The amendment which I have moved appears on page 121 and 122 of the Votes and Proceedings. It is somewhat lengthy, but boiled down, it means simply this: That where an arbitrator has given his award and the unions are not satisfied therewith, before they resort to a strike, they shall have a ballot of their members. The clause lays down the procedure which follows, and the procedure laid down is that the ballot shall be taken under the supervision of the Government or Government officials appointed thereto by the Government. I have been told that what I am about to state can be verified by hon. members, and that is that ballots in the past have not been conducted in the way they should have been. I understand that when a ballot is being taken the officials of the different unions concerned go round to the members, and the persons entitled to vote have to record their vote in the presence of such officials. The official is one who is desirous of obtaining a majority in favour of a strike.

Nonsense! The officials do not want a strike.

Then if they are not desirous that there should be a strike, there is no reason why the hon. member opposite should not accept this amendment. So I claim the support of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) on this occasion, and I feel convinced he will be able to adduce very much more stronger arguments in favour of this than I can. I thank him for his interjection. In many cases these strikes are engineered in the way Í have attempted to outline, and the object of this clause is for the purpose of getting a genuine vote from the men concerned. It will prevent hasty strikes. It stands to reason that the object of the secret ballot has been introduced for the purpose of protecting the person called upon to vote, and if there is a secret ballot there is no reason why anybody should be victimized for the way he has recorded his vote. Furthermore, the most sober-minded worker will be able to use his influence with others who are desirous of giving a genuine vote. I would like to quote just a few words from a memorandum which has been furnished me in connection with this matter, in which it is stated—

We know, in spite of the fact that something to the contrary will be stated this afternoon, that these strikes are voted for by the younger men, men of no responsibility, who will not be greatly affected if the strike takes place. Strikes, after all, are a very crude method of settling disputes. As the Bill has been asked for, and as some people seem to think that it is going to be the millenium, I support the Bill, but I do not think it will work in the right direction, unless something of the kind which I have suggested here is included in the measure. The object of introducing this ballot clause, is to give a steadying effect so that men cannot be victimized when it is not known how they have cast their vote. I recommend the amendment to the fair consideration of the Minister.

I cannot allow the vote to be taken on this amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), without saying some words in opposition to it. In the first place, I feel quite convinced that the hon. member is desirous of gaining the end he has in view, but I think the placing of these words on the statute book is a permanent insult to the trade union concerned. It is as good as saying that the officials who have been elected by the trade unions are not worthy of the confidence of the trade unions, and it is an attempt to show that in the eyes of the public and legislature of this country they are men in whom it is not right to place any confidence; that they are men who are going to “cook” ballots, and are men who, before the ballot is taken, are going to influence the union concerned in the direction of a strike. What the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) said when he remarked that the trade unions did not want strikes was quite right. For a large number of years I have come to the conclusion as a result of my experience that the men who are put in charge of trade unions are men who can be confidently relied upon to exercise the most steadying influence on their particular trade union. They are the sober-minded men who are referred to by the hon. member for Von Brandis. (Mr. Nathan) in his amendment. That is so. I want to say this that very often it has been discovered that in regard to the more militant members of trade unions the officials are regarded as stumbling blocks. I have not come quite prepared to deal with this particular matter that the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) has introduced, but I do urge upon him that he withdraw from the attitude he has adopted. I notice from his amendment that he also provides for a ballot of employers, and he tried to make it appear that the amendment if carried would hold the scales equally as between employers and employed. But it would not in actual practice nowadays when you have industrial concerns largely aggregated together in fewer hands—take for instance the Chamber of Mines. There you have the whole concern, at all events so far as the relationship of the gold mines with their employees is concerned, being run from one little parlour in Johannesburg itself. There is no need to hold a ballot there. There is no need for consultation. They know instinctively what they are going to do. I forget the particular type by which it is known, but the general manager of the Chamber or Mines, the general factotum, does all the work, and all the power is centered in the hands of one man. What need is there to hold a ballot there? I ask the Committee to reject the amendment that the hon. member has proposed. He says there are a great many instances where the ballot has been faked—he did not say “faked,” but that was what he meant—that ballots have been affected. Nothing of the sort, absolutely untrue, Sir, and I say that the ballot in regard to the late trouble on the Reef was not affected in any way whatever. It was a ballot taken on all-fours along the lines which the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) suggests. Though the ballot was not taken by a Government official or under the supervision or direction of the Government itself it was carried out by the officials of the trade unions concerned and in a perfectly clear and straightforward and secret fashion. Chiefly on the grounds that it is an insult to the trade unions I ask this Committee to reject this amendment.

I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan).

Do you take it seriously?

In the Bill originally introduced by me there was a clause dealing with ballotting, but it was limited to cases where the rules of trade unions themselves made provision for taking a ballot. The Select Committee altered that in two ways. First of all by including sub-section A, that is to say, even wherever a council or a board has given a decision no strike shall take place until a ballot has been taken. A board may be appointed by a trade union or by independent members outside according to Clause 4, and you do not know, especially if it is not a trade union, who should be allowed to go to the ballot or not. You have not got a register as you have in Parliament to know who can exercise this right. That is one difficulty. Another alteration that was made in Select Committee was to provide also for a ballot of employers. That is the following clause. I do not know whether the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) intends moving that also. His motion before the Committee at present only deals with one aspect of it, but the other is also provided for in the Bill as it came from the Select Committee.

They are both in.

I do not see it on page 121 or 122 of the Votes. The ballot of employers makes a practical application of the system still more difficult. You have got, say, three employers, all parties to this Conciliation Board. One employer has ten employees, another employs one hundred, and another one thousand. Now we shall give to each one of these employers one vote.

They have not got that.

But you cannot have a ballot for the employees and not for the employers also, because you upset the Bill, and the difficulty is that you cannot form a register of your employers. That suggestion is an impracticable one; you cannot have a ballot for employees and not also stipulate for one for employers. The next objection is that this is one of the clauses which introduces the question of compulsion, and you cannot expect people to go to ballot and mark their ballot-papers according to their wishes. They could spoil their paper: they could throw in a blank and you cannot stand behind a man with a policeman and say “You must not spoil your paper.” Suppose you hold a ballot and there is only a very small percentage of votes cast, are you going to enforce that against the vast majority who refuse to ballot? The thing is surrounded by so many practical difficulties that I came to the conclusion that I would leave out both matters with regard to the employers and employees, and I trust that the Committee will see the force of the practical difficulties. It is not merely a matter of argument and sentiment but of a practical difficulty to give effect to. This is impossible, and I hope the Committee will not accept the amendment.

I considered when the hon. member opposite rose that I had a very good case and felt that it was safe in the hands of the Committee until the Minister rose. I appreciate the difficulty when a Minister rises and is not prepared to accept an amendment, but when I heard his arguments I felt, my case was stronger than ever. These reasons he gives for the rejection of the section seem to me, with all respect to the hon. Minister (whom I followed with great interest), to be futile. He based his argument against Clause 14 because of his difficulties with regard to the employers. What sort of argument is that to put before a body like this? Because you cannot enforce this, which includes Clause 15 and 17 which are not before the House at the moment, you must reject any new Clause. That seems to me an argument which will not wash for one moment. He says the ballot of employees, as far as compulsion is concerned, makes it impossible, because he assumes they may spoil their papers. Was ever a more futile argument placed before a Committee? You make provision for a certain thing, and in order to evade that provision the people for whose benefit the thing has been introduced, it is said, will deliberately go into the box and spoil their papers! If they choose to spoil their papers it would not affect the ballot—the ballot is decided by the good papers, not by the bad ones, and I hope the Minister will see that his argument is untenable and falls away entirely. I am sorry that the right hon. the Minister does not see his way to accept this amendment.

Do you know what it means?

I know exactly what I am doing. I maintain that what I have put upon the paper this afternoon and asked the Committee to accept is a very valuable addition to this Bill, and if the Committee in their wisdom do not accept, it, it is not my fault and I have done my best.

The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) seems to approach this question with some sort of suspicion that some pressure has been brought to bear on the Minister to delete this chapter. I want to assure him that no such pressure has been brought by the employees.

Do they want this?

Yes, all the principal trade unions accept the principle. Of course, they vary as to the majority, but they know their own business best in that matter, and furthermore they have in their rules the machinery for taking the ballots. The hon. member must not overlook the provisions in this Bill which provide for the registration of trade unions. I take it one of the requirements of the Registrar of Trade Unions, when he peruses the rules of a trade union, will be to see that, they have proper provision in their rules for taking ballots prior to striking. So what is the necessity for putting this chapter in when every trade union will have the provision for taking a ballot on a strike in their rules?

New Clause, proposed by Mr. Nathan, put and negatived.

In view of the rejection of new Clause 14, it would be useless to have it for employers and not for employees. I therefore do not propose to move the other new clause.

We ought to have that in!

On Clause 14,

I would like to ask the right hon. the Minister whether he has received a telegram similar to this from the technical staff of the printing works in Pretoria. He will remember that under Clause 1, I asked him to make a statement with regard to the position of organizations of men in public service on the railway, and he then told the House that they would be entirely excluded from the Bill, except in the case of printers who happened to be working for the Government and belonged to an outside union. I have received the following telegram from Pretoria from the Committee representing all sections of the Government Printing Works technical staff—

I would like to ask the Minister: is the technical staff included? If they do not belong to a union of their own they would not be included in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will be able to answer the point?

I had a similar telegram from Pretoria from the same source. The position is as I have “explained it. These men belong to the Printers’ Trade Union at the present moment, with the consent of the Minister.

The technical staff?

Yes, as regards the operators, but I do not know exactly what the hon. member means by the technical staff?

That is what the telegram says.

The technical staff I take it means the operators and Setters and so on, and they do belong to the trade union of printers and form part and parcel of the General Council of Printers throughout the whole Union. It was represented to me that it was advisable to coordinate all the printers and if you have a Whitley Council or an Industrial Council, as it is called in this Bill, for the printers outside the Government, men who do exactly the same class of work in the Government printing offices should not be excluded. I have provided for that with the consent of the Minister and I say where these people belong to the trades union with the consent of the Minister their trades union or section can join with others also with the consent of the Minister.

I take this opportunity of pointing out that under this clause you are forcing all associations to register. You also give them in the case of men in Government service, your printers and so on, certain privileges and in the case of the public you have a statutory conciliation board. In the railway service, on the other hand, you have no statutory machinery of the kind. I understand the conciliation board of the railway is purely a matter of regulation which can be withdrawn or carried on according to ministerial policy. I am not going to discuss it here, but I point out that you have one section of working men who are left out of the scheme. I hope the Government will find time to consider an amendment of the Railway Regulation Act providing such conciliation.

I would like to move the elimination of paragraph (c) of sub-section (b) of this clause. This I think is a sub-section which can be taken out because under that you give to the registrar the power to refuse registration of an organization either of employees or employers on the ground that there is already an organization which in his opinion sufficiently represents the members. Now I would like to draw the attention of the House to the stage to which we have now got. The Minister said in introducing this Bill that it was a purely voluntary measure, that there was no coercion whatever. We have got so far that a certain number of members of a trade, either employers or employees, can call a conciliation board or make application for one. When the majority of the members agree to a resolution that an umpire or an arbitrator be appointed the decision of the umpire or arbitrator is binding not only on the parties to the disputes, but can be made binding on outsiders. In this sub-section we are giving to the registrar power to establish a monopoly—it is in his power to say whether members of a trade union can or cannot be allowed to form an organization. That I think is an extremely dangerous principle. I do not think a more dangerous monopoly can be established than a monopoly of trade unionists. [An Hon. Member: “What about the Law Society?”] That is regulated by law and is not now before the House. I would be glad if the hon. member would not try to draw a red herring across the path. This clause gives the registrar power to refuse registration to an organization. Supposing “Nurahs” were to apply for registration, he could refuse them although they might represent a very large number of the employees on the railways—he may refuse them as he may consider that the railway servants are sufficiently represented by the boiler-makers, the engineers, or other association, and therefore he could deprive a whole body of men of any representation at all—the result being that they could not be heard. Therefore I think the sub-section is a dangerous one and should be eliminated. I move—

I think there is no doubt that the sub-section (c) gives too much arbitrary power to the registrar. It is quite possible that a large body of workers in a particular area want to form a union, and yet it is in the power of the registrar to refuse their application, because he thinks that another body can represent them. As the hon. member has stated, this matter should be voluntary, and every opportunity should be given to a body of employees and employers, to form unions, provided they comply with the provisions in the Act.

