would take the question into consideration, and let the catering department set a good example in regard to the consumption of Colonial goods.

hoped the Minister would give consideration to the Zwartkops mineral waters, which had such remarkable qualities that even the very ducks that swam in it laid double-yolked eggs. (Laughter.)

who was almost inaudible in the Press Gallery, was understood to say that the Railway Department did all it could to encourage the consumption of the produce of South Africa. He was further understood to say that he was not going any further with the beer question.

Dr. Macaulay’s amendment was withdrawn.

Dr. Hewat’s amendment was declared to be negatived.

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

said it had been reported to him that whisky and brandy were sold in the buffets: which were established for the sale of light wines.

said that instructions were given that only wines were to be sold in these buffets, and as far as he knew the instructions were carried out.

said he wanted to raise a question he was very diffident about; that of Colonial cheese. Last year he was inundated with samples, and he sincerely hoped that would not happen again. (Laughter.)

It depends upon the kind of samples.

admitted that the samples were most satisfactory, but he did not want any more. He had still continued to make inquiries and found that they could not get Colonial cheese on the railways. There was one period when they could get any amount, but that was in Colonial week and a special effort was being made to show what could be done. He thought the dairying industry should be encouraged, and the public service of the country ought to make a small sacrifice of convenience, if not of money, in order to foster this industry. Unless they gave a lead, it was hardly likely that private people would do it.

complained that there were constant changes in the time-table in connection with the Cape Town suburban line, and the new time-tables that were put up were so printed that it was very difficult for people with defective sight to find out what time the various trains were to arrive or depart. Particulars of several lines had been placed on one sheet, and it was almost impossible to see what tram one wanted to go by owing to the very small print. He hoped the hon. Minister would make representations with regard to the matter; the officials had evidently been trying to get everything on one sheet and had produced a document that was almost undecipherable. There was another point. It caused great inconvenience that small time-tables containing the changes could not be obtained at the bookstalls until four or five days after. These little matters were very irritating.

said that with regard to advertising, he hoped that the next time the Department were showing posters advertising bathing facilities at the different ports, Durban would be given a better show, and that they would show Durban as it really was.

in reply to the hon. member for Liesbeek, said he would draw the attention of the proper authorities to the small matters he had mentioned.

referred to the inconvenience caused by the difficulty of being provided with periodicals from oversea at the various bookstalls in the stations in Cape Town and district. He had tried to purchase such papers as “Country Life” and “Public Opinion” within a day of two of the arrival of the mail and there were no more copies available. Formerly these periodicals were always to be had. He hoped the Minister would look into the matter.

wanted to raise another point. The Government, he said, were running bookstalls with the object of preventing a monopoly in newspapers. He was informed that the Government had taken their supply from the Central News Agency. Would the hon. , Minister say whether they were still going to take their supplies from the Central News Agency, or whether they were going to order their supplies direct from Great Britain? If they were going to continue to get supplied through the Central News Agency they were not doing much to stop a monopoly.

replied, but his remarks were inaudible in the Press Gallery.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said the Minister told them some time ago that he was considering the policy of making the harbours self-supporting. He called his attention to the point that the Railway Department had been taking from the harbours property in the shape of stores, and not paying compensation to the harbours. Of course, some allowance, he knew, had to be made, but if the railways and harbours were to be worked on a business basis each department should charge for its own services and its own property.

asked the Minister whether no had made up his mind with regard to the matter of industrial sites at the docks? He recollected a deputation waiting upon the Minister representing various local authorities, who were of opinion that these sites should not be granted.

said in view of the development at Port St. John’s the people there submitted to him a statement that the harbour had been very much silted up and boats must be of very small draught indeed before they could get into it. The Minister had promised them another dredger.

I have sent one up some time ago.

was understood to ask the Minister if the supply of cranes were sufficient at the Table Bay Docks.

said there were no very heavy cranes, as far as he knew, at Table Bay. Table Bay was not equipped for fifty years ahead. He believed that the port was going to expand. (Mr. J AGGER: Hear, hear.) With regard to Port St. John’s it seemed an absolutely hopeless task to develop that port.

said he had stated on several former occasions that his idea was to make the harbours self-supporting, but how this was to be done was a matter for future consideration. With regard to the industrial sites at the Docks, he had been told that tenders had been asked for, but he had given instructions that no tenders were to be accepted, as he was considering the matter further. With regard to Port St. John’s harbour, he had a report on its possibilities, and what he proposed to do to prevent the river silting up. He found that it would cost a very large sum of money indeed. The matter had been carefully considered, but so far it was not advantageous to launch into an unknown sea with regard to expenditure. He could not hold out any hope of doing a great deal for the port in the near future.

said he understood the Minister to say that he was going to make the harbours pay their way. There were two ways in which he could do this. One was to make each harbour pay its way individually, or make the whole of the harbours pay collectively. It would be much fairer to make each harbour pay its way individually.

asked if nothing could be done for Port St. John’s. The Cape Government had spent a fair amount of money in purchasing the territory round about. It was admirably suited for agricultural development and close settlement, but it was impossible to do anything in that connection before something was done for Port St. John’s.

said that, as far as his experience went, it would be impossible for the Government to do anything satisfactorily unless it was prepared to spend a very, very large amount of money.

said that he wished to know what the policy of the Government was in connection with the harbours. The Minister had not told them how he was going to make the various harbours self-supporting. Although there was a very considerable profit on the railway working, there was a considerable loss on the working of the harbours.

