laid upon the Table:

Report of the Examiners on the petition for leave to introduce the Rhodes University College Act, 1904. (Cape), Amendment (Private) Bill (presented to this House on 5th February), reporting that the Standing Orders of the House have been complied with.

laid upon the Table:

Return showing the position in regard to the printing of annual reports of Departments.

Return referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Finance Accounts, Appropriation Accounts and other financial statements of the Province of Transvaal for the financial year 1922-’23, with the Report of the Auditor of Accounts. [T.P. 6—’23.]
2. (2) Report of the Provincial Auditor on the Accounts of the Orange Free State Province for the year ending 31st March, 1923. (Printed.)

Documents referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

moved, as an unopposed motion—

1. (1) Statement of Accounts of the South African Railways and Harbours for the financial year 1922-’23 with the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General [U.G. 46—’23] (laid upon the Table on the 25th January).
2. (2) Statement prepared in terms of section forty-nine of the Exchequer and Audit Act No. 21 of 1911, as amended by the Exchequer and Audit Amendment Act No. 31 of 1916, of all Special Warrants issued during the period 23rd June, 1923, to the 24th January, 1924, under section forty-eight of the Act (laid upon the Table on the 28th January).
3. (3) Schedule of Pensions, South African Railways and Harbours, as at 30th September, 1923 [U.G. 43—’23] (laid upon the Table on the 31st January).

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved—

He said: Last Saturday afternoon I was motoring with my wife and family along the De Waal Drive at 6.30 o’clock in the afternoon. Just as we were approaching the outskirts of Cape Town, we saw a crowd of from 50 to 100 coloured people standing in the road, surrounding two coloured women. These two women were stripped naked to the waist and were fighting actually on the drive itself. They were hopelessly intoxicated, and most of the crowd surrounding them were intoxicated too. In the course of any drive, that a member of this House may take on any Saturday afternoon, either around Cape Town or throughout the Western Province, similar scenes may be seen, at any time, and I ask hon. members to consider for one moment what must be the feelings of any visitors to South Africa who, at the very gate of the sub-continent, see sights such as 1 describe. In 1916 a committee of this House, known as the Baxter Committee, sat to consider the question of drunkenness in the Western Province and it gave a report in which it said—

In the same year another Select Committee, the Rooth Committee, sat to enquire into the position in my own province, the Transvaal, and it said this—

Since then nothing whatever has been done in the way of putting an end to this state of affairs. In Johannesburg—I can speak with particular knowledge of Johannesburg—the state of affairs as regards drunkenness and crime is growing steadily worse every year. I put a question to-day to the Minister of Justice as to the position on the Witwatersrand to the answer to which I invite particular attention of hon. members. This is the position in the city of Johannesburg. There are 130 retail liquor licences. In addition, there are 22 clubs and 4 theatre licences, making a total of over 150 licences. Our law says that where the convenience of the public demands it, a midnight privilege may be given to the holder of a licence, and that privilege entitles him to keep open his establishment to any hour not later than midnight. The whole contemplation of the Bill is that these privileges shall be exceptional; they are to be granted only for six months and only where the convenience of the public demands it. What is the state of affairs in Johannesburg to-day? Three out of every four of the retail licences in Johannesburg carry with them midnight privileges and the closing hour for all of them is midnight. Though the licensing board has the power under the Act to fix any hour short of midnight, it fixes it in Johannesburg at midnight. Tonight in Johannesburg there will be 125 establishments open till midnight for the sale of drink. We have asked the licensing court to take this state of affairs into serious consideration and to reduce the hours, say, to 11.30 p.m. one year and the next year to 11 p.m. and so on until the hour of 10 o’clock is reached which is the hour recommended by the Rooth Committee. They have refused to do anything of the sort, and they have laid down the doctrine, as the Minister of Justice has told us just now, that once a man is given a midnight privilege he will continue to hold that midnight privilege unless he misbehaves himself. Although the Police ‘have sent in a formal report to the licensing court to the effect that there are far too many licences, and the hours are too late, and although the licensing court itself admits that there are far too many midnight privileges in existence it flatly refuses to take any steps whatever to ameliorate that position, and the Minister of Justice himself says he cannot do anything. Apparently once that court has been appointed it can do what it likes. It is in circumstances like these that the citizens come to this House and say if the Minister of Justice cannot make the position better “Give us the power under a local option Bill to close these houses.” The liquor licensing court who have members who have been sitting for 17 years have refused to listen to the representations made to them year by year, and the people say “Give us the remedy in our own hands, and we will act ourselves.” It is unnecessary for me to enlarge on the evils of drunkenness in South Africa. It matters not what views members hold upon the Bill, I take it we all fully appreciate the grave evils that arise in our country from drunkenness and the excessive consumption of drink. It fills our jails and hospitals, it provides work for our divorce courts and swells the ranks of the unemployed. A few days ago there was a full-dress debate in this House on the poor white problem. Let me read a cutting taken from a Transvaal paper as to the state of affairs which was in existence at Hartebeestpoort two years ago. Mr. Lavoipierre (A.R.M., Pretoria) said—

We know that one of the most prolific causes of the poor white evil is drink. Whilst I am not going to say that prohibition or local option will solve the problem of the poor whites I do say this that it will assist very materially in the matter. I shall proceed therefore on the assumption that it is unnecessary for me in my address to this House this afternoon to enlarge further upon the evil of drunkenness throughout South Africa. Even members who disagree with the principles of this Bill are fully convinced that it is an intolerable sore in the body politic and that something must be done to remedy the existing state of affairs. Assuming then that members agreed with me as to the existence of the evil I now come to the remedy proposed in the Bill. My task is to persuade the majority of members in this House that the right remedy, or at any rate a remedy along the right lines, is that to be found in the present Local Option Bill. I may say that this Bill is identically the same as the Bill introduced last year by the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) and I feel this House and the temperance cause in South Africa is under a great debt to that hon. gentleman for the services he performed in so ably piloting that Bill through the debate of last session. It is true that the second reading was lost by a narrow majority. We hope to day that that narrow minority will be converted into a majority, and we know this, that if we do not succeed this year we shall next year or the year after because we know that the evidence is overwhelming, that public opinion in South Africa is fast veering round to the cause of local option and ultimately prohibition. I am now asking the House to adopt the remedy of local option which has been tried with success in all the states of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, in the United States and is at present in operation in Scotland. As I have said, this Bill is identically the same Bill as the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) last year. The area chosen in this Bill is the area of local authority. But we provide that in large municipalities where there are more than 10,000 voters, the area to be taken is the ward in the municipality. The voters entitled to vote are those entitled to vote, in the elections of the local authority. Thus in the Transvaal where women are entitled to vote in the municipal elections they will also be entitled to vote in a local option poll. The electors will have three options. The first is for “continuance or no change.” The second is “reduction” which means if passed that the existing licences will be reduced by one quarter.” The third is “no licence” the effect of which is to close up all licensed establishments in that area which has voted for no licence within three months of the Bill or at the expiration of the current period of the licence. After “no licence” has been passed it shall not be legal to sell, to barter, to solicit orders for or to hawk liquor within that area which has voted for no licence. It will still be possible within that area to bring liquor in from outside. That is to say a man in the dry area may buy a bottle of whiskey or wine in the wet area and bring it home, but every licensed establishment in that area will be closed. Under the Act it is provided that any one of those options may be carried by a majority of votes, but in case the option of “no licence” is not carried, then it is assumed that everybody who has voted for no licence is at least in favour of reduction and the votes for “no licence” are added to the votes for “reduction.” It is provided that once a poll has been taken a new poll may not be taken again for another period of three years whatever the result of the poll may be. If the vote is for the continuance of the present system then the “dries” may not have another poll for another period of three years. On the other hand, if all the licences are abolished in a given area and the district decides to go dry it must be dry for three years. There is no provision for compensation under the Act. I shall deal with that point more fully at a later stage. Finally, it is provided that the Act shall not come into operation until the 1st January, 1928, four years from now—[An Hon. Member: “Why is that?”]. As for the cause of that, I may say it is contended that if you bring about a change too quickly you will upset commerce and destroy the goodwill of various licensed premises and so forth. Personally I may say I am not in favour of that particular provision postponing as it does a much needed reform for another period of four years, but it was agreed to by the temperance party as a concession to those who felt a genuine difficulty about the proposals in the Bill. This in bare outline is a sketch of the provisions of the Bill which is before the House this afternoon. I want now to deal with some of the objections that are brought by members and others against this particular measure, most of which are brought in fact against any measure of local option. The first was that advanced by the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) last year, who said, “you call this a democratic measure yet it does not give the public the option to vote for more licences.” The elector has the right to say whether he will continue under the present system, and the present system lays down the number of licences in a given district. I do not think any member of this House will be brave enough to suggest that in any part of South Africa there are too few licences. The general trend of opinion in this House is to restrict the granting of further licences and to say that we have quite enough licences as it is. The second objection brought against this Bill is that it is camouflaged prohibition. So far as I am concerned, there is no camouflage about it. I am a prohibitionist, and I see in this Bill the halfway-house to prohibition, and I believe that it will pave the way ultimately for South Africa going dry. I believe the passing of this measure will force the people to think and decide for themselves as in other countries, whether the country shall be wet or dry. I hope it will enable South Africa to become a dry country.

It is dry now.