I think the hon. member, overlooked the fact that the paragraph is necessary for the successful working of the Act. If you are going to have bodies with authority on one side or the other to carry on, the proper thing is to see that the organization they claim to represent, the working men on the one side or the employers on the other, are genuine and bona fide bodies, If there are half a dozen bodies registered as representing the employees, difficulties must result. This is a provision to try and prevent the formation of too many organizations, which would make it difficult to co-operate. Picture a conciliation board after having sat for weeks, discussed all sorts of matters and nearly come to an agreement—then a minority of people represented on the board, who are not satisfied, break away and form a sectional organization, and register, simply for the purpose of defeating the agreement. The Act must break down if you allow unnecessary duplication of unions. One of the intentions of the Act is to prevent the splitting up of large bodies of employers or employees, which make it easy to consult in regard to all matters of dispute. That is why this clause is put here and the hon. member, presenting a professional union, should have no objection to supporting the amendment.

The object of this clause is to put trade unions on a more official basis than in the past, by associating them with the Government, through registration and keeping them under the aegis of Parliament and the Government. It is hoped that the institution will develop, and responsible agreements can be come to which would not be possible without representation. The question of the recognition of trade unions has been fought out in the country in more than one industrial dispute, and the time has come to recognize them—whether they are good or bad I am not arguing. The object is to recognize trade unions, not only by the employees, but also by the State, by giving them official registration under general supervision. If you accept that position—I understand the mover accepted the principle, he does not object to the whole clause, he agrees with the principle that the special bodies should be registered. Having admitted that, chaos will arise if a particular section is dissatisfied, break away and have organizations of their own. The whole machinery which is the object of the Bill fails. You do not know which particular trade union to look to. Without proper organization on both sides it is not possible to have practical machinery of this kind. I do not want to go as far as to say that in no circumstances will double registration be allowed. There may be perhaps a case arising where the interest of the union is not fully represented, that a vast majority of the employees in a particular industry may say that they are not sufficiently represented. If (a trade union has been registered and loses the confidence of the employees, the large majority then can form a new organization, which can be registered under the clause. [An Hon. Member: “Will the registration of the other organization stand?] You cannot take into account small minorities of dissatisfied men coming forward to form a union. If you admit the principle that trade unions should be recognized, I cannot see how we can do otherwise but help them along. If they do not require representation then they can stay out.

I hope that the Committee will understand what the position is: it means nothing more or less than compelling every worker to join a trade union if he wishes to have a word in the management of his trade.

That is probably what he wants.

This is plain if you examine Clause 4. It provides that an application for a conciliation board can only be made by a trade union or organization, and in the event of there being no trade union or organization, by individuals. The effect of this clause is to compel men to join trade unions, and I hope the House will not forget that fact. Some members think that would be a good thing; others do not. In a purely voluntary Bill we should have no compulsion. I do not think it is proper for this House to compel men to become members of a trade union organization. Under this clause they cannot make an application for a conciliation board unless they became members of the registered union. In the event of a dispute arising between them and their employers, what is going to happen? They will not have an opportunity of placing their views before a conciliation board. This clause is nothing more or less than a compulsory clause compelling working men to belong to an organization, and I wish the Committee to realize that fact when they go to a vote on the question.

I think the hon. member is not quite right in what he has said. There is nothing here to compel men to join trade unions, but certainly there is this, that it offers certain advantages to men who do belong to trade unions. Now what is the objection? Is not the desire of this Bill to try, instead of having disorganization, instead of having disorganized continuous bickering, to try and encourage organization and assist in discipline, which is just as necessary in trade unions as anywhere else. Surely, that is the object of the Bill, and I, for one, cannot see that there is any hardship under this clause.

I support the amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Webber). I would ask the Minister to consider what would be the position if there were a Bill before the House for the registration of churches or congregations and if the position was created where the registrar could say that under the existing conditions the spiritual needs of the community concerned were sufficiently met and catered for by the existing churches.

Ja, dis die positie.

We have long since departed from the principle of an established church in this country, but it seems to me that we are going to set up the principle of an established trade union. It seems to me to be unwise to say to any trade union “you shall have the monopoly in a particular locality.” It often happens that there is a marked difference of opinion in any trade union and that there is a break away of large numbers of members from that union. It seems to me that this section will give the registrar the power to say to the new union which may be formed, “I am sorry we cannot recognize you, because the existing union already satisfies the needs of the trade,” but the fact of these members breaking away would go to prove that that union does not satisfy their needs. There were at one time two trade unions on the Witwatersrand, professing to serve the interests of the mine workers on the Reef. The one was the Mine Workers’ Union and the other was the Mynwerkers’ Bond. Under this Bill, when the Mynworkers’ Bond had come into existence and applied for registration under this Bill, they would be met with the reply “I am sorry we cannot recognize you, because there is already a mine workers’ union in existence which professes to cater for the needs of the mine workers.” I say that I regard this as a most dangerous provision. I do not see why the workers should not be free to form as many unions as they please.

And the employers too.

And the employers too. I would say that it is to my mind distinctly dangerous to set up under this Bill the principle of a monopoly for any existing trades organization. It is by no means certain that an existing trades union organization will be acceptable to the majority or to a large minority of workers and this clause will simply operate in favour of the officials of the union. They will then become petty despots who will be able to say to the workers “either you join us or you will be entirely without relief or without any representation, and even if you do form another union that union will never be registered and you will be unable to get relief by means of the calling of a conciliation board.” In these circumstances I am entirely at one with the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) in proposing the deletion of this paragraph.

A very strong objection was taken a few minutes ago to a very simple amendment proposed by me, namely, that it had the element of compulsion in it. I wonder how many members of this House can tell exactly what the working out of this Bill will be. We are told on the one hand that we must have no compulsion and on the other hand we have this clause here which contains compulsion. I know personally that there are many people who have the strongest objection to be forced to join any union, and I will give you the experience I had in the case of a man who came to me to get work.

It was not the law society was it?

I got work for that man as a printer at the old Transvaal Leader in Johannesburg, but within 24 hours that man came back to me and said “I am sorry to tell you that, I have been dismissed.” I said “Why?” He said “I absolutely refused to join the union, and as soon as they found out that I was at the Leader, they gave notice to the employer that he either must force me to join the union or the men would come out.” That shows the arbitrary way of the union. Talk of compulsion—what is there in this clause but compulsion? And I think we must be careful. We should be grateful to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) for drawing our attention to this. There is nothing to be gained by it. We are told that there is no compulsion. Why then is this clause introduced?

Ek is verwonder om te sien, dat die vertegenwoordiger van die Kamer van Mynwese hier wil probeer om ’n wig in te slaan tussen die werkmense.

Orde, die lid mag geen insinuasies maak van die aard nie.

Ekskuus, Meneer die Voorsitter, maar tog is ek verwonder, dat lede aan die oorkant trag om ’n wig in te dryf tussen lede van die werkorganisasies. Ek sê met nadruk, dat die werkman, wat nie wil aansluit by ’n arbeiders unie nie, is niks anders as ’n “scab.” Die Wet is op die punt nie heeltemaal duidelik nie, maar as iemand aan ’n unie behoort, het hy reg om gehoor te word. Daar op Johannesburg het ons vakvereniginge en dis bepaald, dat elke man, wat werk, moet aansluit. Daar is die Landbou Unie, die Kamer van Mynwese, die Vereniging van Regsgeleerde en mens hoor nie van dwarstrekkery nie. Daar word mooi saamgewerk en waarom moet nou ’n wig geslaan word tussen werkmense onderling?

Ek is verwonder oor die houding van die edele lid vir Fordsburg (de hr. Pretorius), dat hy al die mense wil dwing om aan te sluit by die vakverenigings. Ek dag, dat hy meer van die toestande afweet.

Ek weet goed en ook van die verdrukking, as hulle nie aan vakverenigings behoor nie.

Ek kan die versekering gee, dat daar werkmense is en wel knappe, wat hartelik daarvoor bedank om aan te sluit by ’n vakvereniging. Daaronder is boumeesters, wat die oprigting van groot bouwerke onderneem en nie by dergelike verenigings wil aansluit nie. Die invloed van diesulke weeg swaar en as ons dwang invoer, neem ons die mense se regte weg. Ek is dankbaar dat die lid vir Troyeville (de hr. Webber) die aandag van die Huis op die kwessie gevestig het, en ek vraag al die lede ernstig om saam te staan, om werkmense, wat verkies om sonder lidmaatskap van die vakunies te werk, nie vas te bind nie. Ek het onlangs hier gesê en denk dit al meer, dat onse Ministers glad te veel oorhel na die kant van die sosialiste toe en dit word tyd dat daaraan ’n end gemaak word. Dit is nie reg teenoor mense, wat nie gelei wil word deur oproermakers nie. Ons het genoeg gesien, waarheen sommige vakunies hulle mense heendryf. Vele kan geen werk kry nie, en dit is die skuld van die vakunies en daarunder moet die mense se vrou en kinders ly. As ek moet stem daarvoor om alle werkers in die unies te dwing, sal ek dit nie doen nie, want ek sou daardeur onregverdig handel teenoor ’n deel van my kiesers. Ek vertrou, dat die edele Minister, die ek altoos trag te steun, die beswaar sal insien en die artiekel terugtrek.

Dit soyt my, dat die edele lid vir Troyeville (de hr. Webber) op hierdie stadium daardie kwessie te berde breng van verpligte aansluiting by vakunies. Daar is namelik ’n amendement van die edele lid vir Jeppes (de hr. Sampson) op die Ordepapier in verband met Klousule 22. en daar kan die kwessie bespreek word. Tans gaat dit nie oor die vraag of iemand lid wil of moet word van een, twee of drie organisasies nie Mens kan aan g’neen behoort nie of aan enigeen of aan almal. Op die oomblik is aan die orde die vraagstuk van registrasie en die klousule loop daaroor, dat tensy ’n vakunie ’n genoegsame aantal vakmense verteenwoordig, dieselwe nie geregistreer kan word nie. Die edele lid vir Troyeville (de hr. Webber) het dit oor Klousule 4 en die is afgehandel. By die behandeling van Klousule 22 sal hierdie kwessie teberde gebreng word, en dan sal die edele lid sien dat ek by hom sal staan.

I want to meet one or two arguments which have been raised here. I think the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) have been rather unfortunate in the examples they used. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) used the argument of the man who got employment on the Leader. Now the Leader is defunct, has been defunct for a good long time before this Bill will become law, and so that if what could happen ten years ago without this law I am sure will not make the thing more serious with this law. That is point one. I do not think that that point carries conviction. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) mentioned the question of churches and asked whether you would like any number of churches recognized. We have not started it yet, but I can say this, that this same chaos has arisen in many churches. You have the native churches now. They were started in this country under the aegis of the missionaries. Whenever any of the members became dissatisfied they simply started a new church. Does the hon. member know how many separate churches there are in the Union already? 125, and they are still on the increase. 125 different native Christian churches in the Union, so much so that we do not know who of these native ministers should be recognized as marriage officers and we have had a Select Committee in another place sitting on this matter. The Native Affairs Commission is going into this to-day. It is a very difficult question. The hon. member therefore was rather unfortunate in using the churches as his argument. But then he takes another case, he mentions the workers’ bond on the Rand. Will the hon. member tell me whether the Chamber of Mines ever recognized a workers’ bond, as they did the trade unions, and supposing they did, which is the organization that must conciliate, that must negotiate? Was it the Workers’ Bond or the Miners’ Union? And if both, the one might be satisfied and the other not, but if the one makes an agreement with the employers and the others say “No, we are not satisfied,” you will get nothing but chaos. You cannot have two authorities dealing with the same question in the same area and then say that you are solving the difficulty. No, the only way in which a thing can work is when you have a proper organization. When you have no organization then Clause 4 provides for it, and I want to point out again to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that this question has nothing to do with the question of compulsion to belong to a trade union. The only compulsion here is that they belong to a trade union if they wish to get relief. They have to belong to a trade union because the man who stands out of this clause can get no relief. As far as I am concerned, I must stand by the clause as it is.

Really, the Minister surprises me. He begins by reproaching us for introducing the question of compulsory membership of trade unions here as being outside the provision of this section, and then he goes on to give us a dissertation on religious bodies which are not even mentioned in any provision of the Bill. I am quite aware of the amendment which is set on the paper by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), and I am going to oppose that, but there are more ways of killing a cat than drowning it, and this subsection will have exactly the same effect as is desired by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) in moving the amendment to clause 22. I evidently have not put my point clearly and for the benefit of the right hon. the Minister I will repeat it. Under clause 4 individual members of a trade or the employers of that trade, individual employers of a trade have no right to call for a conciliation board if there is an organization sufficiently representing them in the opinion of the Minister. Now under this section if there is an organization in that trade which, in the opinion of the registrar, not of the Minister this time, sufficiently represents the members or workers in the trade then he can refuse to allow registration of any other organization representing the workers or employees of that trade. Consequently, if a workman or an employer does not belong to a registered union he can neither call for a conciliation board nor can he form a separate union, and he is voiceless in the affairs of his trade or employment.