in his reply, the greater portion of which was inaudible in the Press Gallery, was understood to say that the question of making the harbours self-supporting was receiving his consideration, and that he was considering the advisability of imposing a tax on imports. As regarded Port St. John’s, his policy was regulated by his cash, and as he had no cash now, he could have no policy. To meet the requirements of Port St. John’s would mean the spending of a very large amount of money, which he was not at present prepared to ask Parliament to sanction. In fact, he doubted whether Parliament, in its wisdom, would sanction the necessary money.

said that it was quite impossible to hear the reply given by the Minister, who had spoken in a conversational way. He wished to know if the Minister had stated that he proposed to make the harbours self-supporting by putting a duty on imports. If that were the case, he hoped that he would reconsider the matter, because he could not see how that policy could be successfully carried out. It would mean that people who imported, goods would have to pay the extra duty, and there would be a danger of driving trade to Delagoa Bay. For that reason he strongly urged the Minister to reconsider the matter, and, before coming to a, decision, consult the various Chambers of Commerce.

said that if the Minister were considering the question of imposing a duty on imports in order to equalise revenue and expenditure, he would like him to bear in mind the fact that in years past the Government had paid nothing whatever in the way of harbour dues on goods imported for its own purpose. He considered that that would represent a very large amount per annum, and when the balance-sheet was struck, it ought to be borne in mind.

disagreed with the system adopted in charging a uniform rate of depreciation on all harbours. He maintained that the life of the harbour works at Port Elizabeth should be reckoned on a much more favourable basis than that of other ports which could be mentioned. He was certainly of opinion that the Government should debit itself with harbour dues.

said he wished to draw the Minister’s attention to a matter which he brought up yesterday about the amount of debt on the railways. He believed they had a fixed capital of £86,000,000.

Eighty-six and a quarter millions.

Does the amount of that vote include all the amount of interest we have to pay?

No. The vote asked for does not provide all that is required.

said it had been suggested to him the desirability of establishing a Marconi Station at Port Elizabeth. At present a thousand miles separated the two coastal stations, and he would ask the Minister if it was not advisable to have one at a central portion of the coast?

said he could make no promise. All he could say was that he would look into the matter.

asked what account A, £252,505 (relaying of permanent way, etc) included? He thought it was a very large amount.

The reply of the Minister of Railways and Harbours was inaudible in the Press Gallery.

asked if the relaying of a permanent way with a 60 lb. in place of a 45 1b rail had not been paid for as an improvement, and charged to revenue, and on what sections of the line were the Improvements taking place?

replied that the substitution of heavier rails was taking place in all the Provinces.

said he had always understood that the hon. Minister of Railways was prepared to stand by his convictions. A little while ago they had a report handed in by the Minister with regard to the efficiency of the workshops, and the Bloemfontein workshop was regarded in that report as the most efficient. The Minister approved of that report. One would have expected to find in this year’s Estimates that most of the work would have been given to the most efficient workshop, and that a large increase of expenditure would have been found in connection with that workshop, and a relative decrease in other workshops. But on the Estimates they found there were small reductions at Salt River and East London, but there was a heavy increase at Uitenhage and. Pretoria, and an extraordinary increase at Maritzburg, while at Bloemfontein there was a comparatively small increase. Was it not the intention of the Department to give effect to the report of the experts?

was understood to say that he was not going to make a monopoly for Bloemfontein. He was as fond of his convictions as the hon. member, and he would leave it at that. In reply to a question by Dr. Hewat, he said it was not the intention to reduce the work at Salt River or any other place.

moved a new head No. 7, Interest on loan capital, £168,672.

assumed that was in addition to the amount on the Estimates?

asked for information as to how the amount had been arrived at. He found, from the Public Accounts Committee report, the capital was shown as £86,252,960. The committee further recommended an all-round sum of 3½ per cent. to be paid upon that capital invested in the railways and harbours up to May, 1910. Was the hon. Minister going to pay the difference of interest between the sums which had been paid since the date of Union and the actual figure that had been arrived at in the report?

said the railways had certainly given far more to revenue than they were expected; the Treasury was always dropping round to the railways and asking for £200,000 or £300,000 more. It was quite clear that 3½ per cent. came to £3,180,000. The sum on the original Estimates was £3,026,000, and the difference of £168,000 was the amount of money spent since the date of Union out of loan moneys—

No, no.

said a good deal of money had been spent out of loan, but some had been spent out of revenue, but all that money had been spent out of loan and they had to pay interest during the current year. Mr. Merriman, referring to a remark made by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, said that the £8,000 on the Estimates and the £168,000 then being voted, made £176,000. How many millions did that account for at 3½ per cent.?

made the figure approximately right.

said that the railway capital had been increased by some five millions of money. The railways were now expected to pay interest on something in the vicinity of five millions more than they expected to pay upon during the first year of Union. Everything that increased the capital cost of the railways increased the cost of development of the inland portion of the Union, and he would like the Minister to explain the basis upon which the increased capital had been arrived at.

replied in a very low voice, and was understood to say that he was dissatisfied, but he was pledged to accept the provisions of the South Africa Act. Proceeding, the hon. Minister was understood to say that he had been on the committee which dealt with this matter at the time of the Convention, and he and his hon. friend had discussed it. He did not doubt the soundness of the legal opinion given, and as the clause in the Convention was the law on the subject, he tried to carry it out.

said it meant saddling the railways with an extra charge of about £175,000. This, naturally, increased the rates to the interior to that extent, and he only hoped the Minister was satisfied with its absolute legality.