It may be dry as regards rains, but it is not dry as regards booze. No, there is no camouflage in this measure so far as I am concerned. It is not prohibition, but that it will lead to prohibition is my earnest wish. A particular area will not go dry unless the inhabitants of that area want it to go dry. No given area need ever go dry under the Bill unless the majority of the people there are of opinion that it should go dry. Another objection to the Bill is that it does not provide for compensation for those who are affected by the Act. I feel that this objection weighs very heavily with a great many members of this House. It is said, “You have allowed a man to carry on a licensed house for a great many years and you have tacitly told him that as long as he carries on that house decently he is free to do so; and to close it up now without giving him any compensation is not fair.” They say, “We will not vote for your local option Bill unless you include some measure of compensation.” May I say it frankly that this Bill, or any other option Bill, would not pass into law if it provided for the payment of compensation. No existing local option law does this, and no local option Bill will ever come into operation which does so. The hon. the Minister of Justice put the case very well some years ago when denying any moral right to compensation. He said—

I would remind the Free State members of this House when in the early “eighties” the Free State Government suddenly closed down all the public houses in the countryside not a penny compensation was paid. It is known by every licence-holder that when he takes a licence he must take it having in view this contingency. I therefore fail to see what moral claim there is for compensation. Speaking from my knowledge in commercial cases I would say that a licence is worth about five years’ purchase. That is to say, take the profit for each year, multiply it by five, and you get the capital value of that licence. Every licence-holder, when this Bill is passed, would be told quite plainly by this House, “We have given the people in your locality the power to decide whether it shall be wet or dry, and the sooner you put by a sinking fund for the capital value of your licence, the better.” I may say that both the Rooth Report and the Baxter Report did not suggest that the local option provisions already existing should be amended by the inclusion of compensation. The next objection to this particular Bill is: it provides that a vote may be decided by a bare majority, I want to remind this House that there are members in this House returned by very small majorities. I can see one sitting up against the back wall there who was returned by only one vote. There are many members of this House who have been returned by two or three votes. Many epoch-making changes in our country have been carried by a bare majority. We are all accustomed to work under a system whereby a bare majority is effectual. The next objection to this Bill is that it creates in the country a jumble of wet and dry patches. That will not apply except in the big towns, for outside five or six big towns in South Africa the areas will be areas of local authority.

What about the countryside?

All that I say is that in the countryside there are no hotels [Hon. Members: “Oh!”]—in the country, apart from the villages and towns.

What about the river diggings?

Permit me first to deal with this patchwork point. That argument will apply to the big towns where the people vote by wards and not as a whole city. I admit that it is not entirely satisfactory to have, say, Sea Point dry and Gardens wet. Unless you have nation-wide prohibition, for which I think this country is not yet ripe, what alternative is there unless the concensus of feeling in this House is that the town should be the unit. Dealing with this question of patchwork, what will happen? You will have a large dry area, and next to it a wet area. Experience shows that the great majority of people living in a dry area will not walk three of four miles to a wet area for a drink. The experience of other countries has shown that in proportion to the reduction of opportunity for getting drink, so is there a reduction of the amount of drink consumed, and a similar proportionate reduction of the evil which drinking creates. I am not going to pretend that it is a perfect system, but I do say it is the best available under the circumstances. I want hon. members to consider what has taken place in other countries. You get a local option Bill and a few dry patches start in the country. There is then set in motion a process of becoming dry, which eventually makes the dry areas outnumber the wet, and ultimately the stage is reached when the whole country says. “It is time we became dry as a country,” and they vote for it. There is only one other objection which has been voiced against this Bill, and it is that this measure clashes with the Bill introduced by the hon. the Minister of Justice. That Bill only deals with the Cape Province—this is a Bill for the four Provinces of South Africa. Secondly, the Minister’s Bill does not touch, or pretend to touch, the existing licences. There is no provision in that Bill to curtail the existing licences, and I have the assurance of the Minister that he has drafted the Bill so that it will not touch the provisions of this Bill. They can both pass this House side by side, and they will do a great deal of good. That is the Bill, and some of the principal objections to it. Supposing this House passes the Bill, what will take place? The experience of other countries has shown that as soon as you reduce the facilities for getting drink you reduce the consumption of drink as a whole, and the country is all the better for it. There is a very striking set of figures derived from my own Province in the Transvaal, showing what happens when a district goes dry. During the strike in 1922 all the bars were closed for nearly three months, and we have got from the Director of Census the figures as to crimes in the first three months of 1922, and the first three months of 1923. These figures bear very striking testimony for the point I have tried to make, that as soon as you take away the facilities for getting drink, you reduce the consumption of drink as a whole. The convictions for drunkenness during January to March, 1922, amongst Europeans were 126. and during the first three months of 1923 there were 407.

They were all in gaol.

We know that only a small proportion of the population were in gaol. Let me give these figures. Amongst non-Europeans; there were no non-Europeans in prison were there?

They were probably shot.

For the same period in 1922, the convictions for drunkenness amongst non-Europeans were 322, whereas for the 1923 period, there were 729, which was practically double. The point I am trying to make is that when the bars were not closed, there were enormously increased facilities for getting drink, and there were increased facilities for committing crime. So that it will be seen that we have found what other countries have found, what Australia has found, what England has found, that as soon as you reduce the licences, as soon as you curtail the hours, the amount of drunkenness and the amount of other attendant evils coming with drink, is at once decreased. I believe that if we pass this Bill in this House, we shall set in motion machinery which will have the effect of closing down the bars throughout the country; and I do believe that one of the greatest results coming from that will be to reduce crime, to reduce poverty, and reduce all the misery and unhappiness that we know drink does bring. I believe that we will be doing one of the greatest things the Parliament has ever done, and that one of the greatest measures of social reform will be initiated in South Africa, and I ask all hon. members who share these feelings with me to show them by voting for the second reading of this Bill.

I think that this Bill has been introduced at a very unfortunate juncture. Whatever our feelings may be as to the principles of the Bill, or those involved in it, the present is certainly not a time which we can call appropriate. We would be very foolish to accept this. Bill at the present time, after the Prime Minister has introduced a Bill to encourage the wine farmers of the country. It would be very foolish if we with one hand try to encourage the wine farmers and on the other hand say that this country is going along the road to total prohibition and that the best thing you can do is to dig up your vineyards. So whatever one may feel of the Bill under the ordinary circumstances as things are to-day in this country, it is impossible for any member in this House sent to represent the interests of farmers of this country to vote for the Bill. Quite impossible! Therefore the line which I am taking is one which makes it practically unnecessary for me to discuss the principles involved in and underlying the Bill. If I may refer to the statistics quoted by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), these statistics are rather misleading, because my hon. friend referred to statistics of convictions over a period from January to March, which was dry in one year, and wet in the next, but the convictions of 1922 for crime committed in that period took place months afterwards. In that year—the dry year—the crimes which were committed in the three months which were dry, were tried in July and the subsequent months—and you have to take the statistics of convictions in subsequent months for crimes committed in that period. We know that hundreds of convictions took place in July and after July, for crimes committed in the first three months, and if we take all those convictions into account, I will be prepared to wager that the convictions for crimes committed in the first three months of 1922 were largely in excess of those for the first three months of 1923. Take it a step further. How many thousands of people were put in prison and never brought to trial? We must assume that there was some case against a large number of them that was not thought important enough to be brought to trial, and if you take all these thousands into account you will find there was much more crime in the first three months of 1922 than in the corresponding period of 1923. We must know all the facts before we accept statistics. I am quite prepared to accept the theory that when drink was not obtainable there were fewer convictions for drunkenness than when there was liquor available.

Where did they get it from?

But what does it prove? Are we going to accept that the total abstainer is a more law-abiding person than the moderate drinker? Why should the moderate drinker be deprived of his drink because the total abstainer thinks it is his duty to reform the whole of humanity? What I am urging to-day is that at the present juncture, if you pass this Bill, you are going to destroy all chance which your wine farmer may have of recovering under the Bill introduced by the Prime Minister. We would stultify ourselves if we in the same Parliament passed a Bill like that introduced by the Prime Minister, and this Bill introduced by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). As far as the farming population is concerned it is impossible for any member representing farming interests to vote for such a Bill.

Unlike my hon. friend, who has just addressed the House, I think that one might object to this Bill on principle, and I will tell the House why. There seems to be nothing but constant reference to what is done in other countries. Do members recognize and appreciate the fact that in other countries the circumstances and conditions are quite different, and do not lend themselves to the same amount of abuse as is lent to a position like this in this country? For instance, take the question of a poll. What do we find? We find that a poll in South Africa is something which really consists of a handful of people. We also find that there are certain people in this country who exercise a large amount of influence for good or for evil and we also find in practice that large sums of money are spent, and that that money can easily reach the pockets of people who can influence the result in consequence of the smallness of the poll, whereas in other countries we might have fifty thousand or one hundred thousand people go to the poll and thus render anything like that impossible. I desire to point out too, that the hon. gentleman who has introduced this Bill into the House has what I should call the temerity to say that this Bill should come into force in four years’ time. I do think that that in itself proves that this Bill should not be accepted by the House, because I say: “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” Can this House say what the conditions of the country may be in four years’ time, and I think in three years’ time it will then be time enough to legislate for what we think may be the circumstances and conditions of the succeeding year. Then there is this other question which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) touched so very lightly upon; that was the question of the man, who, because the distance is great—two or three miles—would not go and get a drink from another place. I do not profess to know too much about drink.

Why talk about it then?

I do not profess to know much about drink, but I do know from the amount of experience I have had of others who really indulge in that sort of luxury, that any one of those gentlemen would not object to going two or three miles to procure a drink. The other point is this: in the large towns does it occur to hon. members that whilst you ruin one set of people you build up the other set; you ruin one, you benefit the other. Here we have a line drawn; on the one side of the line you shall not be allowed to drink, on the other side of the line you shall not only be allowed to drink, but there shall be a big appreciation in the licensed houses you are interested in to the detriment of the licensed people on the other side of the line who become ruined.

They will go dry too.

I think the right thing to do is to give this Bill a wide berth. I would just conclude by reading a short extract, which was placed in my hands some time ago. Figures are peculiar things; they can be made to talk. My hon. friend tried to make them talk, but most ineffectively. Let us see what America says on this question, for instance—

Is that from the Licensed Victuallers’ Gazette?

No this is from the Star of November 12th, 1923. It is the official record. The figures are given in the report, which is issued by the United States Department of Justice. I do not wish to say anything more, all I desire to add is, that I hope this House will give this funny little Bill a wide berth.

I hope that this House will carry this Bill. It is not a Bill to joke about or sneer about. When the hon. member for Commissioner Street (Sir Harry Graumann) speaks about America he should speak with knowledge and not just bring a cutting into the House from a daily paper. My friend, the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Roos), rather sneers at the figures given on the other side. But we have had experience of this in the Free State. In 1882, under Ordinance 10 passed by the Volksraad, the country went dry—by the country I mean the countryside went dry—and crime came down 80 per cent. That was a fact. Crime came down 80 per cent. The Free State to-day is half a dry country. In the towns you are allowed to have liquor, but in the countryside you are not, and there is less crime here than in any other part; and look at the type of man they produce. Now, let us take some other figures. I go so far as to say that England won the war through going dry on beer. She gave her people “near beer,” and not beer. It was proved that her people could not turn out the shells; it was impossible to turn out the shells. What did they do? They pretended to give the working classes beer, but instead they gave them “near-beer.” Crime went down; production went up by leaps and bounds. These are facts which may be got at any time, not like the facts of my hon. friend, but official facts which can be got at any time.