He can join his union.

Yes, that is the only alternative I say which is left to him, and he is compelled to join that union whether he wishes to or not, and, therefore, I say that this sub-section has exactly the same effect as the amendment which the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) is to introduce. That is, it compels men, whether they wish it or not, to become members of a union. That being so I oppose it strongly.

It is strange to hear the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) speaking in the strain he is doing this afternoon, particularly after what he is reported to have said during the second reading of this Bill. I did not think that the official Hansard would come in so handy as it does on this occasion, showing that a member will say one thing during the second reading of a Bill and something entirely different at the Committee stage. Let me read to the House what the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) did say when the Bill was being read a second time the other day—

What is the hon. member reading from?

I am reading from the official Hansard, and I wish, to bring back to his mind what the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) said on this particular measure when it was being dealt with during the second reading debate. He said—

The hon. member is not in order!

I shall be glad if you will point out why, Sir?

Our Standing Orders provide that no member shall allude to any debate of the same session upon the question of a Bill not being then under discussion, except by the indulgence of this House, or by way of personal explanation.

It is the same Bill.

Yes, I have no objection.

I was under the impression the hon. member was referring to another Bill.

No, Sir, I am referring to the very Bill on which we are now in Committee, and I would not have done so but for the fact that the previous statements of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) were so contradictory to the remarks which he has just made. I just wish to draw attention to the inconsistency of the hon. member. On the second leading of the Industrial Conciliation Bill the hon. member said—

It is now clear that in the Committee stage he objects to the Bill because he feels it compels every workman to join a trade union. But why should he object to that after making such complimentary remarks about the development of trade unions in South Africa? I can, however, readily understand the real meaning of the hon. member for Troyevilles (Mr. Webber) objections to every man joining a trade union. He and those he specially represents in this House have been very successful by the divide and rule plan. Let me tell the hon. member that if every trade union was a 100 per cent. strong, or every employers organization a 100 per cent. strong, there would be no necessity for a Conciliation Bill at all, because there would be no such things as strikes. Why should not a man belong to his trade union? The man who gets his conditions bettered and refuses to belong to the trade union which has brought that about is like a man who goes to a funeral, steals a wreath, and wins a flower show prize with it.

I am very happy to explain my attitude which is exactly the same as that I took up on the second reading. On the second reading I said I was in favour of conciliation and trade unionism.

Not organized trade unionism!

I said well-organized tradeunionism, but I objected to this Bill because it compelled conciliation. I do not believe in this clause, because it seeks to compel men to join a trade union, whether they wish it or not. That is my attitude, and my attitude is exactly the same as it was on the second reading. But the cat is out of the bag. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan), has admitted that the object of the sub-section is to compel men to belong to trade unionism. He has frankly admitted that. There you have real true democracy. A man thinks a thing is good and he is prepared to make other men do what he thinks is good, but he will not allow other men to do what they think is good. Those are the views of the men sitting on those benches, and those are the views which we are asked to pass into legislation. The hon. member asks whom do I represent? I represent the constituents of Troyeville. I am raising this question not at the request of the Chamber of Mines, with whom I have had no communication. I am raising this question at the request of workmen in my constituency, who have nobody else to represent their views in this House. Having noticed the effect of this clause, and having been asked by workmen in my constituency to represent their views in this House, I have done so. I am entirely in concurrence with their views, and that is why I have drawn the attention of this Committee to this sub-section.

The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) twits us with our views on democracy. The hon. member is as aware of the feet as we are that real democracy is the rule of the majority, and if the majority of the workers in any particular organization set up their own Parliament in that organization—their executive committee and their governing body—and they decide on a certain line of action, does the hon. member not say that the minority should submit to the majority?

I say the minority should be heard.

When the views of the majority in this Parliament are passed through and become law, are not all the force of police and military brought to bear to enforce it? The hon. member is a member of the Law Society, but he says that such bodies are in a different, class to trade unions. But is it not compulsory for every member of the hon. member’s profession to belong to that association, and did the hon. member not support the Bill which dealt with this matter, when it came before the House? Is the hon. member prepared to vote for a Bill which says it is optional for every member of the legal profession to belong to that organization? Will the hon. member vote for a Bill which lays down that every member of the legal profession may charge whatever fees he likes? He will vote with both hands for anything which does him good in his profession, but I am surprised at the attitude the hon. member has taken up. We had the Prime Minister, the other day, making one of the strongest features of compulsion, when he introduced the Wine Control Bill into this House. He made it compulsory for every individual in the wine and spirit industry in South Africa to belong to an association and be loyal to it, or else he would have the law on him. And the hon. member who is a member of the Government party, will vote for every particular clause of that Bill. What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander, and yet he says what is good for the commercial and professional classes is not good for the labouring classes. Let us have protection all round. But I rose really to ask the right hon. the Minister a question in connection with this cluse. Every trade union in South Africa, when they register under this Bill, will have to send in a list of the names of the officials of that particular trade union. I want to ask the Minister if these names and addresses would be treated as private and confidential? It is a question I would like the Minister to answer. Will these names and addresses of the officials of any particular trade union in South Africa, be at the disposal of the employers? We speak from experience of the past, that wherever we have had the full names and addresses of all officials of trade unions in the hands of the employers, we have such things as victimization. As my hon. friend behind me said the other day, “there are good employers, but such things do occur.”

What victimization?

In 1914, as soon as it was known that a man was an official of a trade union, he was immediately arrested and put in jail. No charge was made against him at all, but every official of a trade union on the Witwatersrand was routed out and put in jail, simply because he was a trade unionist. We want to know whether they are going to be safeguarded under this Act against the information being handed to the police or to the employers. If the man does do anything wrong—good and well; but we have to face things in the experience of the past, and we know that after martial law was proclaimed in 1914, and before a window was broken on the Reef, every official of the trade unions was arrested and put in jail, and that is why I feel we ought to be protected against such things. We have found in the past that unfortunately the weight and force of the Government have been thrown on the side of employers, and that the whole force of the Government and police has been to get every man they feel is effective at all, to get a grip of that man and put him in jail. After they had him in jail for a few weeks and the strike had been broken, they let him out of jail and sent him to his home and told him to behave himself in future. These are the experiences we have had in the past, and I hope no information is going to leak out of this register of trade unions, which will allow any vindictive action to be taken against officials of trade unions.

I look upon this clause here in a very serious light. I was in Johannesburg, during the strike and saw what happened there, and I should have thought that the Minister, with his long experience of the happenings on the Rand, the least thing he would have done would be to put more power into the hands of the trade unions. Now I, like my hon. friend the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber), am quite in favour of trade unions, but trade unions are not infallible, and it would be a great deal better if they had better leaders.

No, generals.

Instead of these members on the other side advocating that stop orders should not come into existence I have been instructed by telegram from working men on the Rand that they believe in stop orders, and protesting against this action here. It has not always been my pleasure to represent a constituency like Parktown. I was for ten years a member of this House when I represented one of the greatest labour constituencies on the Rand, and I am bound to say that nine out of ten of the men who supported me were labour men, and these men while they liked trade unionism in so far as they were allowed to work in harmony with their fellow workers, were led away as they were in one strike by their leaders. These members on the opposite side had a great deal to do with it, but when strikes happened they were not there. But those of us who support the Minister in defence of this Bill, and we do so very half-heartedly, do not think it is necessary. We believe on the Rand that it is unnecessary, and when a Minister wishes to put more power into the hands of trade unionists, no matter how good they may be, we believe the Minister is doing a wrong thing.

I resent on behalf of the employers of this country the imputation which have been cast on them from the other side of the House with regard to this sub-section (3). Surely you will see that it applies to employers’ organizations as well as trade unions. You have thought fit to carry on a tirade against the trade unions, but you have omitted to tell the House that your remarks can be made to apply equally to employers’ organizations. Do you believe in a multiplicity of employers’ organizations? Do you believe in the freedom of the subject when it concerns their interests? When it comes to a question of an employers’ organization do you believe they should be refused proper organization? Do you believe that when there is already an employers’ organization that every Tom, Dick and Harry should be allowed to butt in and upset it.

Of course.

You do hot mean that. You are so biased against trade unionism that you have never stopped to read to the end of the clause. To make a success of this Bill it is necessary to encourage organizations of workers and employers, and this Bill does so. In every country where they have tried to pass Conciliation Bills without provision of the skind, multiplicity of organizations has prevented anybody putting their finger on the spot when they desired to bring a board into existence. Look at the Acts of every part of the world, not controlled by Labour Parties, passed by Conservatives and others. In every successful Act of this kind you will find a similar provision with regard to registration of trade unions that, where there is already a representative organization in a locality, or occupation or industry, then the registrar may refuse to register another organization. And it is necessary. If you have a conciliation board say of six members aside, and on the employees’ side there happens to be one representative each from six rival trade unions who found points of disagreement long ago, and split up, sitting there opposite the employers, what hope do you think there would be of agreement? I would say, if I were an employer under those circumstances, to these young fellows, “Go home and settle your own differences before you come here and discuss things with me.” That is not the way to make a success of this Bill, and I claim that the only way is as you propose doing here. Look at the evidence of your Select Committee where one set of persons came forward and said they were representative of the workers in a trade, and the next day another set of persons came forward and wanted to give evidence for the workers in the same trade, because they said the other party did not represent them. Chaos! and you will get more chaos if you listen to the advice of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber), who would not follow it in his own business relationships.

I do not follow the reasoning of my hon. friend behind me. It seems to me that they are taking this clause wrongly altogether. This is not a clause for compelling people to become trade unionists, this is a clause for registering unions.

It has that effect.

It has not, and I cannot see how it has that effect. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) has tried to explain it, he says, and by reference to Clause 4, which may have that effect. I can understand that because Clause 4 says that the representations of individual workers in regard to a dispute which may arise between them and their employers will not go to a conciliation board if there is in that employment an organized body of workers which is regarded by the Minister as being sufficiently representative. That is only natural. For the purpose of a Conciliation Act you must work through organizations, and if you have an organization adequately representing the workmen concerned it is no use applying the machinery of conciliation on the complaint of individuals. You must work through organizations, otherwise your conciliation is useless. I can understand the hon. member objecting to that clause, because there should be enough freedom, for the individual worker to get conciliation machinery set up if there is no fully representative organization in existence. But how can he say that this clause makes it compulsory for people to belong to trade union organizations I really cannot see. The complaint I can understand is that it does not permit a second body to come along and ask for conciliation. That may be a good argument against this clause, but even so the person must belong to an organization before he can go before the registrar. Whatever complaints there are against Clause 4, I cannot see where the arguments apply in this particular clause. I think that the principles in this clause are fair.

For the benefit of the right hon. the Minister I shall put my point again: Clause 4 provides that applications for conciliation boards can only be made by the organization, or if there is no organization, by the individuals. This clause says if there is an organization, which in the opinion of the registrar represents the particular trade sufficiently, he may refuse to register another organization, representing the members of that trade. Consequently a working man in a trade for which there is already a registered union can only be heard if he deals through the union. Under Clause 4 he cannot make application except through the union. That is why I say, this section compels the working man to belong to a union.

One of the difficulties that I see in Clause 14 (3) (c) is the use of the word “area.” It is too vague. It is not defined in the definition clause though it is used in several clauses of the Bill, e.g., Clause 2 you have “area” used—the area being defined in the application for an industrial council. In Clause 4 you have reference to “area”: there the Minister can define. But in this clause there is no limit and some definition should be given to the word, as it is too vague. One of the points made by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) was the comparison between trade unions and the law society, and the point I wish to make is that the difference between the law society, or a doctors’ society and a trade union is that the former are created by Act of Parliament after consideration by the Parliament in which every section of the community is represented, which lays down the constitution and principles of the society in each case and keeps statutory control. They are not like trade unions, merely voluntary self-constituted bodies making their own rules and regulations from their own point of view only.

Two new points have been raised; one by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), who asked if these registers would be public. There is nothing in the Bill which closes the register to the public. A public officer holds the public register and anybody is entitled to get the information. Of course, it will be in the discretion of the officer himself whether the people seeking information are of such a character as entitles them to it. That is the law in all public registers. The officers are well known and in a case of any victimization which might arise on account of this information, I think the conciliation board would have little difficulty in dealing with it. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) in regard to the definition of “area,” I think we should give discretionary power to the registering officer to fix the area when an application is made. I do not think we can define generally what an area is, or is going to be, as it depends on the industry and the particular part of the country. The object of the section is that when the application comes to the registrar he fixes the area. I do not think it necessary to put in a definition, as the area will be considered when the application is registered.

Question put: That paragraph (c), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause; and the Committee divided:

Ayes—83.

Alberts, S. F.

Alexander, M.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bailey, A.

Bates, F. T.