said he was frankly puzzled. The hon. member said that the interest on the agreed capital at 3½ per cent. was £3,018,853. He found on page 5 of the Estimates that the increased interest on the capital of the railways to be paid for was £2,633,306. On page 4 he found that the interest on the Harbour capital was £393,404, giving a total of £3,026,740. Therefore it would appear as if there were £7,000 or £8,000 more than were necessary if the Minister were correct in his statement.

said he wanted to know why the five million pounds had been put on the capital. When hon. members faced their constituents and were asked why the railway capital had been increased by five millions, on which they had to pay interest, he for one would like to be able to explain. He had heard that this was money that; had been taken out of profits and expended on new railways or betterment. He would like the Minister to explain if that was the case.

said the amount taken over at Union as the debt on the railway was 80¼ millions. The Railway Department and the Harbours had spent since Union £5,230,000. That brought the total up to £86,480,000. This 86 millions the Minister had provided interest for in the Main Estimates to the extent of £3,026,000—that was 80¼ millions plus the money spent. That was the point. Now the Public Accounts Committee went into the original amount and said, “No; that is not sufficient. You must add another five millions and bring it up to 86¼ millions.” And this was to provide for the interest on this extra sum.

said that did not alter the fact that the Railways were now being saddled with a perpetual rent charge of £175,000 more than they had been saddled with before, which perpetual rent charge the people who used the railway in the interior had to pay in perpetuity. That was why he wanted to know if that was a fair agreement, because he did not think they were always bound by legal authorities, because, as his hon. friend knew, they sometimes differed.

On this subject they do not differ.

They all agree?

Yes.

said he agreed with the hon. member for Kimberley (Mr. Oliver) that they wanted to know this because their constituents up-country would ask for an explanation.

said this was one of the prettiest speeches he had heard. (Laughter.) It was a deliberate attempt to stir up provincial strife, and whether his hon. friend thought that the people in the interior, for whom his heart was now bleeding, would be better placed if they went through with their revenue, and had to provide it out of taxation, say by an income tax or a land tax he did not know. The amount proposed as a charge of debt was a fair and legitimate charge. He thought it was an ample charge himself, and it was always considered that this was merely a charge out of income at 3½ per cent., whereas the general revenue of the country, which was not the general revenue of the Cape or Natal; it was the general revenue of the whole Union, had got to pay a very considerable sum for sinking fund on these railways; and it was as well that the Railways should discharge this sinking fund because the asset upon which the prosperity of the railways hangs was a perishing asset. Year by year it was getting smaller. It might live 25 years or 30 years, and it might live longer, but it would be, undoubtedly, after five years, a diminishing asset.

Why?

I don’t want to argue that. Proceeding, he said they had got to take all these things into consideration to provide a sufficient sum for interest on the overcharge, and this was a sufficient sum. He did not want to battle with his hon. friend about figures; but it seemed to him they could either add the five millions on to the 86 millions and then take 3½ per cent. of 91 millions, or they could take the amount down on the Estimates and take the interest on the five millions and add it together. The result would be the same.

said he could not allow the statement of his hon. friend to pass without comment. Take the Cape of Good Hope. It was about 750 miles to Vryburg. They would benefit by a reduction of rates as much as any other part of the country. He could thoroughly understand the House discussing the principle that it would be a good or a bad principle to take a certain amount of money from the railway revenue to assist the revenue of the country; but in the Convention it was distinctly understood that such could not be done, and it was for that reason he asked the hon. Minister whether the five million pounds added to the railway debt was a fair and reasonable addition. That clause having been introduced into the Act of Union they should act up to it.

said he right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had stated that this addition was made because their revenue was short, and unless the railways contributed that amount they might have to come down on the people in the way of extra taxation. He asked if they would like that. He (the hon. member) would say they would certainly prefer general taxation to the deficiency being saddled entirely on the people up-country.

General taxation would be borne equally by the people in the Union. That was the difference between general taxation and making good a deficiency. For years they had paid this large amount over and above the interest on the railways. He had not yet received a reply to his question why this five million pounds should be added to the capital account of the railways. Gentlemen who had been on the committee might know what it was, but other hon. members had no indication at all what it meant.

said that before the Minister replied he would like to associate himself with the hon. member. These matters seemed to have been settled in committee. Of course the Minister stated, quite clearly, his opinion, with which he (the hon. member) entirely agreed, about this extra capital. He did not think hon. members who came from up-country thoroughly realised what that meant. The general revenue did not pay the interest on this capital, but the railways had to pay to the general revenue. The Minister of the Interior, he thought was one of the members of the committee which dealt with this matter at the Convention. He did not dispute it may have been an agreement in the Convention; but this was a question that did not affect themselves or communities or anything else. It was not a provincial matter at all. It was a matter that concerned the development of South Africa, and therefore they need not be fast-bound by legal opinions. Why should people who lived away from the coast mile after mile pay more and more, and exempt from taxation the rest of the community? The right hon. gentleman had spoken just now as if the people on the coast got no benefit from the railways, and talked of taxing the people inland because there were perishing resources. Where would the people on the coast be if the people inland vanished? That interest ought to fall upon the general community and the general revenue. He thought that the whole of the railway interest ought to fall upon the general exchequer, and the consumer ought to pay for services rendered. The development effected by the railways as much affected the coast as the portions inland—they were all interdependent. Harbour losses and fictitious capital were directed at the root of development, and they were penalising instead of fostering it. It had not been explained to them how much of that capital was borrowed capital, and he took it that the railway ought to pay on the borrowed capital. Under that arrangement they paid more and they were never exempted from paying £175,000 or thereabouts for ever and ever. It was dead wrong in policy, and an impost upon development and a hindrance, and against the interests of the whole country. That proposal, it was true, had been made by the Transvaal representatives—the Minister of the Interior, the late Minister of Finance, and Sir George Farrar, who had strongly urged that; and it had been some time before members of the Convention had been convinced of the soundness of that as a business matter. It was not a provincial matter at all.