Where did you get yours?

My facts are taken from the official records in England.

Mine are from the United States Department of Justice.

We know what happened in England. Now, why is my hon. friend so afraid of one portion of the country going dry? He says people will go many miles for a drink. Why is he so afraid? Because he knows that if one portion of the country goes dry the whole country will go dry. That is what he is so afraid of. And the country should go dry because we have two races here. We have the black man and the white, and it is a terrible thing to think that in some portions of South Africa to-day we are not allowing the black man to have a drink, but we are allowing the white man to go to the devil in his own sweet way. In the Free State no black man is allowed to have liquor, and we are building up a strong black race there, but in the Transvaal and here, what is happening? You are sending more and more white men to perdition every year. When I was a boy the old Boer did not drink, but more and more boys are drinking here now in this happy go-lucky hard-drinking country, and if we do not save the men in this country who are being lowered by drink, then we are going to have a very hard time. Let us get to the question of medical opinion. Liquor is considered by the modern doctors as poison, and why should we sell poison to our children. Let me tell you a story of America. The Town Clerk of Bloemfontein—a gentleman well known and highly respected in this country—went to America. I asked him before he went if he would tell me the exact truth when he came back. He went to America, and he found that America was 95 per cent. dry. He could go into any house and get liquor. Being an Englishman, he was offered liquor by the Americans, but the American himself was not drinking. The great captains of industry, who had voted against liquor option and prohibition, said: “We have voted against prohibition and against local option; we spent an enormous amount of money on it, but we will never do it again.” Leaving the moral side out, from the economic point of view it is putting money in our pockets, because where our men used to return to work on Monday sick, they return to work much better than they were, and they are turning out more. It has been conclusively proved that one man in America is turning cut more work than two men in England. America is going to lead the world. A great rancher in Arkansas told my friend: “I employ 120 men and I was dead against the prohibition law. My men are now becoming wealthy in a small way—they have stopped liquor!” The American working classes are going to work in motor cars to-day because they stopped liquor, and this is the point, that the young men in America are not going to learn to drink. That is the great thing. We know that the old toper will have his drink, but he will die away, and the young men will not learn to drink.

He learns to drink at home.

No, he does not learn to drink at home. My hon. friend may not have had a drink in his life, I have. It is all right, there is no harm in that. I have been a fairly temperate man, but I know that men do not learn to drink on home-brewed stuff. They start on a claret-and-lemonade and go a little bit higher till they get to whisky. If a boy never gets anything more than something brewed at home he will never drink again. I hope that the House will accept this Bill. In time this will become a burning question in this country. It has got to be. We cannot afford to be a country which is not sober, and this country is not sober to-day. Look at these things round here where they are selling wine in paraffin tins and paying natives their wages in wine. A most disgraceful state of affairs, and I am glad of one thing—that the great majority of labour men vote for local option. We have not made it a party question. I hope one day we will make it party, and I say, for the sake of the working-classes, for the sake of the boys who are coming on in the country, we have got to have this a sober country. Other countries will go down. America will lead the way. She is doing it to-day. She will lead the way and always talk of bootleggers as a thing to wipe out. She is a sober, industrious country, and to-day probably one of the best off in the world because she has gone dry, and I appeal to my hon. friends not to sneer at this thing. The greatest Church in this country and in the Free State—the Dutch Reformed Church—is putting its back into the fight as it has never put its back into any fight-yet, and it is going to win. There is nothing to stop it. All these educated men in the Dutch Reformed Church to-day, sons of wine farmers, are putting their backs into it, and these men will carry on what the hon. member calls the fiery torch from canteen to canteen, and they will carry it from canteen to canteen until no canteen is left. I do not belong to any temperance alliance, but I hope that the hon. member will be able to carry through the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree with the principles of the Bill, but I think it wants a considerable amount of alteration in Committee. For one thing it should be altered on the point referred to by the mover and the last speaker with regard to the period of four years. I see no object in this. Anyone with any experience, as I have had, in dealing with workers of all nationalities can testify the results of allowing free drinks to black and white. Where drink is not allowed to the black people they are often supplied by others, with the result that they are not only demoralized, but frequently driven to madness. I can give experiences where people have obtained drink with the result that they ended in having a week-end fight without any cause at all, and frequently people have been killed; the result is absolute demoralization. I am not in favour of prohibition as I do not think that the country is ready for it. The arguments brought forward from America are not worth considering. You ask a temperance man how things are going there and he will tell you that they are going well; you ask a licensed victualler and he will tell you that things are all bad. Both bring forward figures to suit their own case, but here, where we have an overwhelming black population, it is an absolute necessity that local option should be brought about. If, as has been pointed out, this Bill is looked upon as an off-set to the Wine Bill, I can only say it is not saying much for the case of the wine farmers, but I do not believe that. The question of allowing free drinks both to the native and European throughout the country has nothing to do with the main question of making wine or the growing of grapes, which can be more profitably used than in the business of making bad liquor. I do not want to keep on with arguments, as this Bill was before the House last year when it was thrashed out. I hope, however, that those members who are wavering in their opinion as to whether they will support the Bill or not, will waver on the side of the Bill, and I hope that in the Committee stage it will be made a good measure by eliminating the objectionable clauses, which for expediency or otherwise, have been put in.

Mnr. Speaker, jaar na jaar het ons hierdie ding van “Local Option” voor die Huis gehad. Maar ek beskou dit as heeltemaal onuitvoerbaar, om heen te gaan en die een distrik droog te maak en die ander drank te laat hou. Neem by voorbeeld die stede. Plekke wat belet sal word om drank te verkoop, gaan eenvoudig oor die lyn en gaan haal drank daar waar die verbod nie bestaan nie. Ek sê, as ’n man drink, dan kan jy voor hom ’n doringdraad span, maar hy sal doorkruip en drink. Dit help niks nie. Dit sal die toestand nie verbeter nie, maar vererger. Die man wat wil drink sal buite die wyk gaan oor die lyn en sal gaan drink en nie alleen drink nie, maar ook drank inbring in die distrik, sodat die euwel meer vererg as verbeter. Ek glo daar is niemand in die Huis, wat nie is teen onmatig drink. Dronkenskap is ’n groot sonde en die moet bestry word. Dis die plig van Kerk en Staat om dronkenskap te bestry en maatreëls te neem. Die kwessie van drank is so oud as die mensdom. Maar in een lokale opsie is ’n veel groter beginsel opge-sluit. Dis, soos die edele lid vir Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell) en ook die edele lid vir Bloemfontein (Noord) (de hr. Barlow) sê, die einddoel is om die hele land droog te maak. Dis ’n verkeerde beginsel. Ons het in die ge-skiedenis, so oud as die mensdom is, drank gehad. Toe Noach uit die ark gekom het, het hy wyngaard geplant, gaan pers, en drank gemaak, en hom dronk gedrink. Wat leer ons daaruit? Ons leer daaruit, dat daar een beginsel neergelê is. Die sonde is bestraf, maar wie sal belet om weer drank te maak? Waarom is die wereld vandag so verkeerd? Omdat mense wil wyser wees as God self. As jy dronkenskap en sonde wil uitroei, dan moet jy die mensdom self uitroei. Dit kan nooit gebeur nie. Ek is in beginsel teen prohibisie, teen afskaffing van drank. Maar ek is daarvoor, dat Kerk-en Staat saamgaan en maatreëls neem om dronkenskap teen te gaan. Die edele lid vir Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell) het vir ons vertel, dat hy uitgery het en het dronke mense sien veg. Vyftig jaar gelede, toe ek kind was het ek dit ook al gesien. Dis so oud as die bevolking van Suid-Afrika. Ons voorouers het hier naar die land gekom en het begin met die wynbou. Maar ek herhaal, dis die plig van Kerk en Staat om dronkenskap te bestry, en dis die plig van ieder mens. Maar ons moet daarom nie heengaan en in die Huis soon onuitvoerbare wet aanneem nie. Die wet is onuitvoerbaar. Kyk nou ’n bietjie naar die Transvaal. Daar het jy prohibisie. Kleurlinge en kaffers mag geen drank hê nie. En ek kan die edele lid vir Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell) sê, ek het daar net soveel kleurlinge dronk gesien as hier in die Kaap. Die gevolg van die prohibisie is, dat daar smokkelary ontstaan is en die kleurlinge kry nie goeie drank nie, maar gif en daardoor word hulle vergiftig. Jy kan drank nie stop nie. My gedagte is, dat as daar iets gedoen moet word, dan moet die invoer van drank gestop word. Dan is daar minder drank in die land en die maatreël sal ook die wynboer in Suid-Afrika ten goede kom. Dan is daar geen oor-produksie nie, want die wynboer kan al sy drank afset. Moet jy dar heengaan, om miskien ter wille van vyf persent van die bevolking, ander mense se hele toekoms, waar hulle jarelang vir gewerk het, ruineer, wegneem. Moet drieduisend wyeboere geruineer word? En hoeveel mense is daar vandag hotel-bediendes? Hoeveel geld is daar gesteek in hotelgeboue? Moet die Huis nou eenvoudig heengaan in die eew-oue toestand verander? Daar is honderde van werklose in die land. Moet ons nou heengaan en die getal nog vergroot? Ons het baie weinig industrieë in die land. Moet ons nou heengaan en die oudste een doodmaak? Ons voorouers het 270 jaar gelede in die land gekom en die industrie opgerig. Moet ons nou heengaan en die uitroei? Nee, die industrie is net so oud as die mensdom. Ons Heiland het op aarde gekom en het self wyn gemaak. Daar is party mense wat sê, dit was ongegiste wyn, maar hoe het dan Noach dronk kan word? Meer as twee duisend jaar gelede het daar al dronkenskap gewees en deur die middel van lokale opsie, beweer ek, word die toestand nie verbeter nie, maar vererger. Niemand kan sê wat die toestand oor vier jaar sal wees as die maatreël an werking sal tree, maar wat sal gebeur, is dat die wet sal toegepas word en daar sal net soveel of meer gedrink word as voorheen, ’n Verder gevolg sal wees dat ’n heel party van fatsoen-like mense in die tronk sal kom, want dan sal gebeur wat in Transvaal plaas gevind het. Daar het kleurlinge nie drank mag kry nie en deur hulle drank te verskaf het honderde van blanke mense in die tronk gekom en honderde van famielies is daardeur geruineer geword. Moet ons nou vir die vyf of tien persent van die bevolking ’n gevestigde industrie vernietig en ander mense hulle bestaansmiddele weg neem waarvoor hulle al hulle lewe gewerk het? Dis tog nie billik nie en nie in die belang van die land nie. Almal is teen dronkenskap en dis die plig van Kerk en Staat om dronkenskap te bestry, maar as ons drank wil uitroei, dan sal ons die heel mensdom moet uitroei. Die einddoel is om die hele land droog te lê. Ek sê dit gaan teen ’n eew-oue beginsel om soiets te doen.