Bisset, M.

Boydell, T.

Buchanan, W. P.

Burton, H.

Byron, J. J.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Claassen, G. M.

Close, R. W.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Waal, J. H. H.

Dreyer, T. F. J.

Duncan, P.

Fitchat, H.

Forsyth, R.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Fourie, J. C.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Greenacre, W.

Grobler, H. S.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Henderson R. H.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Jagger, J. W.

Jansen, E. G.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Lemraer, L. A. S.

Le Roux, P. W.

Le Roux, S. P.

Macintosh, W.

Mackeurtan. H. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, F. S.

Malan, M. L.

McAlister, H. S.

Moffat, L.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, J. F.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Nixon, C. E.

Obermeyer, J. G.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pretorius, J. S F.

Purcell, I.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Reitz, D.

Robinson, C. P.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Saunders. E. G. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Stewart, J.

Strachan. T. G.

Stuart, W. H.

Van Aardt, F. J.

Van Heerden. I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Zyl. G. B.

Visser, T. C.

Waterston, R. B.

Watt, T.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Wilcocks, C. T. M.

Tellers: De Jager, A. L.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—21.

Ballantine, R.

Bezuidenhout, W. W. J. J.

Blackwell, L.

Cilliers, P. S.

Coetzee, J. P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Harris, D.

Jordaan, P. J.

King, J. G.

Louw, G. A.

Nel, T. J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Rockey, W.

Scholtz, P. E.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Van Heerden B. I. J.

Venter, J. A.

Webber, W. S.

Tellers: Nathan E.; Collins, W. R.

Question accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Webber negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clauses 15 to 19 put and agreed to.

moved—

I submit that any employer who places obstacles in the way of an employee to become a member of a trade union acts in conflict with the principles of this Bill. The Select Committee which dealt with the Bill sent back the Bill to this Assembly containing a clause practically identical with the one I now propose, but I notice that it has disappeared from the Bill which the Minister now introduces. I would like to point out to the Minister that there is a very strong necessity at the present time for this provision, I do not know whether in respect of other industries, but I do know that in the mining industry there is every necessity for a clause of this kind. My attention has been called to the various provisions which exist in the regulations issued by the Chamber of Mines through the Gold Producers Committee. I have a report of Monday, March 6th. 1923, issued by the Chamber of Mines in which they tell us that they have inserted a new clause in the agreement of service as follows—

That is one instance where I think undue pressure is brought to bear on persons employed by mining companies not to become members of trade unions contrary to the principles of this Bill. I have another document which I also want to quote. The E.R.P.M. have issued a certain memorandum of privileges they, are prepared to grant to engine drivers. They go on to state that if the men want these privileges they must send along the following letter. This is the letter which the men have to send to the mines. This letter is to be addressed to the chief engineer of the East Rand Proprietary Mines, Ltd. The draft letter reads—

This has to be signed by the man. He is required to send in that letter with that last paragraph before he can receive these privileges. I say that this is an absolute abuse of the principle of freedom. That is what prevails at the present time on the Reef where there is a surplus of men of all grades for employment in the mining industry. They take advantage of that surplus in the labour market by imposing these sorts of conditions, and that is the way in which the employers are trying to force the men on the mines to leave their unions. I do not know of any more fruitful source of future friction than that. The man who has to sign a thing like that, a thing which is entirely in conflict with his common sense, does so because he has to get employment to live, but it will make a man bear a grudge against his employer until the end of his life. There is no use us trying to make men good trade unionists, there is no good us trying to make men go along the straight line or act constitutionally when this sort of thing is permitted by employers. Leaving the mines aside, no employer should have the right to say to any man that it must be a condition of employment that he must not be a member of a trade union. The Bill should prevent that sort of thing. It is provided in this Bill that trade unions in future must apply for registration. They are to submit copies of their rules, which are to be perused by a registrar and the registrar should see to it that those rules contain no provisions which are in conflict with the laws of the land. The trade unions will have a new status and they will come under the law in the same way as the law society or the medical society. The State in future will be responsible for the registration of trade unions, and surely you will not register them if they are undesirable bodies; surely you will not consider making provision for bodies which you consider should be left outside the pale of the law. We are therefore entitled to ask the protection of the law against the abuse of freedom and coercion which is taking place on the mines to make them leave their unions, because that sort of thing will lead to a store of trouble for the future, trouble which is quite unnecessary. I move the insertion of the new clause, proposed by me.

I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). The discussion which we have just listened to on a previous clause, was really a little premature and previous. It would have been much more germane on this clause. It seems to me that we should not interfere with the membership, whether the workman is or is not a member of the trade union, and it seems to me that it would be a mistake to put this into the Act. It would be a mistake from: the point of view of principle, to put this in. In practice it is found that you cannot lay down a hard and fast rule of this kind. You have cases of men joining a trade union as ordinary workmen; then such a man gets promotion and he becomes an official. Then, must he resign from that trade union or not, and if an employer says “well you must,” then you have difficulties, and it is on account of practical difficulties which have already arisen which are in existence, that I think it will be a mistake to put in this clause. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), has quoted the case of the engine drivers on the East Rand Proprietary Mines. My attention has been drawn to these cases, and this is the information which I have on this matter—

So that as far as this particular case is concerned, the principle is recognized that it should not be done, and where it had a colour of that, the matter has been put right by the administration. I think this would smack of the compulsion which the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) has so strongly objected to, and as this is a purely voluntary measure, I do not think that I can accept this.

I do not think the Minister is quite fair. He says it would smack of that compulsion which the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) has objected to. On the contrary, if this clause went in it would make it purely voluntary, as far as this law is concerned, whether a man joined a trade union or not. I claim the right as a workman, to belong to any trade union I like, and I claim that no employer ought to have the right to say, as a condition of my being employed, that I should not belong to a trade union, or to which trade union I should belong. Personally, I have paid for about twenty-eight years to one particular trade union, and my accumulated benefits in that union runs into three figures. It is quite a considerable sum. That will fall to my dependents when I die. Suppose an employer, as a condition of employment, says to me “You must not belong to that particular trade union,” then have I to give up these benefits which I have contributed to for half a lifetime, at his request? The hon. the Minister does not know very much about trade union rules, for in the rules of all the trade unions which I am acquainted with, provision is made that if a man becomes a foreman or officer or holds a position of trust, even if; he is a mere buffer between the employers and the employees, he is absolved from all strikes and attendance at trade union meetings, he is not allowed to take part in ballots while he occupies that position. But when he ceases to hold that post he comes back into the union, and enjoys full benefits. Sometimes these benefits are interchangeable, they are international. The hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) will tell you that no matter what part of the world he goes to, he carries his accumulated benefits throughout his lifetime. With the insertion of this clause nobody’s rights are interfered with. We simply wish that they shall not be interfered with, whether he wishes to remain a member of a trade union or to join one. To interfere would be against the principle of this Act, and if this kind of interference spread all over the country you might as well tear your Act up. Then strikes in the future will be a rabble. You will have no responsible officials to go to and say “What is all this trouble about?” No, you will have nothing of that kind, you will have a rabble to deal with. What we are trying to do is to bring some order out of present confusion. No, that is not the spirit in which this Bill should pass this House. If strikes do take place as the result of this tyranny, on the Witwatersrand, I hope you will blame yourselves and not us.

I should just like to say a few words on this amendment. Why I support the amendment of the hon. hember for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) is because this is a Conciliation Bill. I have also had the communication sent to me that he has had from Johannesburg giving this correspondence, part of which he has read, and I have heard the explanation of the Minister. In the original letter there was nothing to show that it was confined to officials. It has been suggested by the Minister that in effect the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) is interfering and is asking the House to interfere in the freedom of choice. That is not so. The amendment, as I read it, ensures that every man can join a trade union if he likes. The amendment does not say that an employer may not employ a non-union man, but what it does say is that you cannot make.it a condition of employment that he shall not belong to a trade union. If you are going to allow powerful employers, in a time of scarcity of employment, to say “I am not going to allow you to join a union,” you are going to promote industrial warfare. I do not see why any employer should make any enquiry about a man at all, or his union. It has nothing to do with him. You say you can ride a coach and horses through any Act. Well then, if the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) thinks that in regard to this measure he should strive to tighten it up a bit. The principle laid down in the amendment is sound. If you make it a condition that a man shall not belong to a trade union you insult the whole of trade unionism. The Minister says that the organization of industry is of the utmost importance both on the men’s side and the employers’ side. But you might as well say that the men should stipulate that if the Chamber of Mines continues to exist we shall not work for you. It is just as logical if you deprive men of the right to form their unions not to allow the employers to form theirs.

I have a good deal of sympathy with the principle of the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), but I have grave doubt as to whether this particular section is going to do any good. What is going to happen to an employer when he asks a man if he belongs to a trade union and the employee replies in the affirmative, and the employer does not engage him? Who is going to prove that the man was not employed because his answer was in the affirmative? The employer will say that the non-engagement of this man was due to another cause than that. The man will maintain the contrary. Your careful anti-union employer will simply not put the question at all. He will ask the candidate for employment to call another day, but will find by indirect means whether he is a member of a trade union, and if he is, when the man calls again he will be told that there is no job for him. So that your employer who seeks by devious ways to kill trade unionism will be unhurt. I think this is an attempt to manufacture a new crime, which is to be deprecated. There must be other ways of bringing pressure to bear on an anti-trade union employer. But I do not think any useful purpose would be served by striving to send him to gaol because of his attitude towards His employees as proposed by this particular clause.

I quite understand what the hon. member says when he speaks of the ways in which the enforcement of the provision proposed by the amendment can be avoided. I think the force of the hon. member’s argument is that there would be employers who would say, “Call to-morrow,” and would then set to work to ascertain whether that man was a member of a trade union. There would be very few who would do this. If you read Sidney Webb’s History of Trade Unionism you will find what is called “the document,” which a man had to sign away back in the sixties and forties. Supposing there are other ways of bringing pressure, supposing that the men in that craft concerned declared a mine a “scab” mine and if they endeavoured as far as they possibly could to avoid any man working on that mine, you very soon would have a very acute industrial disturbance. I think it is a most dangerous thing. I think when passing legislation of this sort, which is entirely dependent for its efficacy on organization being encouraged by both sides, to allow a state of things such as my hon. friend mentions to come about would be a great mistake.

I would like to point out to the hon. member that if they want to be fair there ought to be a complementary clause making it an offence for any employee refusing to work with a non-union man. If you want to penalize the employer by saying, “You shall not stipulate that a man shall not belong to a trade union,” then you must penalize an employer or a union also if they said as a condition of their continuing to work, “We won’t work for you unless you join a trade union.” You cannot have it all on one side: Penalize the employer if he takes up a hostile attitude towards a trade union and then let the employees or the frade union go free if they want to penalize the man who does not want to join the trade union. Therefore, I am against this principle because it introduces the idea of compulsion, but if this were to be carried out by the House, which I hope it will not be, then to be fair and balance the thing you would have to put in a clause to that effect also.

The Minister should give an instance of an employee refusing to work for a non-union employer. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) has submitted conclusive evidence that various organizations of employers are laying it down that it shall be a condition of employment that their employees shall not belong to a trade union. I would be more convinced by the Minister’s arguments if he were able to bring forward similar such evidence to that presented by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson).

I know of instances that they would not work unless a man joined a union.

I have heard of an endeavour to bring that about, but unfortunately we have not got to that state of perfection yet. The Minister can always be relied on to put up a very effective argument in support of any attitude he takes up. In view of the fact that the Minister himself moved into the Bill this very clause which the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) is now endeavouring to re-insert, why is he weakening an otherwise excellent Bill by removing this clause and inserting other provisos which are so unnecessary? Coming back to the point of employers not desiring their employees to belong to trade unions, I myself have worked in a printing office where a large placard was on the wall to the effect that: “Any employee joining a trade union will be instantly dismissed.” Surely it is time we were getting away from that sort of thing. I would ask the member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) to insert an additional word in his amendment, that is the word “registered” before “trade union” and it would then read—

That would make it quite clear.

I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment with the addition of the word “registered.” If you are going to register trade unions, then I think it would be entirely wrong for any employer to be allowed to make it a condition of employment that his workmen should not belong to a trade union.

I was unfortunately called out at the time the speech was made by the mover of this amendment and when the reply of the Minister was made, but having considered the evidence given in Select Committee and having considered this particular amendment at a public meeting which I held in my constituency and subsequently at a meeting with the leaders of the trade unions in Johannesburg, I wish to give this amendment my support subject to this condition, that the mover will accept an interlineation as follows, and I move this amendment subject to the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) which I hope the House will accept I move—

Now, the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), in the part of his speech which I heard, said that this was the only thing, this interference with the rights of officials, which was objected to in his amendment. I want to remove that. There are only two ways, either by some such amendment as I have moved, or by the hon. the Minister, when he approves of the regulations of these trade unions, to insist on a stipulation in them that an official or an officer of trust may not belong to a trade union. I think this a better way, and I hope the Minister will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) with this further amendment.