said that he was rather surprised that the hon. member had not taken into account one thing, because it had been put in that House several times, and ought not to be lost sight of—the Sinking Fund. He agreed with the hon. member that it was not a Provincial matter and ought to be considered without any reference to Provincial matters. It was a question which, if it was between anybody, was between the inland districts and the coast; but he did not care to put it even in that way. He did not think it was in the interest of the coast at all against the inland portions. His constituents had been taught that they had an immense interest in the inland districts. In the interests of the whole country conveyance ought to be as cheap as possible. He would point out to the hon. member that he had entirely lost sight of the Sinking Fund, and that Treasury had to pay Sinking Fund that they could not get rid of because the whole of the guaranteed loan of the Transvaal had Sinking Fund fixed upon it by the Act of the Imperial Government, so unless that was paid off there was no escape for the Treasury from that charge. Surely it was fair for the Railways to pay that. On the guaranteed loans the Sinking Fund was 1 per cent., and there were also Sinking Funds on other parts of the railway capital. He thought this sound finance. At present the interest on the £13,000,000 which was part of the railway capital was rather more than the Sinking. Fund on the railway capital, but it was a fixed amount, whereas the railway capital and, he hoped, the Sinking Fund in respect of it would grow. On the whole the bargain was not unfair. The hon. member talked continually of what was in the mind of the Convention, although it was not a decisive fact, but it seemed to him that the hon. member must have forgotten, because there was no better proof than the figures which were before the Convention. The capital sum expressly included that sum they were now discussing, so that the law was on the side of the decision which had been taken, and the Convention had not only voted that amount, but did so with their eyes open. There was a sum of millions contributed from the Orange Free State railway revenue before the war, and also £882,000 had been contributed from the railway revenue, and these, two sums totalled 2½ millions nearly. Apart from these sums there was, according to the statistics put before the Convention, which had never been published, but of which he had a copy, no part of the railway capital which had been provided out of railway surpluses. It did seem to him that in view of the fact that the interest on Sinking Fund had to be paid, and that that fund could never be increased, it was reasonable that that sum should be paid by the Railway. If the general revenue had to pay sinking fund it would make the taxation which would have to fall on the country next year very heavy, and he thought that it was sound policy and sound finance as well as sound law and the plain meaning of the Convention that the Railway should bear this charge.

said that the hon. member had not quite caught what he had said. He had not disputed the arrangement made in the Convention. That was a business principle, and did not affect anybody’s rights, and it was a matter which they thought would ensure the development of the country. If they could convince hon. members that they were sound on that matter nothing more need be said, and nothing need be said about what was arrived at in the Convention.

You want to go back on the Convention?

replied in the negative.

Continuing, he said he would point to the report of the Auditor-General. The loan capital was only 73 millions, upon which the country had to pay interest. The capital on which the Railways had to pay interest was 86 millions, showing a difference of 13 millions, which he thought was contributed out of revenue in the good times. That was done by everybody in the country. Now to-day a certain section of the population of the country was asked to pay interest on the 13 millions which nobody paid at all. Nobody paid interest out but the users of the railways, and they were asked to pay the interest on this 13 millions. In the Convention they agreed—at least, he believed that they agreed—that sinking fund should be borne by the general taxpayer. Between whom?

North and the ports.

Absolute nonsense. Well, I am really surprised. The North and the ports! Is Worcester north? Worcester pays its share. Wynberg pays its share. Salt River pays its share. There is no such question as the North and the ports, and no such question as inland and the coast. Continuing, he said that if the ports were going to pay, then it would be very unfortunate for the ports. The reason why he brought it forward was that it was as much in the interests of the coast as the inland places, and because it was going to ensure development. It was perfectly true that the amount of the loan was paid out of the general revenue. Did not the general taxpayer get the benefit of Custom dues? Was there any burden of which the inland town had not to pay its share? He was not talking about the Transvaal; he would take any place, whether it was only a yard from the coast. They put the burden on a section of the taxpayers, when it ought to be borne by all the taxpayers. Those who did not use the railways only paid once; those who used the railways had to pay twice. It was, he would not say unfair, but an unwise policy, and a policy that handicapped and hindered development. It was like taxing the raw material of a manufacturer when he had just started to work: the time to tax him was when he was in full working order and when he was making a profit. It was not inland against the coast, or North against the South. It was a reasonable principle and a sound policy for the development of the country. It was a principle that ought to be considered on its merits.

said he would like to point out one thing to the hon. member, because he thought that it would aid him in the future. He was confusing general taxation and paying for services—

Not at all.