In rising to make a few remarks in regard to this Bill, I wish in the first place to congratulate the hon. the mover of the second reading on the clear and lucid explanation he has given when bringing the Bill before the House. I think any possible arguments which can come from the opposition have been completely answered and I am waiting to hear his exposition contraverted. I am sorry that the hon. member for Commissioner Street (Sir Harry Graumann) is not in his place, as I wish to endorse the argument of the hon. member for Natal Coast (Mr. Saunders) in regard to the danger of reading extracts from newspapers especially when the views expressed are the views held by the speaker and as they are very misleading. I venture to assert that the hon. member has not made even a superficial study of the matter as regards facts and figures. As the hon. member for Natal Coast (Mr. Saunders) has said, one often sees figures and statements advanced in support of either side of the controversy. I would like to draw attention again to an incident which happened about 12 months ago. A cable appeared in the papers throughout South Africa, purporting to come from London, which stated that the working of prohibition was unequivocally condemned by President Harding as being a total failure, and that it was found impracticable to enforce the Bill, and other things in a similar strain—I do not remember the exact words. This statement was so utterly contradictory and opposed to the facts and figures known by those who had made investigation, including the South African Temperance Alliance in Johannesburg, that they sent a telegram to the Secretary for State in America through the American Consul in Johannesburg. I would like hon. members to keep in view the source, viz., from the South African Temperance Alliance through the American Consul to the Secretary of State, asking whether the statements made in the local papers which I have mentioned were facts or not. The secretary’s reply was that the whole cabled statement was entirely devoid of truth, that on the contrary the working of prohibition was satisfactory but there was a certain amount of difficulty in regard to the enforcement; which the state authorities however fully expected in time would be overcome. I would like the hon. member for Commissioner Street (Sir Harry Graumann) and other hon. members of whatever views, to read the ample and interesting literature sent out from temperance quarters and not throw it into the waste paper basket. They would find it highly instructive and they would then be able to speak with knowledge of both sides. With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Roos) they are scarcely worthy of being contraverted. He appeared to take up this position that the more drink sold the better for the community; in other words that the amount of crime committed had nothing to do with the amount of liquor sold. With regard to that it does not require any deep study, or we need not go to other countries to find what happens. Mr. Roos, the Auditor-General, who has experience when Director of Prisons, says that at least 70 per cent, of the crime of this country was due to alcohol. We have the statement of Lord Chief Justice Alverstone who was at the bar for thirty years and was for ten years Lord Chief Justice of England. He puts it down at 85 per cent. I could mention other authorities, but I do not think it necessary to labour the point to bring the matter home to us all. You have only to take up your daily paper to see the story of one or other young man brought before the courts charged with assault, forgery or embezzlement, and invariably he states that he has been driven thereto as the result of alcoholic indulgence. You also see the case of a young man charged with embezzling money for the purpose of gambling as the result of the same cause. Those experienced in criminal law know these facts. I claim some right to speak as I have enjoyed an extensive criminal practice. In nine cases out of ten the prisoner will say, “I was drunk when I struck the accused on the head.” We know that drink is a fruitful source of crime. It is not necessary to dilate upon the devastating and pernicious effects of alcohol; they are really common cause. No man in his sane senses with his faculties developed, and who has a sense of observation, will say that alcohol is not a great source of crime. That alcohol is pernicious is shown by the elementary fact, that the dealing in alcohol is controlled by the State. The State lays down certain regulations in regard to the traffic, by whom it is to be sold, when and where it shall be sold. A reference was made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) that the nation requires its best energies, its best physical energies and best mental energies at a time of stress and strain, and as we know the first thing the authorities do in such a time is to suppress those means calculated to impair these energies, namely, alcohol. We had it during the recent war. Our Legislature recognized that it was necessary to enforce regulations in regard to the sale of alcohol. We have a Bill before us introduced by the Minister of Justice in which also certain restrictions are to be introduced. Here in this peninsula everybody will see that the coloured people have been debased, degraded and debauched through the influence of alcohol. The degrading scene introduced by the hon. the mover is familiar to all of us and is of a revolting character. You come to the sub-continent amid the most beautiful surroundings where everywhere nature is in her most pleasing aspects, and where you strike places inhabited by civilized beings, yet invariably the first thing you see is the lowest form of degradation and misery. It seems to me that public opinion in regard to the use of alcohol is undergoing a considerable change. I think drunkenness is on the decrease; I do not say in this country, but it is in other countries, and there is a considerable change here also. If one compares the habits of young men of about twenty or thirty years ago with now one finds a great improvement; but I think that public opinion will never reach the stage of really bringing about that desirable condition which the well-wishers of the State would like to see achieved, i’here are, alas, still too many men who are theoretical prohibitionists, or would rather theoretically like to see the sale of intoxicants abolished. They speak glibly about it, and as they are men of insight, they are convinced as regards the devastating effects of alcohol, but, alas, many of those gentlemen though they speak “dry,” they live “wet.” As long as one has decided convictions in regard to this matter, it is no good speaking about the condition of things you would like to see reached by better living conditions of the people; and the lesser consumption of alcohol so long as they indulge in the beverage themselves. I was reading a little while ago a little leaflet which shows that even among churchmen there is a difference of opinion. It was written by a Bishop. I do not want now to go into the arguments advanced by that dignified prelate, but many of them will not hold water. I would point out that many members of the Christian faith are divided in this country and, so long as professed Christians do not consider it to be their duty to humanity to make a move forward—and I speak with due deference—and to make a sacrifice in regard to this particular form of self-indulgence and thereby bring about the abolition of the sale of intoxicants to the benefit of their less fortunate brethren; it seems to me that public opinion will be a long time in reaching that condition so urgently desired by the friends of temperance reform. I claim that the measure introduced by the hon. the mover is a measure which will commend itself to everyone who wish for improved conditions. After all, if drink is such an enslaving thing why not let the people decide it for themselves and have the right to say whether the traffic in alcohol shall be continued or not in their midst? Why place it in the hands of a few licensing courts, men who have often not independent judgment, and judgment, which I venture to assert, is often in conflict with the best interest of the people. Yesterday this House was occupied in discussing a Bill for the amelioration of the wine industry. Well, Mr. Speaker, I shall not refer to that, naturally I cannot do so; but you have here an industry which has lasted not for years or decades, but for centuries, and the conclusion we have to come to is that the industry is a discredit to most of those concerned in it. The net result of their efforts are, so far as one can follow it, that a great number produce trash and have wasted energy. They produce trash which has to be thrown away, and this energy could be employed in more wholesome and more productive matters. I say: let the people have the right to decide whether they want the continuation of this trash which was referred to in the debate yesterday. There are men in this country and women, thousands of them, who take this matter very seriously. This is not a matter for levity. It is a matter which strikes at the very root of our social conditions. It strikes at the welfare of the population, of the race. There is no doubt that liquor is sapping the best energies of our people. If hon. members complain that year after year this matter comes forward, I may mention here that an attempt at a so-called solution of this problem was made at Worcester last year. The wine farmers met there in conclave, to do something to combat the spread of drunkenness. I followed the proceedings with considerable interest. There was again brought to the forefront a position which often arises in the case of individual as well as in the case of corporations and bodies of men. That is the struggle between cash and conscience. These gentlemen met for the solution of this question, and they were selling the product, the results of which were largely the causes of drunkenness. Among the remedies suggested were two which struck me as extraordinary. It was that there should be greater punishment for drunkenness. Could anything more illogical be advanced? You supply the opportunity in all too ample and full a measure, heaven knows, for a man to get drunk, and you produce that commodity which enables a man to do so, and then you wish to punish him more severely for taking the opportunity. Constitutionally a man may not be able to keep away from the liquor; he has not the will and you complacently say although we can give him these facilities for getting drunk if he gets drunk, punish him more severely. That is a most illogical attitude. I have a profound sympathy for the man who is a drunkard. I do not despise him; I am sorry for him and he has my deepest sympathy. He is a victim of a vice which it is difficult or impossible to combat. That is the sort of man we should help and try to make a better citizen of, and this Bill is the preliminary means to bring that about. Another resolution carried by the members of that conclave of wine farmers was that more light wines should be given to the natives on the mines, in other words that the Rooth Report should be carried out. One is lost in admiration for the truly altruistic spirit of that recommendation of those gentlemen who came together to try and combat drunkenness and who solemnly sat down and say that the natives should be given more wine, whereas in our Province we have prohibition for the natives. They want to have a revocation of our law and they want to have light wines sold to the natives. I have a pretty shrewd idea of what the mining people themselves think of this.

They are opposed to it.

Of course they are opposed to it. I have a vivid recollection of the early days on the Rand when natives were going about drunk, and when crime and murder were rife and where it was positively dangerous for citizens to go out at night time, and when every week-end natives were killed. I do not think it is necessary to elaborate these matters. One must indeed be insensible of what is going on in this country if one is not convinced that drink is sapping the energies of the nation, and any measure such as this which is designed to bring about a better state of affairs should at least be left to the people to decide. This question is one which I assert is entitled to the unqualified support of every member of this House.