It is well known that I am strongly in favour of trade unions, but I object to some of their methods. I quite agree with the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) that no employer of labour should make it a condition that any man who is not a member of a trade union or vice versa will be employed by him. But I think the hon. member wishes to make it an offence that if any employer lays it down as a maxim that he will only employ non-labour men it will be an offence. With that I agree, but I think there should be liberty and freedom. If a man wishes to keep out of a trade union or if he wishes to join one, let him use his discretion. It appears to me that this is one-sided altogether. You punish the employer, but there are many cases in this country where a body of trade unionists have refused to work for an employer side by side with a man who is not a trade unionist.

Not a parallel case.

To my mind it is.

Not a parallel case.

Why you should want to punish an employer because he lays it down that he will only employ non-union men I cannot understand, unless you make it an offence for the men who refuse to work with non-union men. Why should they not exercise liberty and freedom as well as anybody else? There should be liberty of freedom not only for oneself but for all men, and I say if these men refuse to work side by side with a non-union man I would make that an offence also. Under these conditions unless this proviso as mentioned by the Minister is put in this Bill in addition to the hon. member’s amendment I shall vote against it.

The case put by the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris), cannot be regarded as a parallel case. What would be a parallel case is, that a body of trade unionists should attempt to dictate to a body of employers and demand that a certain employer should be forced to join their association. Such action is never taken. I think that trade unions have a perfect right to deal with their own members, in the interest of trade unionism, and in stating that a particular man should belong to the trade union. In the main, this is in the best interest of the whole body of workers. I did not catch the whole of the details in the letter read from the E.R.P.M., but if I understood the Minister aright, it was to the effect that when men became officials they were to cease to belong to trade unions. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) covered that point, but I see a great danger in this matter. Take this particular form of letter, say it is written to a member of the Engineers’ Association—this particular man may sign innocently that particular document and would be put on the staff, and practically an official under the new arrangement, and now being an official he may practically be debarred from becoming a member of the trade union. This is a very great danger to me, and I fear that by that particular method, they may be able to strike a great blow at trade unionism. It is easy to say we are out for the success of trade unionism, but if employers act in this manner, it is one of the most effective ways of destroying trade unionism. Everything should be done to stop that. It seems to me that the method as suggested in the motion of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) will counteract such methods. He proposed it be an offence if any body of employers bring pressure to bear, or suggest to an employee that he should not be a member of a trade union. We are out to build up trade unionism to make it an effective form of getting peace in the industrial world, and I think the proposal is a very reasonable one. As to the hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon) I hope he will see his way to support the motion in the best interest of trade unionism, and in the interest of peace in the industrial life of this country.

I was very much impressed with the speech of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) and those who spoke on his side, until I heard the speech of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan). If I understand the amendment, its aim is to prevent employers making stipulations in contracts, that they will not employ any member of a trade union. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg explained the case, in which there was a placard stuck up, in which the employer stated that any member of the trade union would be discharged. How will the position be altered if the amendment is adopted? I think the only thing it will have the effect of doing is to alter the method of the employer. In the case where an employer has sent round a circular to the men and states that he will not employ trade unionists, how is that to be met? I felt that this clause should be inserted in the interest of trade unions in general, but I am impressed by the remarks by the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris), and although his was not a parallel case I feel there was some force in his remarks. We must be very careful in not creating new offences. Instead of allowing the master to act in a straightforward manner, we are going to make him do the same thing in a round about fashion, making it impossible to get at him. As at present advised, I am not prepared to support the amendment.

While the hon. member was speaking I thought he was going to vote for the clause, but before he sat down he altered his tone. I would be the last member in the House to take away any man’s freedom unless that freedom was absurd. I do not think that any member will dispute the fact I have shown clearly that the freedom which at present exists has been abused. By doing as has been suggested by some members you will leave a pretty aftermath for employers and employees. We should not speak with two voices; we either do or do not believe in conciliation. The principle of the Bill is this: that the conditions of employment should be determined by conciliation rather than by strikes. We have, therefore, gone to a lot of trouble in the Bill to set up machinery by which these matters can be settled without strikes. We find, and it cannot be denied, that the conciliation boards cannot work successfully without a high state of organization both among the employers and the employees; if that condition does not exist it would be as well to have no conciliation boards at all. The discussion on the previous subject brought out that point quite clearly. Now, I want to know how you are going to get negotiation if employers claim the right—and exert that right as I have proved that they are doing—to insist that as a condition of employment their employees shall not be organized. On the one hand you will have a highly organized body of employers, as there is now in the mining industry, while on the other hand the employees are not to be allowed to organize. In what way are you going to set up a conciliation board by which you hope to avoid disputes? The two things are entirely in conflict. And then you say that it will be this position of affairs. You tell us that per contra, we should provide that no one shall tell a man that he must belong to a trade union. I say that no employer should have the right to tell any employee that he must belong to an organization or not. The employers do not want this protection, because they are not dependent on others for employment. Because the employee is dependent on the employer for employment, the employers can use their power and insist that their employees accept these conditions, which are entirely in conflict with the principle of this Bill. But all the argument used here this afternoon is quite beside the mark when you come to the real point which induced the Minister to drop this clause. The real point is the cry raised by the Chamber of Mines over a long period of years that officials of the mines should not be members of the South African Mine Workers Union. That is all there is in it. That is the only question we have to face here. I do not know what the South African Mine Workers Union has to say on this point. I do not know what the opinion of the officials of the mines is on this point. After all they should be left free to settle this between themselves, but I do know that in the union to which I belong, and it is a common practice in trade unions, that when a man accepts a managerial post or a post which entails charge of men, the supervision of a workshop, that man becomes an honorary member of the union and ceases to take active part in the union. In other words he cannot be called out on strike. He is purely an honorary member and not an active member. My union makes that provision, and I am sure others do too. That is where the employer is safeguarded. Now how can that end be secured in regard to other organizations which have not made that provision? There is another stage of this Bill where amendments are permitted if due notice is given. Under the registration of trade unions a provision might be inserted to the effect that no union may be registered unless its rules make provision for that very eventuality which I have just mentioned—that if any of its members accept managerial or official posts—provided that it is not carried too far, so that a man is a foreman of himself only—that that member of the trade union shall cease to be an active member of the union and for the time he is in that post become an honorary member. This would settle that dispute. Such a member of a trade union would not have to give up long years of membership and the accrued benefits of these long years in order to secure employment. But the howl has gone up on the Rand against trade unions. They are so blinded that they cannot see the proper way of treating things. They have flown to the Minister, but they have not suggested a proper remedy. Personally I do not want any official to be placed in a false position. On the one hand he has certain obligations to fulfil to his employer, and should not be pulled out on strike. I agree that the man is in a false position. Well, deal with that aspect when you are again dealing with the registration of trade unions. As you are going to discriminate between one union and another, they will value that registration and they will then agree to the other point. I am sure that any decent trade union would accept the provision that when a man accents any official post under his employer that he should cease to be an active member of the trade union, continuing to pay his subscription and receive benefits, but would not be expected to participate in any industrial troubles—that provision would be accepted. I can relate instances, as can the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan), when the printing trade was not on its present amicable footing, when we got constantly at grips with powerful employers’ organizations. On the one hand they tried to keep our union down, and we on our side tried to keep down the employers’ unions. We have had to go through that phase, but we do not want to see every industry having to go through all these phases which we had to go through before both sides came to their senses. We want in this Bill to lay down instead the principle of conciliation, that boards should decide the conditions of employment under which men shall work. But if you allow the conditions I have objected to continue as other members have urged, you will soon have a state of affairs very much resembling Bolshevism. You will have to deal with mobs and not organized unions. In these circumstances I hope my amendment will be agreed to. I wish to add with the permission of the House that the words “engagement or” be inserted before the word “employment” in my motion.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Nixon put and negatived.

New Clause, proposed by Mr. Sampson, put, and the Committee divided.

Ayes—45.

Alberts. S. F.

Alexander. M.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bates, F. T.

Beyers, F. W.

Boydell, T.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

Enslin, J. M.

Forsyth, R.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Havenga, N. C.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Jansen, E. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, P. W.

Le Roux, S. P.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Nixon, C. E.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Smit, J. S.

Snow, W. J.

Stewart, J.

Strachan, T. G.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Wilcocks, C. T. M.

Tellers: Pienaar, J. B.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—51.

Ballantine, R.

Blackwell, L.

Buchanan, W. P.

Burton, H.

Byron, J. J.

Cilliers, P. S.

Claassen, G. M.

Close, R. W.

Coetzee, J. P.

Dreyer, T. F. J.

Duncan, P.

Fitchat, H.

Fourie, J. C.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Graumann, H.

Greenacre, W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Henderson, J.

Henderson, R. H.

Jagger, J. W.

Jordaan, P. J.

King, J. G.

Lemmer, L. A. S.

Louw, G. A.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, F. S.

McAlister, H. S.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, T. J.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Purcell, I.

Reitz, D.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Saunders, E. G. A.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Van Aardt, F. J.

Van Heerden B. I. J.

Venter, J. A.

Watt, T.

Webber, W. S.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; De Jager, A. L.

Proposed new Clause accordingly negatived.

Clause 20 put and agreed to.

On Clause 21.

moved—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Before you put the next clause, Mr. Chairman, I desire to move—

22

1. (1) No part of the funds of a trade union shall be used for any particular purpose nor shall any levy be made on any members of a trade union for any such purpose unless two-thirds of the total number of such members have by ballot consented to such use or levy.
2. (2) Any ballot taken under the provisions of sub-section (1) of this section shall be conducted under the supervision or direction of the Minister, who shall take such steps for such ballot and to secure secrecy as he shall deem fit.
3. (3) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this section or any of the regulations framed for the taking of any ballot thereunder shall be guilty of an offence.

The reasons which prompted me to move this are that a trade union is not a political society.

How do you know?

Is it?

I don’t know, I am asking.

The very object I have in mind is to deal with what the hon. member suggested, ‘How do you know that they are not a political body?” I do not want them to be a political body. It is obvious that a large number of people who join do so for the purpose of protecting their trade and not to protect any political section.

Why do you not accept that for the employers’ organizations?

Will the hon. member move it? I think it must be self-evident to a large number of the members of this Committee that all the members of a union do not possess the same political views, and if funds are going to be utilized for the purpose of furthering the political aims of a certain section it would not be fair to those members who did not belong to that political body. If two-thirds of the total section of a trade union are in favour of the funds being utilized in a political direction then I think the funds might be used for that purpose. I do not wish to detain this Committee, but I should like to say I have a large section of public opinion behind me in this matter, and I hope that the hon. Minister will accept this amendment.

Is the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) actually serious in moving this new clause in here?

I do not think my face indicated anything else.

It is foolish; it is really very difficult to know whether the hon. member (Mr. Nathan) is serious in doing so, because if this new clause comes in it is going to upset the balance of this Bill. The Minister and a Select Committee have endeavoured to maintain an equal balance, or as near as possible, between the trade unions on the one hand and the employers’ organizations on the other. In moving this amendment regarding ballots the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) also included employers’ organizations. But in this amendment he deals only with the trade union side of industry. There is no necessity to take a ballot whether the funds of a trade union can be used for political purposes. If the funds of South African trade unions were used for political purposes, we would have many more representatives here than we have at present in this corner of the House. It is simply because there are such divergencies of opinion in the trade union movement politically that makes this proposed clause altogether unnecessary. Now, I feel that the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) must have been reading in the papers from England about the British Labour Party’s Million Shilling Fund. The British Labour Party have formed for political purposes a fund to raise a million shillings, and, I do not suppose the House would credit it, but it is said that many of the unemployed have sent shillings out of their doles. Yes, and old age pensioners have subscribed to the Million Shilling Fund out of the miserable pittance they get from the Old Age Pension Fund. It is also said that orphans of ex-service men have emptied their money boxes to assist the cause of freedom for which their fathers fought. But we have nothing of the kind in this country. The industrial labour movement subscribe no funds towards the political labour movement.

I wish they did.

Yes, so do I; and they ought to do so. If the hon. member for Yon Brandis (Mr. Nathan) insists upon his amendment I wish to move—

This matter of a trade nation fund for political purposes is an old fight which was fought out in England some years ago and, as a matter of fact, legislation in one way or another has been introduced to say that trade unions can do with their funds according to the wishes of their members. They contribute and after all I think they are the best people to say what should be done with their funds. In view of that I think it would be a mistake to exercise control over the funds of organizations which are well able to look after their own.