Yes, there is an extraordinary difference. Continuing, he asked: Who built the railways? The general taxpayer. The people who used the railways had to pay for the services of the railways. If they were charging enormous rates, then, of course, they ought to make material reductions, and that was the idea as far as possible; but if they were only charging moderate rates, and the rates of this country compared very favourably indeed with the rates of other colonies, then they were entitled to make a certain amount of profit. His hon. friend seemed to be intent on bringing down the rates with a run, and then there would be a depression and a deficit. Then what would they do? Then they would have to get it out of the pockets of the people by heavy taxation. They would find it a very difficult matter indeed to increase the rates on the railways during a time of depression. It had taken place in South Africa before, and he hoped that such a state of affairs would not come to pass again. Who was going to pay if there were any deficiency? The railways? No. The general taxpayer would have to pay, and he would have to pay very heavily.

said he would like to refer hon. members to the fourth report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and the legal opinions which the committee had before it for some time. The committee had not to go by any predilection one way or the other. They had to decide what the Act of Union-meant, and they had several opinions before them. They came to the conclusion that the railways were bound to pay interest on capital which was provided out of revenue, and that was what the railway was called upon to pay now, and what the House was asked to vote that night. The hon. member was understood to say that hon. members, would see clearly how the matter stood if they read carefully the clause of the Act of Union, the report of the Public Accounts Committee, and the statement of account by the Financial Secretary.

thought it was not fair to ask the inland parts to pay interest on £86,000,000, while the capital of the railways was only £73,000,000. This would hamper the development of the country. Hon. members should not forget that the interior already had to pay the losses on the harbours. Surely the railways were run for the benefit of the harbours as well as of the inland. He would not be opposed to vote in favour of the proposal to-day, but hoped that a Commission would be appointed to go into the whole question. If necessary, the Constitution should be amended on this point.

said the right hon. member for Victoria. West had accused him of confusing taxation and services rendered. The unfortunate part was that the railways were still grouped under the same heading as they were in the old colonies, but he would point out that these services varied from £2 6s. 8d. in one case up to £14 14s. 10d. in another, and so that if they could say that it was a moderate charge in the one case for services rendered, he did not know what they could say it was in the other case. It was a common-sense principle which every man used in his own business, not to overcharge, because it didn’t pay. They lowered their rates where they could get a return. Get from people the full charge for services rendered, but don’t let them put in piles of taxation under that name, because it did not deceive anybody.

said he quite agreed with his hon. friend the member for Pretoria East, that this was not a Provincial question. It was one of great interest to the whole of the Union, but if they accepted the principle that they were to be bound by the Act of Union that surely disposed of the whole question. If they should say that this was a question of policy only they would be getting upon very dangerous ground. Would it not be wiser, after coming to a conclusion regarding a reasonable interpretation of the words of the Act of Union, to say that they would accept that meaning? If they once began to alter this, where were they going to stop? This was said to be a question of policy and for the interests of the public, but did not the Act of Union consider the interests of the people as well? It seemed to him quite clear that if it was the intention that the railways should only pay interest upon capital, it would have been put in the Act. If this was what the Convention meant it was better to abide by this rather than opening up the whole question again.

said the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg had only convinced him that the Treasurer was justified in charging interest on the profits made on the railways.

I didn’t say so.

said the Treasurer had a right to charge interest on the profits made on the railways, but it would be difficult to convince the right hon. member for Victoria West that the Treasurer was justified in taking money out of the railways and putting it into the General Revenue Account.

said that he had been reproached for suggesting a departure from the Convention. Now, he did not ask anyone to depart from the Convention, but surely it did not debar one from discussing a business question and trying to invite attention to it in order to convince people that it was a sound business proposal? He was trying to throw some light on the matter in the hope of convincing the people who lived at the coast that their interests were identical with those who lived in the interior.

The new item was agreed to.

moved to insert a new item on page 3, “Contributions towards the Consolidated Revenue Fund,” £500,000: Balance at 31st March, 1911, £75,391 10s. l0d.; balance at 31st March, 1912, £381,057 12s. 4d. ; For year, ending 31st March, 1913, £43,550 16s. 10d.; making a total of £500,000.

This new item was agreed to.

moved that the Chairman report the Railways and Harbour Estimates, without amendment, and the Supplementary Estimates, with amendments.

Agreed to.

moved a reduction of £500,000.

asked the Minister if he was going to make a statement on depreciation and betterment?

When the Bill comes up.

said that, on referring to schedule G (Head 4, Harbours) of the Supplement to the Estimates of the Expenditure from Loan Funds, he found that the item “Timber tendering along the South Pier and Elbow (Table Bay), £1,100,” was going to come out of the loan funds. Why was the Minister doing that? That money ought to come out of the renewals funds. Then there was the item “Alterations to cargo store at No. 2 Quay, Victoria Basin, £1,250.” Surely that was an amount which should come out of the renewals. There was also the item “Re-arrangement of arc lighting, £500,” which was also coming out of loan funds. Further, he found in the case of Algoa Bay that the item “Completion of handrail on Dom Pedro Jetty, £175,” was going to come out of loan funds. It did seem strange that these small amounts, which were not for permanent works, should come out of loan funds, and not out of revenue.

said that he wanted to know on what principle the Government were proceeding in regard to schedule H, new works on open lines. On looking through the items he found that they were all practically in the nature of renewals, and should be provided out of renewal, funds and not out of loan funds. With regard to the relaying programme, he found that the total was £3,445,304, of which £1,070,107 was charged to loan funds, and he wanted to know on what principle that division was made.