Ek sal probeer om oor die saak my sienswyse te gee, sonder om ’n lang predekasie te hou. Dit is ’n onomstotelike feit dat veel ellende in die wereld word veroor-saak nie deur drank nie, maar deur oormaat. Vele moeilikhede, vele egskeidings word ver-oorsaak deur die oormatige gebruik van drank. Net so met armoede. Die edele lid vir Waterberg (de hr. Le Roux van Niekerk) lag lekker maar ek wonder of hy nie self daar ondervinding van het nie. Dit was nie so ver van sy distrik af nie, dat ek gesien het ’n man saai sy ou perdjie op, gaat na die kantien en haak die perd daar vas en die ander dag môre moet ander hom op die perd tel en hom huis toe stuur. En ook nie heel ver daarvandaan nie is dit dat die vrou haar ou groentetjies verkoop en dat die man die geldjies vat en gaan uitdrink. Die ding van lokale opsie sal seer diep ingrijp in die karakter van ons volk. Maar wie se skuld is dit as ’n man hom te buite gaan aan drank? Is dit die drank sene, of die man sene wat oormatig drink? As ek wolwegif drink en ek gaan dood is dit die gif sê skuld of myne? As ek suiker steel en ek word gevang en gestraf, is dit die suiker se skuld of myne? Ons drankwet is ook verderfelik vir ons volk, want ons beskerm die naturel en roei die arme witman uit. Ons beskerm die naturel en stop die arme witman in die tronk wat hom drank verskaf. Hoe eerder daardie wet verander word, hoe beter. Laat die kaffer ook vry om drank te gebruik. Hy is nie so dom om hom-self aan drank te buite te gaan nie, as hy daar self voor moet betaal, maar wel as U en ek daarvoor betaal. Neem die toestand in Lourenzo Marques. Al die drankgelegenhede staan daar oop en jy sal nie een dronk kaffer sien nie. Ek was daar ruim ’n maand en het net één dronk persoon gesien en dit was ’n matroos. Wet gewing sal die mens nie belet om drank te gebruik nie. Neem byvoorbeeld twee dorpe, wat so naby mekaar lê as Carolina en Ermelo. As een van die twee droog word sal die mense van die een gaan na die ander en ’n man sal daar nie net een of twee sopies drink soas hy in sy dorp sou gedaan het nie; hy sal ’n hoop drink en sal ’n kas drank saambreng—[Edeie Leden: “Hy sal ’n vaatjie koop!”]. Met lokale opsie sal die drinkery erger word. Omtrent wat in die ou dage gebeur het, lees ek in die Kerkbode, dat nadat Noag wyn gedrink en dronk geword het, werd die wynstok nie uit-geroei nie, maar op die bruilof te Kana hei Kristus wyn gemaak. Toe David hom met Batseba misdraag het, het hy nie gebid: “Here, roei die vrouw uit” nie—dit is goed dat hy nie so gebid het en dit dalk verhoor werd nie—maar hy het gebid “Here, maak my rein.” Vir die beginsel van afskaffing sou ek stem, want dit is ’n goeie beginsel maar ek het definitiewe opdrag, en ek sal teen hierdie Wetsontwerp stem.

I was forcibly reminded during the remarks that have been uttered in this debate of the old hardened toper when he was told about the man who was drowned in beer. He said: “Gosh, what a glorious death.” I am afraid that from my experience there is too large a section of our population who holds that view-point still. I want to say this, that when I speak in this House on the question of liquor, I hope I will not be accused of speaking from personal experience, although I do speak from an experience of a certain number of years in connection with this question. I come from a place called Woolwich, which is not very far from the East-end of London, and I spent a good deal of time in the East-end of London itself. As a young man I was tremendously impressed by the terrible results of drink as they affected that class from which I spring—the working class. And it is a significant fact that wherever you find a factory in London or any largely populated town you find public-houses clustering round the gateway, and men could go across from their work to the public-house to obtain drink. Having that experience in my mind, and realizing how it has degraded the class in which I have the most intense interest, I am prepared to consider in a most serious manner anything which strives for the greater sobriety of the people. Last year it will be remembered by the hon. the mover himself that I voted against the second reading of the Local Option Bill, although I do not know whether I gave my reasons on that occasion. But I have often given them privately, and I took up that attitude because I felt that one had to tread very delicately indeed, and that one should not take a false step and do harm to the very cause which the hon. the mover wanted to bring about. I feel there is one very strong disability in this Bill which seems to militate against it, and that is this question of areas. I may say straight away, right now, that I intend to vote for the second reading of this Bill on this occasion, assuming and knowing that I will have the opportunity of moving amendments along lines which I think will improve the Bill. I shall have an opportunity of pressing my view-points as to the largeness of the areas which should take a vote on the question, and it is my intention to move that we shall have provincial boundaries and that we test the feeling of the public by provinces, for this reason. If you have too Small areas you will not only make that area possibly dry, but you create in that small area a determination on the part of certain people to go outside their own area and get drink. During the strike of 1913, the Magistrate at Benoni, who always tried to co-opt anybody of a representative character with him in matters of a far-reaching nature, came to me and said it would be a good idea to close the public-houses during the strike. I told him that I thought it would be ineffective, but that if he thought it desirable then we could try it, for if we could keep the drink away from the men on strike it would be an excellent result. Then he decided to close down the pubs, and all the houses of every kind distributing intoxicating liquor were put out of action. What was the result? The strikers went on bicycles and on foot to Boksburg and other places, six and seven miles away, in order to get drink. Later the public-houses in Boksburg were also shut., but the men went even further afield and came back rolling in liquor. I came to the conclusion, as a result of that experience and others, that it is not only disadvantageous, but a distinct disability likely to be a setback if you make your areas so small. Therefore, I am going to insist that we shall have the test of public opinion on this matter made within provincial boundaries. I am a believer in this. Though I think that we can do a tremendous amount of dragooning the public in the direction of right thinking and right acting by Act of Parliament, you cannot dragoon the public in a matter of this sort. What is wanted is an enlightened and educated public opinion which realizes not only the disadvantages but also the terrible effects of intoxicating liquor. It is this which has turned the scale in my own case in supporting the Bill. By taking a test of the public on this matter, those who wish for the elimination of the drink traffic will leave no stone unturned and bring everything they have into play in order to induce the public to close the public-houses and vote for prohibition. It is true the other side will be doing the same. They will pour money out like water, but that we have to face. That is a fact we have got to face, but it will only accentuate the effort and make those in favour of a change gird up their loins and do their best. They will demand not only that this area and that area will be dry, but they will demand—and I am looking forward to that also—total prohibition of the manufacture of intoxicating liquor. I just want to make this perfectly clear before I sit down; I am voting for the second reading because I am in favour of the people having the opportunity of saying what they shall have, which I think is much more desirable than imposing it upon them by Act of Parliament. Another is that it is a means of education. To my mind it will be fatal if the Bill goes through as it is and the alterations I have foreshadowed are not made in Committee. I think it will be a reactionary and not a forward step if it is passed in its present form. If my alterations are not accepted in the Committee stage then I shall vote against the third reading, and I should like the father of the Bill to understand my position.

That is quite clear.

I want to see this Bill through, followed by final prohibition, which will contribute to the making of a sober and better South Africa.

This Bill was brought forward last year as a local option measure, but this year those who support it have admitted that it is the thin end of the wedge for total prohibition. How the farmers on the other side of the House can support the Bill I fail to see. The wine farmer has always helped the wool farmer, the grain farmer and the cattle farmer. To-day we bring in a Bill to shut up the wine farmer altogether. They talk about local option but they do net seem to know that we have local option now, for if two-thirds of the population of any locality want a public-house closed down, they can sign a memorial and the house is closed down by the licensing court. What does the temperance party want to do? They don’t want to do this thing themselves, but they want to throw the responsibility of doing it on the Government. Even if you want a new licence, you have to get the signatures of the registered voters before the licensing board will consider the application, and you have to have the majority of those voters m favour of it before it is granted. The licensing court has tremendous powers. In Cape Town from 1917 to 1922 the licensing court has taken away 20 licences, and it was only the other day that they curtailed another one. For the last 20 years the licensing courts of Cape Town and suburbs have taken away 54 licences.

Was that for misbehaviour?

No, they were not required in the neighbourhood. What more do you want? Has not your licensing board sufficient power now? Who contributes the biggest portion of your finance to-day? If you close these people down who will have to bear this? It will be the working man who will have to stand the strain.

You will have something to play with then.

We are called upon to vote in wards to go dry. Well, I know how my ward will vote. Without passing this Bill at all the licensing board possesses the requisite power now. What are you going to do with the unemployed, those men who are employed in the liquor trade to-day? Are they going to suffer because some fanatic gets up and says this Bill will work wonders? What will it mean? In this town alone over 3,000 men will be thrown out of work.

I presume that both parties, the promoters and opponents of this Bill wish to come to a vote. I think, however, that a vote taken to-day will have no real effect, because whatever the vote is, one or other party will have this measure or one similar, or an opposing measure brought forward year after year. The parties concerned are both irreconcilable and of unchangeable opinions. With myself it is rather an awkwar l position, because I find that those who are promoting this Bill are out for prohibition and not for what they can get, whether now or later on, in the way of reform only. On the other side we have men who are not prepared to give up anything. They are not prepared to consider arguments; they are not prepared to meet the temperance party half way. They want everything they are out for to-day and between the two moderate men are in rather an awkward position. We are having rather a difficult time with all this liquor legislation before the country, but we are prepared to go our way and do what we think is right Little can be gained to-day by speaking at length. I do not propose to draw any attention to the details of the Bill, but I feel that although curtailing my remarks to a very great extent, I must explain my position. By the alliance which I have referred to on previous occasions last year some of us were denied the right of speech. It was an alliance that I could not quite understand. However, we have our opportunity this time, and although we are not going to delay the vote we are going to put our case before the House, so that everybody can understand very clearly what our views are. Let us at once admit that no sane man can be against the principle of local option. I feel it is a principle against which there can be absolutely no argument. As a matter of fact, that principle permeates the whole of our social and political life at present. We are all of us here by local option. Everything we do, we do practically by local option but I feel that between that principle of local option and the provisions of this Bill there is a very vast gulf. At each of my elections I gave the pledge to support the principle of local option, but I added that I was not prepared to have those, who had spent large sums of money in establishing and carrying on businesses which they had carried on well, and whether you agree with the law or not, according to the law. And I instanced that I was not prepared to have the wine merchants and large hotels, after they had spent such large sums, deprived of their rights without compensation. That was my point. I am satisfied now after going into the matter very carefully that compensation is an extremely difficult matter to arrange. I am satisfied even that it is almost impossible. We cannot expect the Government to pay; we cannot expect the Municipality to bear the burden, and we cannot entertain that very foolish suggestion which has been made in all seriousness by several of those who opposed the Bill, that those who voted against local option should pay.

The manufacturers.

Those who voted for the Bill? Is that your position?

No.

The whole position becomes quite impossible, and after very careful consideration I am of opinion that a strict adherence to the principle of compensation will be equal to avoiding the principle of local option. That is my position. That is the conclusion I have come to; but holding the view as I do that something should be done, I yet cannot possibly support the Bill, unless those people who have spent those large sums of money are in some way protected. In the constituency I represent, there are four large wine merchants, and I am informed that not one of them has sunk less than £75,000 in his business.