In view of the illuminating speech which we have just listened to from the hon. member opposite (Mr. Strachan) I am quite prepared to accept his addition.

You are what?

I am prepared to accept his amendment in the hope that he will vote for my amendment as now amended and, therefore, the argument that I have attempted to upset the balance of the Bill disappears. I am sorry to see the hon. the Minister supported him in that, that they should have the right of using their funds as they desire. Now, the hon. member speaking just now (Mr. Strachan) did not say that they did not use their funds for political purposes. He was careful not to say that.

He did say it.

No he did not, and I noticed at the time, that he did not say that they did not use their funds for political purposes.

They don’t then.

Am I to accept that as an assurance, and in view of that that the hon. member will vote for my amendment? We have had it right through this debate that many clauses should not be inserted because they did so much harm; the point is not how much harm they would do but how much good they will do. I say very little good. The trend of legislation is in the direction of assisting trade unions and in so far as they are instrumental in stopping strikes I am prepared to support them. Speaking as a politician and a member of this House, and as one who looks upon things from all sides and not from one solitary point of view —

You only see this from one.

I have not the same mentality as the hon. member and accordingly take a wider view. This clause I hope will commend itself to the Committee.

Unfortunately I was too late on section twenty, but I think I have an opportunity under this clause of bringing the matter up. I see a definition of “private registry office.” For what reason in a conciliation bill are we legislating for private registry offices? It seems to me that some one has said: “As we are dealing, in this Bill, with masters and servants, let us take the opportunity of legislating for private registry offices.” That seems to have been the principle in the Transvaal Act 20 of 1909, but we in the Cape have an Act, working very well, No. 20 of 1906, in which private registry offices are treated separately. I am sorry I did not object to this section altogether, as it seems to me to be quite outside the scope of this Bill to bring in legislation dealing with private registry offices. In the Cape a particular person was registered as the holder of a registry office licence and the licence could not be transferred, without investigation of the character of the transferee. A section was put in that no person could get a transfer of a licence, unless that person was approved by a magistrate in the same way as the person who had originally applied for the licence had been approved. I won’t go so far as to move an amendment here, but I think this is a matter that does not concern a conciliation bill, even though it does the relation between a master and his servant.

In the existing Transvaal Act there is no provision similar to this, and unless you re-enact the Cape provision, there will be no law in regard to the registration in the Transvaal. If you do not put this in here you have nothing in the Free State or Natal dealing with the matter, while in the Cape, there is the law of 1906. I may say that the Labour Conference of the League of Nations has passed a resolution against all private registries. They say and urge that the Government, and the Government alone, should have control of registration offices, because the abuse going on all over the world is so great. I am not going quite as far as that, but I say we ought to control the registration of these offices to the extent now suggested. If that is not in the Bill, you will have no law in the Union as far as the Free State and Natal are concerned, and I think you ought to assist the representations of the Labour Conference to the extent proposed here.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Strachan, put and agreed to.

New clause proposed by Mr. Nathan put and negatived.

Clauses 22 to 26 and Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed.

Bill reported with amendments; amendments to be considered on 18th February.

moved, as an unopposed motion—

He said: This is a contingent notice of motion in reference to the Medical Bill referred to the Committee of the whole House that the Bill be referred back to a Select Committee, either the one sitting last year or a new Select Committee as the Minister may think fit, in order that evidence may be taken in respect of Clause 34. Clause 34 of the Bill states—

May I point out to the House that the Bill as sent to the Select Committee last year has been amended. A new clause has been inserted. That is the portion of the new clause which I have dealt with. That clause will make it an offence for any drugless healer in the country to practice and carry on his work as a drugless healer because it has been laid down by the Secretary for Public Health, in his evidence before the Select Committee, that any person who does anything in the way of trying to heal any person must be a qualified medical practitioner as the Bill stands at present. The South African branch of the British Medical Association have circularized this House and accepted this clause. They say they are quite satisfied.

That shows that healing, the right to heal anyone is to be the close preserve of the medical profession. Otherwise they would not have taken the trouble to circularize all the members of this House. They say that they are quite satisfied with this Clause 34 as it was amended by the Select Committee which sat last session. All I am going to do now is to try and put up the case, not that the methods of this or that method of healing are right or wrong, I am not going into the merits to-night, but I am going to try and establish a case so that those people, the drugless healers, shall have an opportunity of putting their case before the Select Committee and of giving evidence on their own behalf. As it is, the only evidence taken in connection with this Clause 34 was the evidence of Dr. Mitchell, and he said that the crux of the whole Bill was in Clause 34. Perhaps I had better read out what he said—

Now the position is this. If Dr. Mitchell’s interpretation is correct, and if the interpretation placed on the clause, as it now stands, and as agreed to by the medical profession of South Africa, is correct, then as I say, the art or science of healing is to be made by this Parliament a close preserve of the registered medical practitioners in South Africa, and all those who are practising to-day, and practising successfully, and healing hundreds of thousands by means other than medicine—by drugless means—will be liable to be prosecuted and fined £100 for healing persons, many of whom doctors have given up. In my opinion to-day there are more people being cured by drugless healers—permanently cured—than there are cured by registered medical practitioners. In other parts of the world, in America in particular, there are no less than 20,000 qualified and registered drugless healers in one branch of drugless healing only, and that is the branch of cheiropractics, which is really spinal adjustment. Then also there are the Christian Scientists. No one can say that they do not in many cases effect healing by applying spiritual forces to the human body. Then there are the osteopaths, the bone-setters. They have been excedingly successful in their cures in this and other countries, and I ask this House not to allow this Bill to go into Committee of the whole House without these people having had the opportunity of stating their case before the Select Committee. Surely, if the medical profession has such a strong case and are so strong in their methods, they will not object to the other side being heard. How can this House do justice to both sides, and especially to the one side, if they do not allow these people to state their case so that we can have it on record? As it is they have to go by default, not through their own fault, but merely because they were not aware when Parliament rose that this Bill had been amended in the way it has been amended. And this is the first opportunity which they have had of seeing that the Bill as it now stands is going to preclude them, to prohibit them, from carrying on their work as drugless healers. Now they ask that they might be allowed to come along and give evidence on their own behalf.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.12 p.m.

When the House rose I was pointing out that the Medical Bill which the Minister wanted to go into Committee of the whole House, gives a monopoly of healing to the medical profession. I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture is here for he is a medical man, or rather has been a medical man, I would like to appeal to his sense of fair play and justice and ask him to support me in this motion to have this Bill referred back to a Select Committee, so that those people who are affected by it will have an opportunity of stating their case before a Committee of the House. The medical fraternity will also have an opportunity of stating their case, and when both sides have been heard by the Select Committee this House will be able to see how far the cheiropractors and others have established their position. So far this House has had no evidence on this matter. Surely, we are not going to condemn these people unheard. That is all my motion asks this House to do at this juncture. I would appeal to all sides of this House, and I ask the Minister not to make this a party question, but let members vote freely on this occasion. All that members will be doing is saying to these people, “We will give you an opportunity of stating your case before the Select Committee.” I have here a telegram from the secretary of the Cheiropractors’ Association of South Africa urging this course. In America there are something like 20,000 cheiro practitioners qualified and registered. They are able to sign medical certificates and are on the same footing as medical practitioners. During the last 20 years we have had evidence that there are more scientific methods of healing than medicine, and I venture to suggest that within the next 20 years the taking of drugs for disease will be the exception rather than the rule. There are thousands and thousands of people in this country, and there are millions in America and other parts of the world, who are being cured of all sorts of ailments by the methods of the drugless healer? And as we are supposed to be one of the most advanced countries, why should we be the one to close the door in the face of more up-to-date methods of healing, and say to the people of South Africa that you will be compelled by law if you are sick to go to a medical practitioner? If you do not go to him, if he cannot cure you, then you will not be allowed to go to anybody else. That is impossible, and a position which this House certainly should not tolerate. It is inconceivable that this House will tolerate the position such as I have described. These drugless healers on whose behalf I am pleading form a very large section. The osteopaths are those who believe in affecting cures in health by means of manipulating the bones, and working and loosening the various joints and bones so that there is perfect freedom and action. Then there are the hydrotherapaths, those who believe that all diseases can be taken out of the body by means of the alimentary channels and the pores of the skin. They use hot and cold water. Up near Maritzburg at Sweet-waters there is a German named Beisner. They prosecuted him several times but he has cured thousands of people throughout South Africa in his health institute. Thousands of people have been through his hands and have been cured by means of hydrotherapeutics. That is what they call the Künne treatment, quite a sound treatment. Then again there are the cheiropractors. One friend of mine was bedridden for years and had doctors in Durban and Maritzburg attending him and had taken advice from a specialist. That young boy, 16 or 17 years of age, was given up by the medical profession. He was placed for treatment at Durban in the hands of Mr. Llewellem Morgan, an American who qualified in America in the art and science of cheiropractics. He took the boy in hand and within six months he was playing tennis after being bedridden and given up by the medical profession. Every night that boy’s father goes to bed he thanks God for the treatment his boy has received at the hands of Mr. Morgan of Durban. If this Bill goes through and the medical interpretation of Clause 34 stands, it will prohibit the drugless healers from practising and thousands of people will suffer accordingly. It is going to affect thousands of people in South Africa who are suffering from various ailments, and as one knows these things, who can bear personal testimony to the efficacy of their treatment, I cannot stand and see this House commit this outrage. I would not be doing my duty to these people if I did not do everything that lay in my power to get this House to amend this Bill on the lines I have indicated. I am not here to-night to argue on the merits or demerits of one method or the other. All I want is to give these people an opportunity of being heard. They have not had a chance given them. Surely you are not going to condemn them unheard. Perhaps the right hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Health are not aware of this fact, but there are many South Africans to-day, some of whom I know, who have left this country and are at present qualifying in America in these colleges in this new science of healing for the sole purpose of coming back to South Africa to carry on their practice. Some in osteopathy, others in cheiropractics, some in hydropathy, others as naturopaths, etc.

What’s that?

I am glad to see the Prime Minister has wakened up.

It is these words. It is these new professions that wakened me up.

Let me tell the right hon. the Prime Minister, of one instance. Take the Rev. Malherbe of Villiersdorp. His son is at present in America undergoing a course in order to come back to South Africa and carry on that work.

He could do it if it got a medical degree.

And this House, without having the facts before it, and without giving these people an opportunity of stating their case before a Select Committee, will be precluding them, under this Bill, from carrying on their work. That is only one case I refer to. There are something like 40 colleges in America where these people get their training. In New Zealand they have been recognized; in Great Britain they are allowed to practise. I have here something which I will let the Prime Minister see. There are here about 150 certified copies of affidavits of people in Durban, Pietermaritzburg and Cape Town, who certify they have been treated by drugless healing methods, and have been cured. In most cases they have been given up by the medical profession. These people are not making these statements for the fun of the thing. These people are not going to write affidavits without good cause. I appeal to the members of this House not to let this thing go without ascertaining whether there is any truth in what they say. Any member of this House is at liberty to examine these documents, and to write to the persons and ask them if they are true. I appeal to the member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson), whom I think is sympathetic, and to the members for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) and Pietermarititzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien). Here are about 75 or 80 affidavits from Pietermaritzburg, certifying that these people have been cured, and I appeal to the member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) to (give these people a chance of stating their case. That is all they are asking this House to do. If the time comes and a Select Committee is appointed, I am prepared to defend them. Let me say that for many years I was a sick man, and what measure of health I have to-day, is due very largely to the treatment I have had at the hands of these drugless healers, when the doctors failed to do what they should have done. Yes, I am not afraid to stand up here and say I have received benefits at the hands of these people. The public have the right to be protected against quacks, and I am going to stand here to-day and say that if these statements are true, then the public have the right to be protected against the medical profession of South Africa, because in giving drugs as they do, they are indulging in what is recognized more and more to-day, to be not a rational method of healing. The doctors do not study health, they study diseases.

What do the chemists say to it?

This might make the chemist bankrupt, but still it does not matter. We are concerned with the public good in the matter, and every one of these methods I have mentioned, will cure if given an opportunity. There is every element in the human body to effect a cure if it is only given an opportunity, and there is no method of treatment quoted here to-night which does not rest on the rational and commonsense and scientific basis of the healing elements being in the human body itself. I hope that the Minister will not treat this thing lightly, because thousands of people have benefited by these methods in this country. The Minister may be overridden by the Secretary for Public Health, Dr. Mitchell, who is standing up as he can only be expected to do, for the medical profession of South Africa, but I ask the House not to allow itself to be dragged at the heels of Dr. Mitchell or the medical profession, but to take the evidence and hear the case for both sides. It will then be in a position to come to a decision. I move the motion standing in my name.