The reply of the Minister of Railways and Harbours was inaudible.

said it was impossible for any hon. member to know whether amounts were charged to capital or to betterment. In schedule A, in the renewal of bridges, etc., a large amount is there dealt with, but as to what fund it was charged no information could be gathered. The Select Committee on Public Accounts had taken a resolution, which he thought was a good one that all amounts under £1,000 should be charged to revenue. He noticed an amount of £790 for replacing a timber structure with steel girders at Kei River. Would the Minister give the House some idea to which account these amounts were being placed, and how much had been added this year to capital account?

said the Administration had been very careful not to increase the capital account. They did not charge anything to that account which could not be properly so charged.

said the Minister was putting to load account what should be taken out of the betterment and renewal funds. His hon. friend in the past had failed to contribute to the renewal fund in a sufficient measure, and had now to have recourse to loans. In other words they were reduced to this position. They were borrowing to make up for money which had been paid away in the last two years.

thought there was surely plenty of money in the renewals fund. In answer to Mr. Jagger, he said the last time he saw it there was far more than £450,000. They should not borrow until the renewals fund was empty. He wanted to ask a question that ought to have been asked last year; how much had been spent on new lines in the years 1911-12, and how much was estimated to be spent on new lines in 1912-13? If they had had those figures last year they would have been saved from a great mistake and the Minister would have been saved a great deal of trouble.

said the amount they were asked to vote was £4,410,000, and the original amount was £4,910,000. He had endeavoured to find out how this latter sum was made up. The amount under Head “A” was given as £5,318,000. That amount included two millions sterling for new lines. No new lines had been authorised, nor were likely to be. They were asked to vote £4,410,000. How was the difference made up between this £3,318,000 and the sum they were asked to vote?

referred to a quarter-million to be expended on the deviation between Pietermaritzburg and Riet Spruit. It was a big undertaking, and had not been brought forward in any reports. He would like some explanation.

said that they were going to build a harbour at Kalk Bay, to cost £49,000. He was not opposed to that, but still it had not received due consideration, and he would like some explanation of this large expenditure. Another case was the railway for nine miles from Eerste River to Bellville Junction. This was a branch line, and he proposed to relay it with 80 lb. rails.

in replying, was, to all intents and purposes, absolutely inaudible. He was understood to refer to a deviation at Maritzburg, and said he had gone through the reports most carefully on several occasions. Proceeding to reply to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, he said that with regard to the relaying of the line from Zwaartkops to Uitenhage with 80 lb. rails, it was a suburban line, and necessary for the speed of the train and public safety. Regarding the nine miles of line between Eerste River and Bellville, the traffic over that portion of the line was very heavy. With regard to the Kalk Bay Harbour, it was not his intention to proceed with it.

said he would like a little more information from the Minister about the point he had referred to, because the distance of that line, as far as he could understand, was only eight or ten miles. The tremendous expenditure of £245,000 for that short length of line must surely be a very heavy expenditure of money.

said he hoped the Minister would agree to this standing over, because they had wasted two or three days of this session in consequence of voting exactly the same thing as they did last year, and he did not think the committee should run the risk of voting this year what might be repeated next year.

made a remark concerning the Appropriation Bill.

said the Appropriation Bill meant the Estimates. He thought it would be better if this were to stand over.

said he thought that a fair proposition to make. They were asked to vote five millions of money. He was going to suggest that they really ought to take this vote under sub-heads. That was really the only way in which they could deal with it. They could take the Brown-book, head 1, head 2, and so on.

said he wanted to know the total amount on new construction.

said he could not at this moment say how much was for one and how much was for another line.

said the total was 3¼ millions.

asked if the hon. Minister would give them an assurance that when they were going to deal with these things next year they would have something before them to let them know how much of that expenditure was likely to be charged to capital fund and how much to betterment fund. On page 7, under schedule A, they found “new lines, new proposals, and completion of lines under construction.” Under that head he found lines that were built some years ago, like Paarl-Frenchhoek, Victoria West-Carnarvon, and De Aar-Prieska, and he thought the Minister was taking authority to spend all the balances of the original amounts voted for the construction of these lines. What he wanted to know was this: take the line De Aar-Prieska, the whole of the culverts of that line were originally made of wood. They were now being replaced by concrete, and he wanted to know whether the Minister was going to pay the whole of the expenditure for the new concrete culverts taking the place of wood from capital or betterment funds.

said that the fact of the matter was that he had not had more money to spend; still, they had spent a great deal, and they had spent more on betterment than his hon. friend (Sir T. W. Smartt) had done when he was Commissioner of Public Works in the Cape. They were all very virtuous now.

said that he saw that there was an amount of £387,000 for the Tzaneen-Messina line. Did he understand from that vote that the £300,000 that was contemplated to be spent under the Railway Construction Bill had been taken off, or was that amount still at the disposal of the Department for the completion of the line?

replied that the whole amount was still intact.

also asked a question, but was inaudible, as was the Minister’s reply.

said that he thought the expenditure for laying 80-lb. rails in the place of 60-lb. rails was absolutely necessary, and every member must approve of it. He was not criticising the amount on the deviation he had already alluded to but the items were so large that it amounted practically to the construction of a new railway, and he thought that the Minister, if possible, should endeavour to put considerably more information before the House on such items.

with regard to the Mooi River-Frere deviation asked, it was understood, if it were the same section they had before them last year?

said that last session he had said that a large sum of money, probably £500,000 or more, would be required to complete that work; and somebody said that they would want more than that. He did not know that they would, but they might. It would improve the carrying capacity of the line enormously.

The reduced amount was agreed to.

said that he saw that on item 5 they had got Agricultural schools, Cedara, £10,000—£5,000 to be spent that year and £5,000 to be spent next year. Could the Minister give him some information on that?

in reply to a question, said that the money had been placed on the Estimates in order to have a start made with the building of the Governor’s residence. The total cost would be about £50,000.

said that the preliminary plans were being got out.

Where is the site?

On the Westbrooke Estate.

Whereabouts on Westbrooke?

Not yet decided.

Is it above or below the Avenue?

In the forest above the Avenue.

said they must find the site before plans were made out.

pointed out that schools were being built in the Free State and Transvaal with borrowed money and without interest; the other Provinces had to pay half interest. He thought that unsatisfactory.