Wholesale?

Merchants, merchants.

Wholesale merchants?

There are, as I say, four large wine merchants in my district. They have, I am told, sunk each of them a sum of no less than £75,000 in the business. They are carrying on their businesses in a well-conducted way. They are respectable people; they have reputable premises, reputable businesses, and, as I said before, they are carrying on their businesses under the law and according to the law. We may like the law, but the law is there and allows them to carry on, and they are carrying on according to the law. They have been established very many years. I have never heard a word of complaint against them. In the same way there are several hotels, first-class hotels, carrying on their business in a proper manner. I am of opinion that these businesses should not be lightly interfered with, and to deprive these people of their undoubted rights is something I cannot support. It is claimed, of course, by the advocates of temperance that these people have no rights; that their rights are only given to them annually. But these businesses have existed under the present law for all these very many years, and we know that there is nobody in any walk of life, where a licence is required, who is really in any better position than these people are. You can expect no court to deprive them of their rights while they behave themselves and carry on their businesses in a proper manner, and I can say this, that these men prefer to have a court to decide whether they can carry on, to having their rights decided on by what, after all, amounts to the vote of one man. They are determined to continue to carry on as they have in the past, and I see no reason why they should not be protected. We have in Scotland, where they have had this law in force for some little time, an act brought in by the people there, who feel no doubt exactly as do temperance people in this country. The act was brought in and we find that they have far better terms for the people than the promoters of the Bill intend giving to the people here. For example, there is a proviso that 55 per cent, of the votes must be recorded in favour of the change before a change is made, and also that 35 per cent, of the people on the register must record their votes. Hotels, restaurants and clubs, even if they are carrying on business in a non-licensing area are exempt, and they also have a further provision that a request for the Bill must be signed by one-tenth of the electors. Of course, there are many other provisions, but I only wish to draw your attention to these few. I may also mention that in Scotland they are granting certain privileges which are not given in this Bill. If the promoters of the Bill are prepared to exempt merchants, hotels and clubs, and make 55 per cent, as the required majority, I am prepared to support the second reading. I am dissatisfied with several of the provisions in the Bill and am not optimistic enough to believe any of these several interests will be satisfied with my action, but with these safeguards assured, I am prepared to vote for the second reading leaving the smaller objections I have to the Bill to be remedied in Committee. If the promoters are prepared to promise that they will support amendments to this effect, I am prepared to support the second reading, but otherwise I feel we cannot go against our election pledges and our convictions, and force those who have spent their money in legitimate business, which they carry on exceedingly well, to be deprived of their rights without consideration.

Mnr. Speaker, ek sal nie breedvoerig oor die onderwerp praat nie, maar net ’n paar aanmerkinge maak. As seun van ’n wynboer mis ek die vrymoedigheid om voor die Wetsontwerp te stem. Die bedoeling van plaaslike keuse is om te kom tot totale prohibiesie. Dit beteken die ondergang van die wynindustrie, en van meer arm blankes, en om die rede is ek teen die Wetsontwerp. Op Cradock waar onlangs die konferensie plaas gehad het, en wat 17 predikante het bygewoon, is dit duidelik gemaak dat die bedoeling van plaaslike keuse totale prohibiesie is. Maar die Synode van 1919 het met 87 stemme meerderheid hom verklaar teen prohibiesie, waaroor ek baie bly is. Dis die strewe van ons Kerk en volk om dronkenskap te bestry en ek sal dit van harte ondersteun en die wynboere self ondersteun dit. Die wynboere, een van die edelste seksies van ons bevolking en een van die soberste, is gekant teen dronkenskap. Dis treurig om te sien hoe huisgesinne deur dronkenskap totaal verwoes is, en dis ook treurig om te weet dat in die Unie sewe miljoen pond jaarliks word bestee aan drank Dis verkwisting van geld. Maar, ek is daarvoor om swaarder strawwe in te stel vir dronkenskap, al moet dit wees eensame opsluiting, of slaan met die kats. Dis duidelik vir my, dat prohibiesie bevorder smokkelary. Ons het daarvan ’n duidelike bewys in Amerika waar prohibiesie bestaan. In drie en ’n half jaar tyd, het iemand my vertel, is daar nie minder as 2,700,000 pond aan boete vir smokkelary betaal. Ook het ek gehoor en gelees dat waar prohibiesie is, jy ’n baie groter uitgawe het vir poliesie. ’n Persoon het vir my vertel, dat daar ’n seker man was wat drank wou hê. Hy het na ’n ander man gegaan en die het hom gesê, dan moet jy jou van ’n slang laat byt.” Toe het hy gevra “waar moet ek die slang kry?” en die ander het vir hom gese: “daar en daar.” Hy het toe daarna toe gegaan, maar die antwoord gekry: “ons is baie jammer, maar die slang is al vir ses maande bespreek.” Dit bewys hoe smokkelary aangaan waar prohibiesie is. Maar ek dink ons het hier feitelik plaaslik keuse. Die hof kan dranklisensies toestaan as ’n meerderheid van kiesers daarvoor is. [Edele Leden: “Nee.”] Ja, die meerderheid van kiesers moet daarvoor stem en as daar ’n vernuwing moet wees, kan twee-derde van die kiesers daarteen opponeer. Ons het dus feitelik plaaslike keuse. Neem b.b. Steytlerville, ’n hotel het daar ’n dranklisensie wou hê en dit nie gekry nie, en vandag het ons nog geen drank-lisensies in Steytlerville nie. Waarom kan dit in ander plase nie gedoen word, sonder plaaslike keuse? Ek herhaal ek kan as seun van ’n gewese wynboer die Wetsontwerp nie ondersteun nie en ek vra die ondersteuning van ander wynboere, koringboere, veeboere en ander boere om ook daarteen te stem.

I must say that I have not got the Scotch Act before me, but I think that the hon. member who has just sat down has referred to most of the provisions. I understand that every licensing law in the world lays it down that the licence is issued for the benefit of the people, and can anything be fairer than this Bill which lays it down that the people shall be the judges of whether there shall be a licence or not in a certain district. A great deal has been said about statistics, but we know what the value of statistics is. A great deal has been said about America and the Government there. You have had a general election in America since prohibition came into force, and the result is that the Prohibitionist Party has come back stronger than ever. It is provided in America that two-thirds of the State has to be in favour of prohibition before they could get it. What is the result? I am sorry that the hon. member for Commissioner Street (Sir Harry Graumann), having made his speech, left the House. It is an extraordinary thing; there are two Americas. There is an America along the coast line—I am speaking from an official report—which contains a population of 120 millions, and there is the America composed of the old puritan families. The position is this: along the coast line you have the alien population. I know an hon. member who went through one district in America and he told me he had never heard a word of English spoken. I am informed that there are more Germans in New York than in any town in Germany, except Berlin, and there are more Italians in New York than in any of the largest towns in Italy. I have read of cases of convictions for drunkenness in America, but I never read of a Scotsman having been run in. The supporters of prohibition in America are the descendants of the old puritans and the opponents are found among the aliens; but why should we trouble about America and whether prohibition is successful or not. We must be satisfied that in that great country, as the late President Harding said in his last speech, they were determined to carry out the law. Recently there appeared in the press a letter signed by 5 or 6 very prominent ministers of the Dutch Church, who said that local option was a failure in Scotland. If it is declared by a majority of the people that they want liquor shops, that is not a failure. When they say that it is not a success, I must differ from them. I admit that the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. van Zyl) has put his hand on the weakness of the Scotch Act. In 1907 there were 240 convictions for drunkenness, in 1910 and in 1916, 214, but in 1921, under local option, the number was only small. In Wick, under the Act, there was only one prosecution during the whole year. In the great mining district near Glasgow, the figure came down from 273 to 96. There was never really local option in Scotland as the hotels could always sell to residents; it only applied to common public houses. One town in Scotland has gone back and the reason is: there they had four licences before the Act came into force, but they were allowed clubs which are a greater danger to the public. Five club licences were granted with the result that the people voted to go back, saying “What is the use of carrying on when so many club licences are being granted.” Club licences were granted when the public houses were closed, and that is one of the difficulties of the Bill. I remember two of the largest newspapers in Scotland—it is not necessary to name them—had two full page advertisements morning after morning with a picture representing a Scotsman in Highland costume and a bottle of whisky. The licensed victuallers, I believe you call them that, spent £250,000 in opposing local option. On one side they had the powers and prayers of humanity, and on the other side money. I will give you a case of voting in one place in Scotland. The number who voted for a new licence was 1,426, and the number who voted against was 1,362. There was a majority of 121 for the new licence, but it could not be granted as 55 per cent, was not in favour. My late grandfather remembered that when he was a boy—about 120 years back—when one took drink in the Highlands of Scotland, he would ask the blessing of God. That shows the sort of spirit—I do not mean to joke—in which they approached the matter—they believed that it was God’s blessing and that they were as much entitled to ask his blessing as when they took their food. Statistics show that Scotland consumed less drink than the other three countries; the other three countries take drink from Monday morning to Saturday night, and the Scotsman takes it on one day. One of the hon. members told us that he could not support the Bill as he would not be voted for at the next election. Talk about bribery and corruption; but at least he was candid. As to the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj van Zyl), I may say that the Bill does not touch the wholesale licences, but surely it is not asking too much that in any particular district, where the people want it, they should have it. In America, when a man got a licence and became an insolvent or died the licence went back to the State; it was never his property. Here if we grant a licence the value of the property goes up £5,000 or £6,000. Another matter spoken about is compensation, but I think the system which I discussed with the late Mr. Sauer for the licensed victuallers—that, I think, is the name he called them—would be useful: place a value on his premises, make it £5,000 or any figure and put by 1 per cent, for compensation. I do not know whether we will pass this Bill or not now, but if you make the immigration law we will not have the alien population to oppose the law. That statement has been made in the public press in America. Now I hope the House will take a broad view of this question. The question is this. The licence exists for the people, and if it is just for the people, the people should have the right to say whether they want it or not.