I have much pleasure in seconding the motion of the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Boydell). It strikes me, after listening to his address, that he has given one of the strongest arguments in favour of the matter going back to the Select Committee. I cannot help thinking that a lot of time would be taken up if each member gave his personal reminiscences of the great cures by the people to whom he has referred and the great benefit which they have given to humanity. Petitions have often been presented to this House on their behalf and also on behalf of the doctors. It is eminently desirable that both sides should be considered by the Committee. Those who think that these men should be allowed to practise base their claim on two grounds. They claim they have derived benefit from these practitioners. I know many people in Durban, men of education and of sincerity, and they believe the statements when they make them that much benefit has been derived by themselves. Another ground they rely upon is that in other parts of the world these practitioners are allowed to practice—in America and in New Zealand. The medical practitioners put up a different test. They tell of the very shocking results which very often have resulted from the attempts of these practitioners, and they also say that America regrets having granted licences to these practitioners in certain places, so much so that other States in America will not allow them to practise in their particular States. I for one do not profess to be able to judge between the contending factors. I do know, however, that a considerable section of public opinion is in favour of justice being done. In all the circumstances I think it would be far better for the House to allow the discussion to take place in Committee rather than to have to listen to all the reminiscences which might be brought forward.

I have much pleasure in supporting the motion. It is essential that these people should have a chance of putting their case before a Select Committee. I know personally of cases which have been given up by doctors and the patients have ultimately gone to these people and have derived benefit. I do not want to make a long speech. I simply desire to support the motion and to express the hope the Minister will see his way to accept it.

I also support this motion. Last session I presented a petition from a number of eminent citizens in Durban and this went before the Select Committee for consideration. I believe it was sent to the Select Committee but it did not get much consideration. This year I have received sworn affidavits by some leading people in Durban in connection with the matter. The statements are so strong that it seems to me we must give those people a chance in Committee. I will not go into details as the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) has done; they can be left over until the proper time, but it is absolutely necessary in the interests of justice and fairplay that these people should have an opportunity of putting their case before the Committee and that every consideration should be paid to them. Clause 34 seems to be most drastic and arbitrary and I do not see how the House could pass such a clause. Some of these drugless healers have knowledge, skill and experience and it is only fair that their knowledge, skill and experience should be used for the benefit of the public. I do not presume to be an expert. I have not the experience, but the great thing we should aim at is to let those with the experience and ability have the opportunity of serving the community. I do not say they should all have a free hand, but some standard should be fixed which would separate the fit from the unfit and guide the public in the choice of a healer. I appeal to the Minister to accept the motion.

I hope the members of this House will not vote to have this Bill sent back to Select Committee. What is wrong with Natal? Are they living in the year 0 or 2,000? In Natal they had a man who put his patient in a mud bath with his nose stuck out and who practised until he killed some person; then he stopped.

You sent them to worse places.

I think Natal is rather prehistoric in its ideas. The hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) has given a pitiful story about Malherbe. I do not know him. I do not know the story of an Afrikander youth who went to America and studied for three years and cannot practise his profession. A man who has supported trade unionism is the last man to come up and say that a man who is disqualified should practise.

But he is.

I say that in South Africa in the days of trade unionism, say even twenty years ago, an unskilled man was not allowed to work in trades.

But this man is qualified in his own profession.

A man who only worked for three years in America. In America there are good and bad institutions. According to medical standards we do not recognize a man who has had only three years tuition as qualified; we do not recognize him, in the same way as trade unionists do not recognize a man who is not a qualified worker. But where ignorance is bliss it is folly to be wise. I will tell the story of a famous quack, Dr. Cock, who was a great authority in taking stone out of bladders. On one occasion he went to study the anatomy of the body and he found so many arteries that he lost his nerve and never operated again. He realized then what the body of his patient was, so he stopped his practice and did not carry on. We maintain that the medical profession is as honourable a profession as any one in the world and it is for the safety of the human race that an unqualified man shouldnot be allowed to practise. I think in the future Natal people will be known as the osteopaths, etc. I hope that the intelligence of this House will agree with me on this point.

One requires a certain amount of nerve to rise in this House and speak after what has just been said by a medical man. I regard the medical profession as a noble profession, it is doing noble work, and although the others referred to work in a different manner I regard them also as doing noble work. There has been no interference between the doctors and them in any way up to now, but I hope that later on we will find, as has been done in America,—that doctors have adopted their methods. If you want to stop quacks the best way is to recognize these men. Those who want this matter to be sent back to the Select Committee regarding this drugless healing should not be classed as pre-historic. We feel rather that those who do not want to recognize anything new in science should be regarded as pre-historic. I have never had any treatment myself from these people, but we must have got down to a pretty small way of looking at things, if we simply laugh because a new name regarding treatment is not familiar to us. If we look at these things we will see that these names refer to special branches of science and to very definite things. I shall refer to some of these things to show that this is far more than an amusing subject, as it would appear to be to some people. With regard to what the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) said, whereas he refers to some cases which were treated by doctors afterwards, there are many more cases of people, who were declared incurable by doctors, who afterwards were cured by those very people who by some hon. members of this House are declared to be quacks.

Cases of hysteria.

No, I can give some cases. To-day six residents, well-known persons, of St. James, communicated with me and asked me to see to it that this amendment of Clause 34 should take place. Those people, whose postcard I have here, had been suffering, and they had benefited greatly by drugless methods. The theory is that many diseases come from the fact of there being undue pressure on the nerves and that by careful manipulation of the hand on the spine they have been able to cure quite a number of cases.

Nonsense; hysterical people.

It is no use my hon. friend saying that it is nonsense. These are cases on record. These are six people who declared themselves to be benefited. Then here is a letter from a member of the Provincial Council in Port Elizabeth. He has written to the Port Elizabeth members asking them to support this particular amendment. I can tell hon. members that the form of treatment of a certain Port Elizabeth institute will also be excluded under this section unless it is amended. This particular Provincial Councillor writes a long letter and he points out that there are certain institutes in the country where remarkable cures are effected. This gentleman gives chapter and verse, and he makes out a strong case for what is done by these institutes. It is a method of treatment quite apart from medicine. I will go further. Before the House met I was communicated with by an hon. member, I will not say who he is or in which House he sits, but he is a member of the Legislature and he has occupied Cabinet rank in one of the Provinces before union, and he wrote to me before he came to Parliament and asked me to support this amendment.

Was it in Natal?

It does not matter where he comes from. This is a matter of science and not of geography. Now this member tells me in this letter—and I ask the House to pay attention to this—what his views are. He is an experienced man with sound judgment. What does he say? He says—

He says he knows of numerous successful cases.

It is nonsense.

You cannot brush that aside. That is very important testimony indeed. It would take me hours to read to the House all the letters which I have received—for this is my little portfolio on the Bill. It is a fairly extensive one. But it would keep the House too long if I were to read them all. I am just going to give a few illustrations to show that there is something more than a joke in this and that there are serious-minded men and women who have benefited by this form of treatment. I must say that whenever there has been an illness with me in my family I have always called in a doctor and I have been quite satisfied, but there are other people who are not. Why should I close the door on them? These other people do not compete with the doctors, they do not pretend to be doctors, they do not pretend to give medicines, and in many cases remarkable cures have been effected. Why then should we close the door? I see no reason why we should. In America this particular science has assumed an enormous hold, and in America a large number are in practice and in several States they have institutions which have courses of several years in this particular subject of cheiropractics. There it is no new thing. In New Zealand it is no new thing, nor is it in Canada, and they practise there and do exceedingly good work. It is new in South Africa, although in Natal, apparently, a number of these people have been practising. Here I have a letter from a person living in Muizenberg. This person went to America from 1908 to 1914. He had congestion at several points of the back. He consulted several medical men, but could get no relief. Then he came into contact with the Dean of the Cheiropractic College in New York He suffered from pains in the head, base of brain, and spinal column. Well, he has been healed, and he writes that he hopes that I will do my best to get these people recognized. There is another man with a Dutch name, he belongs to a Civil Service organization. He writes to me and tells me how a cheiropractic managed to cure him. He says

Now the grievance of these practitioners is that they had no opportunity of putting their case before the Select Committee and that through no fault of their own. A petition from them was presented but it was only referred to the Committee on the 22nd of May, 1923. I was a member of the Select Committee and we sat for a long time from February to June and we were anxious to bring the Bill back to the House, and this petition, which the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) has referred to, was only ordered by this House to come to us on the 22nd of May after all the evidence had been concluded. The last evidence was taken on the 30th of April and the Committee had no time to call these people. We had a petition, but whereas evidence was given on the other side which has been referred to, the people whom we are now pleading for had no opportunity of stating their case and of being called. If giving them this opportunity meant that this Bill would have no chance of becoming law this session, then one might hesitate and say “Thrash it out on the floor of the House.” But we are at the beginning of the session and the hon. member only asks that one clause shall be referred back. So it cannot be greatly delayed, it cannot be a matter of many weeks, and therefore I hope that the Minister will allow this matter to go back in order that these people may put their case before the Committee, and personally I think in the long run it will save time. The fact that all the evidence will be heard by the Select Committee instead of on the floor of the House will save time. The debates will be shorter and the whole matter will go through much more easily. Petitions have been presented this year signed by 1,407 people, apart from those which were presented last year. It is true that these petitions have come from Natal and it seems to me that it would perhaps be a good thing if we knew a little more about cheiropractics here, because it seems strange that this has only been largely practised in one part of the Union. One would have liked to have seen it extended. All I can say is that I hope that some day the medical profession will see its way to devote some time to this branch of healing as well as to their own methods and when the medical profession do this the medical profession will find that they will be able to embrace drugless healing as one of the branches of their own profession. I think a strong case has been made out for sending this section back and I hope the Minister will realize and will agree that there is no desire to obstruct but simply to give people who make their living through this kind of healing which has been a great benefit to many, an opportunity of stating their case.

Ek wens die mosie van die edele lid vir Durban (Greyville) (de hr. Boydell) te ondersteun. Ek weet die dokters is baie angstig om die artiekel so deur te kry as dit nou is. Die dokter in my kiesafdeling het na my gekom en my gevra om die artiekel te ondersteun. Maar ek is darem ’n bietjie baie bang vir die woorde soos die nou staan. Ons woon nie almal in dorpe of in groot stede, waar jy die gerief het om gou dokters te kry nie, Op die platteland loop die een na die ander toe om mekaar te gaan help en ek is bang as die Wet so deurgaan, dat dit nie meer moontlik sal wees nie. Ek wens die dokters nie skade aan te doen nie, maar ek wil baie graag die Wet op ’n breër grondslag gebaseer sien, en dat sekere voorsieninge gemaak word. Soos die Wet hier staan kan jy niks in die wereld aan iemand gee nie, en dus sal mense wat ver van die dorpe woon nie na mekaar kan toe gaan vir hulp nie. Dit hoef nie net om die betaling te wees nie, maar as iemand wat vir jou gedoen het, dan wil jy hom ook graag betaal vir sy moeite. En as jy ’n kwaadgunstige dokter en vriende van die dokter in jou buurt het, dan sal jy later in moeite gebring word. Dis baie jammer dat noual nie meer die ou liefde van die een vir die ander bestaan nie, maar as die Wet deurgaan, is ek bang dat die een nie meer na die ander sal kyk nie. Ek hoop daarom die Wet sal na die Komitee terug gaan en goed ondersoek word dat ons nie in moeite kom nie.

We have had a very interesting evening, and I am afraid if I do not say something now we may spend the rest of the evening in these bypaths of researches into human ills, and the various curious ways of Curing them. I congratulate Natal on providing a fertile soil for osteopaths, naprapaths, naturopaths and other paths—dozens of them—who think that they, and they alone, possess the only method of curing human ills. I do not want to go into the case of the claims as between the medical profession and of those of other sects outside the pale of the law. But I would like to reply to a few points raised to-night, and should like to say first of all that this is not a case between the medical profession and those who profess drugless healing. The medical profession are just as ready to adopt any methods of drugless healing as any of those other people are. It is not a contest between those people who have been cured of their ailments by all sorts of methods and the methods of the medical profession. People have been cured of their ailments by all sorts of methods, and some people by no method at all, since human history began. I remember when I was a boy a man came round with a band, and various appliances and liquids, and people came up to his platform in the market place and they walked down cured and feeling as young again as when they were boys. The medical profession has its different methods in every generation. Sometime ago it was supposed that tar-water was the elixir of curing all the troubles that human life was subject to. But this is the point I am interested in. You must not look to stories of wonderful cures and be led away by talk of drugless healing. The question is, is the House prepared to allow people to set up professionally as healing human diseases and making their living thereby, and coming into the confidential and intimate relationship with the men and women they profess to cure, without any guarantee as to qualifications, conduct and character?

People would not go if they knew it was wrong.