The hon. member is right about interest, but on the wrong side of the account. This is part of the cash—

Oh!

You want to take our cash and use it as you like. We had the money three years ago, and got no interest on it.

was understood to agree with the hon. member for Cape Town, Central.

said it was very serious from a financial point of view. He could follow that the money was left by the Free State. Why was it taken into revenue, used for expenditure, and then borrowed without any intention of being repaid? It ought to come out of the amount of £850, (XX), which came from balances. This ought to come out of balances, and not appear on loan funds. It was not a Provincial question at all, but something that should not appear in loan proposals.

was understood to say that the money was paid by the Free State.

moved to add the following new items, viz.: “5. Loan to the Agricultural Judges’ Association, Orange Free State, for the erection of buildings for stock judging at Bloemfontein, £2,000. 6. Advances for purchase of dips and supervision of dipping of natives’ cattle (Cape), £3,250.”

referred to the item £6,000 for “loans to creameries and other agricultural projects.” He wanted to know what was meant by other projects.

suggested that they should leave out the words “and other agricultural projects.”

asked what security they had for advancing this money to the Judges’ Association at Bloemfontein?

The buildings will be the security.

moved to report progress. They had another £1,000,000 to vote, and to go on voting at that time of night was nothing short of a scandal.

put the question to report progress, and declared that the Noes” had it.

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

moved the deletion of the old vote and the substitution of a new one for the like amount.

said there was some interesting information which he wished the hon. Minister to communicate to the House. Would the Minister of Lands tell them what commission was paid on the two farms which had been bought in an unconstitutional manner in the Orange Free State. His hon. friend on a former occasion could not give him the information; at least, a message was sent to him that it was inadvisable for him to come; he was met on his way from another place. His hon. friend was locked up for half-an-hour. (Laughter.) It was proposed to alter this vote of £16,000 to £20,200; he assumed the £200 was for commission. What was the valuation of the property? He understood it was valued in 1909, and was valued then not at £10 nor £5 nor £4 a morgen. He had been informed that it would be necessary to raise the water about 60 feet. If such were the case, it did not seem to be such an admirable purchase at £10 a morgen as they had been led to understand. He would like to know what was the valuation of this farm, which was valued in 1909.

said he would go further than the leader of the Opposition. The valuation of the farm was returned by the person concerned to be 30s. The Government valuer made it £2. He knew of a person who was offered a farm, the soil of which was not quite so good, as that of these farms, but it was within easy distance of Bloemfontein, and he was offered it at 30s. per morgen. He knew the Minister did not himself authorise the closing of the transaction, but it was evident that he had not exercised proper judgment in regard to the person he trusted. He submitted, surely if it was the case that these farms were worth £10 per morgen there must be some means by which the Government could have it revalued and make the person who only paid on 30s. pay on the full price. In some countries there was a law that a person could not receive more than three times the value he had returned for his land, and he thought there should be something of that sort here also. If this statement were true, it might not be criminal, but it was a most immoral transaction. He would like the Minister to tell them whether this information was correct or not. They were compelled to pass this vote. (Cries of “No”) Well, if they didn’t they would be landed with an action for damages. He was personally of opinion that very few of those hon. members who had supported the Government would have paid the money the Government did for these farms. Some of them spoke freely about the desire to spread agriculture in the country, and of the necessity for more agricultural schools. They all knew the great good these agricultural schools were doing, but instead of doing good it would do the opposite if they purchased at such a price, and it was unfair to the country. The school in question started handicapped. If his question had been answered it would not now have been necessary to keep the House. Hon. members by their vote had expressed their intention to sit, and that meant that there must be someone to speak; if they were willing to do the one, he was willing to do the other. (Laughter.) In conclusion, he said he was in full sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. leader of the Opposition, and if the Government said they had been taken in and were dissatisfied they would accept that.

said that when that vote had last been before that House the Minister of Mines had replied that although legally the Government was bound, the other parties were quite willing to cancel the bargain should the Government wish. Then they had gone to another place with the vote, where a critical stage was reached—

said that the hon. member could not refer to that.

went on to say that the hon. Minister of Lands was reported to have stated there that—(Ministerial cries of “Order.”)

The hon. member cannot refer to that.

said that he would not refer to the statement made, but would merely ask the Minister of Lands whether it was a fact that he had made a definite statement outside that House—he would not say where it had been made—which differed from the statement made by the Minister of Mines in that House? He would ask the Minister had he not made exactly a contrary statement outside that House to what the Minister of Mines had made, and that he had said that it was impossible for the Government to get out of it? He ventured to think that that vote would not have been before them that night had it not been for the statement made by the Minister of Lands.

who was almost inaudible in the Press Gallery at the outset of his remarks, was understood to say the land was just what was required. Continuing, he said that if they started fair on the following day, he would be prepared to come back to that House and ask it to ratify the purchase at the figure paid. An hon. member had made a rash assertion that not more than £5 a morgen had been paid for land in that neighbourhood. The farm Ferreira’s Kloof was sold for £6 15s. some years ago, when ground was cheap. Then there was the farm of Mr. Deal, which was put up at public auction. The price of £6 15s. was offered, but was refused, the owner wanting £7 10s.

What was the character of these farms?