Die edele lid wat die Wetsontwerp ingebring het, het ons ’n verskrikkelike tafreel voorgehou van was hy naby Kaapstad gesien het, maar hy het ons nie ’n enkel bewysstuk gelever nie, dat as hier die Wetsontwerp deur gaan en Wet word, dat die tafreels op sal hou te bestaan. Hy kan net alleen aanneem, dat dit sal op hou as daar totale prohibiesie is en hy aangedui dat hierdie Wet ’n voorloper is van totale prohibiesie. My objeksie teen hierdie Wet is dat hy nie sal verkry wat die edele lid voorgee dat verkry sal word, en dit is te vergeefs om te hoop dat die uitkoms van die Wet sal wees om dronkenskap te verminder. Die edele lid vir Benoni (de hr. Madeley) het ons van sy persoonlike ondervinding vertel dat toen hul ’n deel droog gemaak het, mense in andere dele het gaan soek en die drinkers het meer as anders gedrink. Ons van die Transvaal, van die Noordelike distrikte van die Transvaal, kan met autoriteit oor prohibiesie praat. Niemand kan in die Transvaal ’n soopie gee of ’n soopie aan ’n naturel verkoop. Daar was ’n tyd toen daar nie minder as 5,000 witmense in die tronke van die Transvaal was omdat hul die Wet op prohibiesie vir die naturelle oortree het, en die uiteindelike gevolg was dat de Minister van Justitie die Wet feitelik het moet laat staan. Die Wet is vandag nie in praktyk nie, en mense wat soopies aan naturelle gee word vandag nie meer vervolg nie.

Probeer self om hul soopies te gee.

Ek kan die Huis verseker, dat daar vandag soopies gegee word, hul word in duisende aan die naturelle gegee, en die Minister weet dit, maar hy durf die Wet nie uit te voer nie, want die tronke was al so vol met misdadigers dat hul die lot moes uitlaat.

Where did you hear that?

Dis algemeen bekend. Ek vra vir lede uit die Transvaal of daar nog die enorme lot vervolginge plaas vind wat in die verlede plaas gevind het? Maar anders sal die edele lid vir Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell) moet erken, dat daar ’n verandering in die mense plaas gevind het en dat daar minder drank verkoop word. Maar dis nie die positie nie. Die Staat het die Wet nie kan handhaaf nie. Die edele inleier van die debat het gesê ons moet hierdie Wet hê omdat ons twee rasse hier in die land het, ons het die witman en ons het die naturel, en dis die plig van die witman om die naturel te beskerm, spesiaal teen dronkenskap. Ek wil enigeen vra wat bekend is met die naturel in die Noordelike Transvaal of hierdie Wet enig gevolg sal hê om die naturel meer nugter te maak as hy vandag is. Die naturel in die Transvaal maak net so veel bier as hy wil en hy drink homself net so dronk as hy wil, behalwe in die beskermde streke rondom die stede, en selfs daar gaan dit tamelik kras aan en hierdie Wet sal glad geen gevolg hê op die dronkenskap onder die naturelle. Maar ek wil dit vra: is die Wet regverdig teen enige sektie van die bevolking? Is dit regverdig, is dit billik om die witman te dwing nie sy soopie te hê en dan die naturel toe te laat net soveel te drink as hy wil? Want die naturel sal aangaan. As ons polies moet aanstel om te sien dat die naturel nie bier sal maak nie, dan sal die onkoste so groot wees dat iedereen verstom sal staan. Die edele lid wat die Wet ingebreng het, het gepraat van die kwaad wat deur drank gedoen word. Wel, dis ’n baie groot kwessie, maar hy het geen enkel woord gepraat om te probeer om dronkenskap op enige manier te bestry. Hy het nie ’n enkel woord gepraat oor matigheid. Ek het baie meer respek vir ’n man wat matig is, selfs as hy sy soopie vat, as vir ’n man wat mens deur middel van wetgeving nugter moet maak. Ek het baie meer respek vir ’n volk met ’n sterk moraliteits gevoel as vir ’n volk wat deur prohibiesie nugter gemaak moet word. Is dit nie mogelik om meer werk te doen onder die volk van Suid-Afrika, om meer te verrig deur matigheid te preek en om mense te kry om matig te drink? Dis hier gesê, dat die kerke die Wet wil hê. In die hier verleë het die kerke vir die mense gepreek en het hul vir die mense gesê, dis vir die jong mense “jul kan wyn drink, maar dis gevaarlik, pas op, en jul moeit, matig drink.” Ons ou mense was nugter en matig alhoewel hul wyn gedrink het. Ek is self die seun van ’n wynboer en één skoot was ek byna verdrink in wyn maar ek het nooit wyn aan die tafel gedrink. Dit was altyd gereken dat wyn ’n gevaarlike artikel was en mens moet voorsigtig daarmee gaan en moet dit in matigheid drink en as ’n man van karakter en hy moet nie te ver gaan nie. Dis die lyn wat hul moet volg, en dis die lyn wat die edele lid voor Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell) moet volg. As hy sal probeer om mense matig te maak, dan sal hy voel verder vorder as hy met hierdie Wensontwerp sal vorder. Jy kan nie mense nugter maak deur wetgeving—dit is in die Transvaal bewys deur die wet oor die verkoop van drank aan naturelle. Mens kan na die kantore van die magistrate gaan in die Noorde-like Transvaal en jy sal daar “black lists” kry met 10 tot 15 name daarop, name van manne aan wie drank nie verkoop mag word nie. Maar is daardie mense nugter? Nee, hul drink net so veel as ooit. Die polies weet glad nie waar hul hul drank kry, maar hul kry dit. Dis ’n feit dat die mense hul drank kry en jy kan nie ’n man nugter maak deur wetgeving. Ek vra wat sal die gevolg wees van die Wet? Die verbruik van drank sal minder wees in die land omdat jou nugter man, jou man wat ’n soopie vat voor dat hy gaan slaap, omdat hy voel dat dit hom goed sal doen—die man sal minder drink. Dis nie ’n skande voor ’n man om ’n soopie te vat en ek dink dat die mediese fakulteit met my sal instem dat dit ’n goeie medisyn is wat baie gebruik word. Jou Engelse leër het dit bewys dat hul soldate een of twee soopies op ’n dag nodig gehad het om hul standaard van moraliteit of hul energie op te hou.

Waar het jy dit gehoor?

Waar het ek dit gehoor? Ek sê dat ek weet dat duisende hogsheads van ons brandewyn aan die Engelse leër verkoop is.

Nonsens.

As die edele lid maar net op die feite wil let, dan sal hy sien dat dit so is. Maar wie is die man wat minder sal drink, is dit die swaar drinker of die matige drinker? Die matige drinker, want hy sal nie uit sy pad gaan, om sy soopie te kry nie, maar die ander sal, en hy sal net so veel drink as ooit. Dis net alleen die matige drinker wat glad nie meer sal drink nie, maar die man wat homself nie kan kontroleer, hy sal net so veel as ooit drink. Hierdie Wet kom elke jaar voor die Huis, en ek wil dit sê dat ons nie moet vergeet nie, dat daar geen bewys vir ons gebring is, nóg door voorbeelde van andere lande, nóg in Suid-Afrika dat plaatslike optie dronkenskap sal verminder. En dit is seker, dat as ons die Wetsontwerp deursit, ons die verbruik van drank sal verminder, maar nie in die rigting waar ons wil en ons sal die mense hier in die Weslike Provinsie, die wynboere baie skade aandoen. Ons moenie vergeet nie, dat die wyn industrie in Suid-Afrika een van die oudste industries is, wat feitelik die bestaan van ’n blank Suid-Afrika geregverdig het, want as hierdie mense in die Weslike Provinsie nie in staat was gewees om ’n bestaan te maak, dan sou die rest van Suid-Afrika vandag nie beskaafd gewees het. Maar deur dat hul ’n bestaan gemaak het, is Suid-Afrika ontwikkel, en ons moenie vergeet, dat as ons die Wet deursit dan sal ons daardie mense ’n verskrik-like nekslag gee. As ’n verteenwoordiger van die boere sê ek, dat elk boere verteenwoordiger, wat sy opinie ook is, tweemaal moet dink voor hy sal help om sulk skade te doen aan die boere gemeenskap. Ek is daarvan oortuig, dat as die Wetsontwerp deurgaan, hy op mislukking sal uit loop. Hy sal nie help om dronkenskap te verminder, maar hy sal die moraliteits gevoel van die mense verswak. Ek het ’n boodskap gelees van ’n prominente Engelse vrou wat ha Amerika gegaan het en sy het met die boodskap terug gekom en sy het gesê, dat dit treurig vir haar was om te sien hoe die moraliteits gevoel van die mense van Amerika swakker geword het sedert die invoer van prohibiesie, en dis iets geweldig om te dink, dat ons die moraliteits gevoel van ons mense sal verswak, en ek hoop daarom, dat ons die twede lesing van die Wet nie sal aanneem nie.

I want to congratulate the members who have taken part in the debate upon the brevity of their speeches. Personally I do not want to say anything; my views are well known, but I want to make one suggestion, that speakers whose views are well known expedite matters by not speaking and thus give an opportunity for the Bill to come to a vote. There are several gentlemen who wish to speak, and have to make explanations on the situation as they find it, and who really require to give a statement of their views. I do hope at any rate, that supporters of the Bill will give those gentlemen every opportunity of making those statements, and I am inclined to think that with the same chivalry as marked the last occasion, opponents of the Bill will meet us in the same way.