People go because they do not know any better. There have been hundreds of cases before the courts, where people claiming that they could heal human troubles have led their clients into the most scandalous positions. The State cannot afford to allow any man to come up and say “I am an osteopath, and therefore entitled to practise,” without any guarantee as to his qualifications, conduct and character.

Then why not register them?

But if you are going to do that you will have to register anyone who comes along. In view of the strong support which the hon. member’s motion has in this House, I am going to accept it. I will tell the House why. The hon. member has said, and it is quite true, that these people did not have an opportunity of putting their case fully before the Select Committee which sat last session. Although that Select Committee sat for the whole session practically, the clause in its present form was not brought before it until late in its sitting, and these people did not have an opportunity of putting their case before the Select Committee. Another reason is that it is a matter of very great importance. If you are going to make a law prohibiting people from practising a method which they think they should practice, it is only fair to let those people put their case before the country. I think like the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) that it will save time also to have this matter thrashed out before a Select Committee, and as I do not wish to keep the House any longer I accept the hon. member’s motion.

Motion put and agreed to.

moved—

He said: This is a little Bill introduced in order to set right the effect of one of the laws of the Transvaal, which in my opinion it was never intended to have, but owing to the way in which it was worded the court has laid it down to have that effect. The Volksraad of the South African Republic passed a law in 1885 when there was an influx of Asiatics, British Indians, and this law was passed to the effect that these Asiatics should not be allowed to own land in the Republic except in portions set apart for them by the Government. The words which set out this state—

I think it was clear from the first enacting words that it was intended to apply to the native races of Asia who at that time were tending to alarm people in the Transvaal because of the economic and social conditions they were creating by their entry, and it was presumably intended to apply not to the Malays who had been residing in South Africa for hundreds of years, but to the newcomers of that race. The law was interpreted in that sense by the Pretoria Deeds Office right along. The Deeds Office in Pretoria continued to pass transfer of lands to the persons called the Cape Malays as if that Act had not been passed. That is to say the Deeds Office regarded the Act of 1885 as not applying to the Cape Malays. The Registrar of the Rand Townships in Johannesburg however took a different view. That office, which was an office established after the Anglo-Boer war and did not exist under the Republican laws, that office took the view that the Act did apply to the Cape Malays. The Pretoria Deeds Registrar took the view that the Cape Malay was not included, whereas the Rand Townships Office took a different view and refused to transfer land to Cape Malays. The matter was taken to the Appellate Division, and the court decided that the Cape Malay was to be included in the law of 1885. What I want to put before the House is that this particular section of the people have been resident in South Africa for some hundreds of years. They are one of the oldest sections of our population. They have never been regarded as Asiatics, and they have never been included in any law specially aimed at Asiatics. When the Parliament of the Transvaal, after Responsible Government came in 1907, passed a law dealing with Asiatics, it required them to be registered and imposed certain disabilities upon them. The Cape Malay was specially exempted by the terms of the law as not being one of the persons intended to be affected. In a case which came before the Transvaal courts in 1911 where the matter before the court was to decide whether certain men who were Cape Malays were entitled to live in an Asiatic location or bazaar, as it was called, the court held they were not entitled to live in that bazaar because they were not Asiatics within the meaning of the law. That is the position. In giving judgment in the case I have referred to in the Appellate Division, the Chief Justice remarked that he was driven to the conclusion that these men were intended to be included under Law 3 of 1885. He said that the conclusion appeared to him to be a very harsh one, but it was their duty to administer the law and it was for the Legislature to remove that hardship. That is why the Bill is brought before the House, because we believe that Law 3 of 1885 was not intended to apply to this class of the community, though it was intended to apply to the incoming Asiatic from outside. I think in bringing forward this Act we are removing an injustice which works out with great harshness. In bringing it forward it recognizes this part of the community as having become practically a branch of the South African community which for generations has established itself here apart from any connection with the East, and we think that it is entitled to be relieved of this disability which it has laboured under as a result of the law of 1885. Therefore I beg to move the second reading.

Ek dink nie dis nodig dat van hierdie kant van die Huis meer as ’n paar woorde gesê sal word oor die Wetsontwerp nie. En dit is nl. dat ons ten voile instem met die doel en strekking van die Wetsontwerp, en die redes deur die Minister aangevoer vir die introduksie daarvan. Soos dui delik gemaak was daar aan die kant van die Maleier insake eienaarskap van grond in die Transvaal ’n wesenlike grief en daardie grief was gegrond op misverstand. Daar is geen duidelike skeidslyn getrek tussen Asiate van buite en die Maleiers nie, teen wie die uitsonderingswette bedoel was. Die Maleiers is reeds baie lank in die land en wat meer sê hulle staat ekonomies op ’n hoër basis as die Asiaat van buite. Die uitsonderingswet teen die Asiate werd nie daargestel uit rassehaat nie, maar omdat die Asiaat van buite ’n ekonomiese gevaar was. Maar die Maleier is geen sodanige gevaar nie want in sy opvattinge en lewenswyse het hy hom losgemaak van die Asiate en hom vereenselwig met die blanke beskawing van Suid-Afrika en daarom is dit, dat die gevaar welke die Asiaat van buite vir die land daarstel, in sy geval nie bestaan nie. Ons sal daarom die Wetsontwerp ondersteun.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee now.

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment; to be read a third time to-morrow.

moved, as an unopposed motion—

Order IV deals with the Transvaal Precious and Base Metals Act Further Amendment Bill. I am not prepared to go on with that this evening. Orders V, VI and VII stand in the name of the Minister of Justice, who is unfortunately absent opening a show at Caledon. Order VIII I am prepared to go on with. With regard to Order IX, the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) cannot be here this evening and asked me specially not to go on with it. Order X I am prepared to go on with.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Ek sou graag van die Edele Minister wil weet wat die posisie sal wees in verband met appèl sake. In Transvaal is dit tans die gebriuk, dat ’n prokureur alleen kan verskyn as verteenwoordiger, na hy skriftelike aanvraag daarvoor gemaak het. Ons daar helemaal in die Noorde wil graag weet of dieselfde reëls ook nou sal bly geld. Ek dink daar behoor behoorlike regulasies daarvoor gemaak te word.

Daar is niks in die Wet om dit te verhinder nie. Maar ons moet natuurlik die gebruik van die Geregshowe eerbiedig en die edele lid weet, dat die Hooggeregshof self trek die regulasies op, ook met betrekking tot die ondergeskikte howe. Dis nie wenslik om in die burokrasie van die Geregshowe in te dring deur iets van die aard te maak nie. Ek kan dit sê die Hof sal die appèl wees vir die Magistraat en die is amptenaar van die Regering en dieselfde regulasies wat bestaan vir die verskyn van prokureurs voor die Magistraat met betrekking tot blanke, sal ook geld met betrekking tot naturelle.

Clauses and Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed.

Bill reported without amendment and read a third time.

I have a small amendment to propose—

The insertion of this provision will legalize the position created by the amending regulations, changing the conditions on the Rand in regard to trading which grew out of the evil system of concession stores. These conditions are going to be ended according to the Minister’s statement of the principles adopted by the Department. The position created by these new conditions somewhat altered things, and it is time that these iniquities were abolished. The conditions under which the sites were originally sold were such that if the principle in the amendment is not accepted, a hardship may be created on the people who originally purchased the sites. With the efflux of time since the purchases the number interested has decreased, and to-day there are only six or seven persons who will be affected. The original purchasers were under the impression they could convert, and now they only ask that the stock on hand and all improvements should be paid for. With that object in view I move the amendment. I believe that the Department practically agrees to the proposition, and it is with the idea of legalizing the position that I move the amendment.

The position under this clause is as I have explained on the second reading. We are dealing, really, with two classes of trading sites. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) is quite right when he says there are about six or seven in the first class. In Clause 5 of the Act of 1910 of the Transvaal, these sites were selected by the Mining Commissioner and then sold for a period. The law says distinctly for a period. What was paid for by the purchaser was the right to trade, and he paid an annual rental after the site was sold by public auction. The period was ten years. The law laid down an arbitrary period of ten years. That was before the sale took place, so that the people knew they were buying the right to trade for ten years, and to pay an annual rental for what they bought at the auction. When the site is offered to a new man, he will have to pay out the amount of all the improvements and the value of the stock. It seems to me it would be a wrong principle to depart from the explicit terms of the contract; in the circumstances it would be unfair to others who had bid. What I propose to do with regard to the existing purchaser, is to have a value made of the improvements and stock, then the sale of the goodwill and what is to be paid afterwards will be on the turnover. If the present holder is the successful purchaser now, he need not pay for the improvements or take over the stock—that is the advantage he gets. The new purchaser must start de novo, and then will have to pay on the turnover of the business. In regard to future sites I propose to do the same. The purchaser will buy the goodwill and must pay for the right in cash, and then he pays a percentage of the turnover on the business he makes during the year. That seems to be a reasonable thing, and as regards the point raised by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) it was provided for explicitly in the contract.

I feel that the Minister has conceded the point, and why should there be any objection to the inclusion of the motion in the Bill? He contends that when the conditions of sale are read out and the sale takes place the purchaser will be in the position stated in the amendment. I would, however, like to see that in the Bill. I would ask the Minister since he has conceded the principle to agree to the amendment becoming part of the Bill.

The hon. member does not grasp the situation. The Minister tells him that the holders at present hold under certain conditions as regards stock and improvements. He has also told them the conditions under which sales will be made in future.

We had a case where a tremendous price was paid for a stand, but when the time for payment came there was no money.

The reason referred to is one of the reasons why the Bill is brought up. People come to the auction sale, keep on bidding and there have been cases where the price has been £3,500. They must of course in such a case lose money unless they are going to be very unfair on their customers, in the majority of cases these customers being natives. It is not right for the Government to take such big rentals from them. On the other hand if you went back on the offers made at the public auction it would lead to fraud. Again another person who had been at the auction would say if he had thought that the rental was going to be reduced by the Minister of course he would have paid a much higher price, relying on the goodwill of the Minister. I have laid it down that I am not going to interfere with the result of the auction. Purchases made at a public auction must be paid for in cash and the rental will be on the turnover of the business.

And what if he buys a site and does not run a shop on it at all?

That is a very different position. I will put it up for sale again.

Dit spyt my, maar die hole doel van daardie regulasies het betrekking tot handel op die geproklameerde gronde aan die Witwatersrand. Die eerste is om onwettige verkoop van goud teen te gaan, die twede is teen die onwettige verkoop van drank. En as daar mense is wat stores, winkels, wil opsit en die mense is nie van goeie karakter nie, dan het ons hierdie regulasies om dit te verhinder en dis daarom noodsakelik dat die Minister weet dat die man wat die winkel op gaan sit van goeie karakter is en vertroue verdien, want hy staan nie direk onder die polisie nie. Anders sal die saak nooit werk nie.

Ek dink seker, die Minister weet nie helemaal watter woorde ek na refereer nie. My voorstel is om die artiekel te laat eindig as volg: “ tenzy hy door de Minister goedgekeurd wordt.” Daar hou dit dan op. Dus word alleen geskrap “als zynde van goed karakter.” Dit gee die Minister groter mag. Anders sou dit lyk, dat persone wat nie ’n handelsplek kan kry nie, moet van sleg karakter wees. Ek laat dus die beslissing helemaal aan die Minister self oor en wens alleen die laaste paar woorde geskrap te sien. Ek stel dus voor—

O, ek sien nou wat die edele lid bedoel. Hy wil niks in die plek daarvan hê nie, maar hy wil die diskresie helemaal in hande van die Minister plaas. As die Huis daarmee tevrede is, het ek daar niks teen nie.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Munnik put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—39.

Alberts, S. F.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Boydell, T.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Waal, J. H. H.

Enslin. J. M.

Forsyth, R.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Jansen, E. G.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, J. F.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Smit, J. S.

Stewart, J.

Strachan, T. G.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Wilcocks, C. T. M.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—53.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Bezuidenhout, W. W. J. J.

Blackwell, L.

Brown, D. M.

Buchanan, W. P.

Burton, H.

Cilliers, P. S.

Claassen, G. M.

Close, R. W.

Coetzee, J. P.

Dreyer, T. F. J.

Duncan, P.

Fitchat, H.

Fourie, J. C.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Greenacre, W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Henderson, J.

Henderson. R. H.

Jordaan, P. J.

King, J. G.

Lemmer, L. A. S.

Louw, G. A.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, F. S.

Marwick, J. S.

McAlister, H. S.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, T. J.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Nixon, C. E.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Purcell, I.

Reitz, D.

Robinson, C. P.

Saunders, E. G. A.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Van Aardt, F. J.

Van Heerden, B. I. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Venter. J. A.

Watt. T.

Webber, W. S.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; De Jager, A. L.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Naudé put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 3 and Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed.

Bill reported with an amendment, which was considered and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted; third reading to-morrow.