Not in the same street with this farm. I am not talking about amateur valuations—

I am asking because I don’t know.

said that that farm was not as good as the one under discussion. Then there was Quinn’s farm, for which the owner wanted £12 10s. He was offered £10. He pointblank refused £10, and wanted £12 10s., and that was for land which would carry only a portion of the water rights. The hon. member for Bloemfontein knew of the case of another farm for which £8 was wanted, if the whole farm was taken. If they took the part they wanted, then the owner wanted £10 a morgen. The price of property offered ranged from £8 to £12 10s. The people in the Free State, among other good qualities, did not buy ground one day for the purpose of selling it at a profit the next. The hon. member for Three Rivers said that they could buy ground for £5. He daresay they could buy land for less than that, but the idea was to get the ground as near Bloemfontein as possible. With regard to the water, it was true that they might have to pump the water, but that could easily be done at not very much expense. This particular farm fulfilled all the conditions of the Agricultural Department. He certainly believed that the Government would never regret the purchase. If he had to start afresh to-morrow, he would, in view of all the circumstances, recommend this ground. They could not go into the open market and pick and select ground, and not expect to pay for it.

said that he was not hostile to the object of the purchase, but he must say that when they got an official valuation put before them three years ago of £2 per morgen, and when another valuation was made by the owner at 30s. per morgen, then he thought it was a matter which needed to be more seriously dealt with.

said that there was a great deal to be said for the argument put forward by the Minister of Lands The position was that the Government was pledged to purchase land at or near Bloemfontein for the purpose of establishing an agricultural school. He would have liked to have had it much nearer Bloemfontein, but there were difficulties in the way, and, therefore, although they were paying for the farm a price that was far above the farm in value, that was not the only question they had to consider. The Government did not want to make money out of the farm; they would get their value out of it if they established a school there. For that purpose it was good value for the money. He hoped they would get on with the next business.

wished to draw attention to a sentence in the report of the Select Committee: “the business of the Board (the Land Board) was conducted in such a manner as to lead to corruption.” He hoped the Minister would explain this.

said the word was a misprint in the shorthand notes, and was meant to be “congestion.”

wished to draw attention to the enormous amount of money placed at the disposal of the Minister of Lands to go about the country purchasing properties. He thought it was an unconstitutional plan to adopt. In the Australian colonies a blank cheque was never given to any of their Ministers, as they were doing in the case under notice. There they had to submit to Parliament all estates before they were allowed to purchase. Here they were giving the Minister a blank cheque for £260,000 to go about purchasing land wherever he liked.

said it was almost impossible to obtain options upon properties at market values. It was, however, in cases where land was submitted for auction that current rates could be obtained. He was aware that a certain amount of trust had to be reposed in the Minister, but whatever was done would ultimately come before Parliament.

hoped the Minister of Lands would exercise these powers judiciously, because there was grave danger of a land boom. Land lately had greatly increased in value, and if the Government were going to buy up a Jot of land it would have the effect of making people think their land more valuable than it was. Even the purchase of the Bloemfontein farms had probably caused the sudden jump in the value of land in this locality that had occurred recently.

said the Minister had not yet told them the commission paid the middleman in this transaction.

One per cent.

proceeding, said it was dangerous to pay a man according to the amount of the purchase price. It was freely said outside in the lobbies that the man who had been employed by the Government had not only received 1 per cent. commission from the Government, but had also received a sum from the vendors. If he had received a commission from the vendors, it seemed to him that the Government was entitled to a refund from him. That man had not treated the Government fairly, and he had gone beyond his instructions. He had betrayed his trust; he had been sent out to do one thing, and had done another; and if the Government sent that man out again they would be betraying their trust. (Ministerial dissent.)

said he deprecated the language used and the charges made by the hon. member for Weenen, and much regretted that he should have thought fit to repeat the tittle-tattle of the lobbies, and prefer such charges against one who held a high and honourable position in the Free State. He denied entirely the truth of the insinuations, which were absolutely without any foundation.

The new vote was agreed to.

moved to omit item 9, and to substitute certain others, and to transpose the amounts of £3,500 and £1,000 appearing in columns Nos. 3 and 4, respectively, against item 5, Witpoort Irrigation Works.

in reply to Mr. J. W. Jagger (Cape Town, Central), said that the Goemoed Labour Colony, where the State paid two-thirds of the money, Government thought it was justified in spending this money.

asked whether any money, except Government money, had been put into this?

Yes, £10,000.

wanted to know what the policy of the Minister was. Was his intention to assist these people with doles or with loans?

said that his policy was to stop these doles. (Hear, hear.)

asked for information regarding the item for boring.

This is for boring on Crown lands.

Crown lands. Where?

Everywhere.

The amendments were agreed to.

said he would like to know something about these school loans. These school loans were only to be used on certain terms. It would be far better to hire premises for boarding schools than to build them. It would be very risky to spend £20,000 on a boarding department. The law should strictly be adhered to and the people concerned should apply for loans for this purpose in the ordinary way. The Administrator had no authority to make the promises that he had been doing in his recent tour.

said the latter matter was a purely Provincial one and the hon. member had put forward nothing in proof of his statement. It appeared to him that the hon. member was wasting the time of the House. (Opposition cries of “No.”) The hon. member had better let them go to sleep—(laughter)—and leave the Provinces to manage their own affairs.

moved to insert at the footnote, having reference to item No. 2, £150,000, “This grant is subject to the same conditions as the subsidy from revenue funds.”

What conditions are those?

In regard to repayment.

The amendment was agreed to.

explained that the amount of £10,000 was wanted to finance the Natal Land Bank until the Union Land Bank was established.

moved that the Chairman report the Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Funds, with amendments.

Agreed to.

reported that the committee had agreed to the Railway and Harbours Estimates without amendment, and to the Railways and Harbours Supplementary Estimates and the Estimates from Loan Funds, with amendments, and asked leave to bring up the report at the next sitting of the House.

Agreed to.