I fall under the category of those who have been spoken of by the last speaker. I wish to explain my position not only to this House, but also to my constituents, for the reason that I happen to be in the position of having a very strong temperance movement on one side of my constituency and the anti-interests on the other side of the constituency. I want to speak a few words now for the reason that the conclusion I have come to on this matter is probably not likely to please either party to the full. When one looks upon this Bill, one sees that it is a compromise between the prohibitionists and those who are not prepared to go so far, but are in favour of the suppression of drunkenness. I am not a prohibitionist, but although I have had no part or lot in the framing of the Bill, and I am not a member of the party bringing forward the Bill, I do include myself in the number of those people who want to do their utmost to suppress drunkenness. That is as far as I can go in regard to this Bill. I do not want to go into it very fully now because to a large extent what has been said by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. van Zyl) also represents my position. We are much on all fours. There are one or two things, however, that I want to say. I find a great difficulty in voting for the second reading of this Bill, not only for the reasons given by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. van Zyl), but also because one thinks that if the voice of the people, the local option voice, is to be given effect to, that effect should be given effect to equally upon both sides, whether the voting is “for” or “against.” I have heard it said that to have such equality on both sides there ought to be this position: if the vote is against licences, then the licences come to an end, and so if the vote is on the other side there should be the right to increase the licences. I do not go so far as that. I wish to bring to the notice of the House that there is under our Liquor Act in the Cape a rule that before you can get a new licence you must get the majority of the voters in the district to sign a memorial for it. It does not quite seem to me to be giving effect to the voice of the people, that equal effect, if you say on one side that you can vote by a majority at the poll for a “nolicence resolution,” and you can vote for a “reduction resolution,” and the resolution so carried has immediate effect. But when you vote for a continuation or no-change resolution,” their the effect of the vote is that the person who applies for a new licence has still to get a majority of all the voters registered in that district before he can bring his application before the licensing court at all. That does not seem to me to be quite “equal does” on both sides. One would have thought that if the church and the temperance party wanted to be absolutely fair on both sides they would have brought in some section to the effect that if in any district a poll is taken and there is a “continuation resolution” carried, that would mean that for those three years no other votes than the vote at that poll should be required to bring a new application before the Licensing Court. I ask the hon. the mover of this Bill to consider that position, because I must say it has been dinned into my ears from one side and another that nothing can be said against the great principle that “the voice of the people should be heard.” I voiced this position at my public meeting the other day. It does not seem to be taking such effect upon the church and the temperance party as I expected from them. But I must say, in thinking it over, that I cannot help thinking that when it is said that the “voice of the people must rule” and that there must be “local option,” which means that the people shall decide if there shall be licences or if there shall be no licences; it does not seem to me quite fair play that the man, who applies for a new licence on the wave of a “continuation resolution,” should have to say: “I cannot go to the Licensing Court and ask for my new licence on the strength of having secured a majority of two hundred and one votes cut of the four hundred cast at the poll. Cape law requires me to obtain a memorial signed by a majority of the thousand voters on the register of the district. So I must get these two hundred and one not only to vote at that election, but to put their names on a memorial form in favour of my application. But I must go further than that and get another three hundred voters to put their names on a memorial form before I can apply to the Licensing Court at all!” On the other point, the doing away with existing licences, I prefer to call that local veto, not local option. I may say that throughout my election I have always gone on the principle that those persons should be given some compensation. I have heard argument on that point and I have come to this conclusion at all events, that it is an impracticable way of looking at it. I do not say it is an immoral way as we all know the practical run of things has been that although these people have not an inherent legal right to demand a renewal, they get their licence year after year unless there is something against them. Therefore I do not want a condition of compensation to be an outstanding point or a stumbling block. But I am in favour of this Bill so far as the suppression of drunkenness is concerned, and not as far as total prohibition is concerned. I accordingly say to the promoters of this Bill, that if they want me to vote for the principle of this Bill then they must meet me on the points brought forward by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. van Zyl). I have reason to believe that there is some difficulty about, the inclusion of hotels and clubs. I am told that the argument there is that these hotels can do without a liquor licence, and that if they devote themselves more to the accommodation side they will not lose anything. But if the object is to lessen drunkenness, there is no reason why they should not meet the requirements of a large number of people who want to suppress that drunkenness, and who say that drunkenness is not caused by these reputable hotels and clubs who give drink to the people who frequent them.

Aangesien ek miskien in die eienaardige posiesie verkeer, dat ek die enigste lid is wat onlangs die toestande in Amerika kon bestudeer, ag ek dit my plig my deel by te dra tot verdui eliking van die toestand. Ek moet eerlik sê dat voordat ek daarheen gegaan het, sou ek seker teen die Wetsontwerp gesteun het, maar na my terugkeer is ek hart en siel daarvoor. Ek het besondere moeite gedaan gedurende die jaar wat ek daar deurgebring het om die toestande te bestudeer; ek was daar as student, as joernalis en gewone reisiger. Ek het die toestande nagegaan in die groot stede, soos New York, Chicago en San Francisco, asook in die kleine plekke soos in Texas en Arizona. Ek het gegaan in die huise van miljoenêrs en in onderaardse kafees; ek het die naglewe daar gesien en kan dus met sekere gesag spreek. Ek kan die versekering gee dat ek minder dronk mense in al die tyd daar gesien het as mens enige aand in die strate van Kaapstad en in my eie stad Bloemfontein kan sien. Voor Krismis en Nuwejaar, wanneer die mense baldadig is en wil fees hou, kan jy die dronk mense nie tel nie, terwyl ek in Amerika op daardie aande net één dronke gesien het. Dit het my dadelik laat insien dat prohibiesie, nieteenstaande al die redenering, een van die beste dinge is wat Amerika kon invoer. Ek wil dadelik erken, dat drank verkrybaar is, maar niks in vergelyking met die hoeveelheid wat vroeer te koop was nie. Die drank is in die huise van die ryke mense, maar die arm mense kry dit nie, behalwe waar miskien ’n paar dronkaards dit weet te bemagtig. Maar die drank is van baie inferieure kwaliteit. Ek het dit probeer, maar wou nie ’n twede keer drink nie; dit was van ’n soort, wat die jonge man nie ’n dronklap sal laat word nie. Jy kry drank, maar die grote en belangrike punt is soas die lid vir Bloemfontein (Noord) (de hr. Barlow) gesê het, dit sal die jonge man nie leer drink nie. Ek was as student in Holland en Engeland en het gesien dat as hulle iets wil vier, dan is die eerste wat hulle na gryp, drank. In Amerika as hulle iets wil vier, is dit koffie of roomys. Miskien is dit waar, soas een lid opmerk, dat dit ’n koue fees is, maar die jonge man hou fees nie met drank mie, of hy moet baie ryk wees. Dit is my baie duidelik dat tengevolge van die aanneming van die Wet, die toekomstige geslag betrsklik vry sal wees van drank. Drank sal daar altoos inkom, maar in elk geval minder as vroeer. Mense in Amerika, aan wie ek gevra het, of hulle die toestand van vroeer sou terugwens, het verklaar: Nee, ek sou graag my sopie drink maar daardie toestand wens ek nie terug nie. Die man wat daar drink is, soas die lid vir Drie Riviere (de hr. Brown) gesê het, die uitlander, en dit is die mense, wat die agitasies ten gunste van drank op tou sit. Ek het bygewoon ’n prosessie vir die her-opening van die kantiene; dit het bestaan uit twintig duisend persone, maar daar was geen jonge manne onder nie en die grote meerderheid was uitlanders. Ek kon veel meer sê, maar wil die Huis nie ophou nie en wil slegs daardie aan-merkings gemaak het uit my eie ondervinding. Ek wens te verklaar dat geen mate van statistieke kan my oortuiging uit eie persoonlike ondersoek skok nie. Die rede waarom die jonge manne nie drink nie, is, soas die knap skrywer Jack London dit in sy boek “John Barleycorn” uiteensit omdat dit die geleentheid is wat die dronkaard maak. As die drank hier weggeneem word, sal ons ’n gelukkige volk wees.

I just wish to say a few words on the second reading of this Bill, which I propose to support with certain qualifications in the way of amendment. On the question of compensation, I agree with those who think it is unfair that no compensation should be made. The object of the Bill is a most laudable one, but that ought to be carried out without doing injustice to individuals. What form the compensation may take, whether it is compensation by the Government or whether it will take other forms I am not in a position to say. Compensation is not the impossibility which some speakers have stated it to be, but it is a matter which we should aim at. I am voting for the Bill with some qualifications, and compensation is one of them. We know what it is to get a large poll during election, and I think it will be very difficult on a question like this to get the representative opinion of the people. There should not only be a majority, but that majority should represent the views of the total electorate. I think that these difficulties can be met, and can be best met by discussion in Select Committee, or, if the House approves of the general principle of the Bill, then by a Commission sitting outside the session. I am going to vote for the Bill because it is obvious that something should be done to remedy the state of affairs in this town and elsewhere. A good portion of the difficulties here would be bettered and ameliorated in the proposal of the other Bill which the Minister of Justice is bringing before the House, but this Bill also in principle is a step in the right direction. The hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Purcell) made a most unjust attack on the men who were responsible in restricting licences in Cape Town. For years a certain number of public-spirited men have done their best to keep licences down, and that best has been a very good best, and I am sorry the hon. member made the unjust attack which he did.

Daar is sommige lede, wat dink ons moet tot stemming kom en dat die stemming moet verhaas word. Laaste jaar het ons dit ook verhaas en skielik tot stemming gekom, maar, ek dink, dis ’n kwessie van die allergrootste belang, ’n lewenskwessie vir ’n groot gedeelte van ons volk. Daarom stel ek voor—

seconded.

I would appeal to the hon. member who moved the adjournment to let us go on with the discussion. In voting for the second reading we are merely affirming, and that being the case our discussion need not De extended.

Ek voel, dat daar baie lede is wat gewillig is om nou met eens te stem en wat tevrede is om voor of teen te stem. Is dit me moontiik nie, om vandag klaar te kom, want as ons die debat verdaag sal ons die hele ding weer moet deurgaan, maar, as die edele lede dink, dat ons die debat moet verdaag, dan moet ons natuurlik verdaag.

Ek hoop, die Huis gaan die voorstel van die edele lid vir Rouxville (de hr. Hugo) aanneem. Daar is verskeie lede wat nog me nulle standpunt duidelik gemaak het oor bierdie belangrike onderwerp, en ek dink dis verkeerd om dit so skielik deur die Huis te dryf. Dis nodig dat ook die ander lede hulle mening sê en dat jou kiesers ook kan sien waarom jy voor of teen gestem het. Daarom noop ek, die Huis sal die voorstel tot verdaging aanneem.

Ek sou die edele lid vir Rouxville (de hr. Hugo) wil vra om sy voorstel tot verdaging terug te trek. Daar is niks teen nie, dat die Huis vir tenminste nog ’n half-uur of ’n uur aangaan met die diskussie van die saak. Dis me vandag die eerste keer nie, dat die saak voor die Huis is. In die laaste sitting van die Parlement is daar twee daë lank oor dieselfde onderwerp gediskuseer, en as ons luister na die verskillende toesprake wat gehou word, vind ons dat daar baie min nuus meer voor die dag kom, en ek dink dis die gevoele nie alleen van die voorstanders van die wetsontwerp, maar ook van die teenstanders.

Under the circumstances, and as there seems to be a sharp division of opinion on the question of the adjournment, and as there are several members evidently who wish to express themselves, I accept the motion for the adjournment.

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 21st February.