moved, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Laaste Vrydag het die Gekose Komitee op die Werking van die Mijntering Wet, 1919, een spesiale verslag opgebreng en ek het gesien in daardie verslag dat die wens is uitgespreek dat die Huis een geleentheid sou krij om die kwessie te bespreek, wat opgebreng is deur die uitspraak van Mnr. Speaker. Ek sien die edele lid vir Vredefort (de hr. Munnik) nie hier nie, anders sou ek verwag dat hy die vraag sou stel. Hoe sou hierdie ter sprake kom? Ek veronderstel dat die Selekt Komitee begerig is om ’n finale beslissing te kry.

Die Selekt Komitee wil dat die Huis die finale beslissing sal gee.

Sou dit in orde wees dat die Huis dit dadelik in oorweging neem?

Dit staat vierde op die Ordelys vir vandag en sal bepaald van middag aankom.

Pardon, ek het dit nie opgelet nie en ek dag dat daar miskien haas sou wees wat betref die rapport van die Selekt Komitee.

moved—

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister, in view of his statement in Committee, that in view of the shortage of construction engineers in South Africa he could not proceed simultaneously with the construction of a number of lines to be built under the Act of 1922, whether he would consider the employment of a number of graduates in engineering both of the Cape and of the Transvaal Universities who are unable to get employment, and I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would let us know at an early date what he is prepared to do on the subject.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

stelde voor—

seconded.

Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal geen objeksie maak teen my amendement nie en dat hy dit sal beskou as ’n verduideliking. Volgens die bepaling soas dit hier staat, kan dit wees dat die ko-operasie, wanneer iemand iets betaal het op spiritualieë, wat hy gebruik het vir die fortifikasie van sy wyn, hom laat betaal nie volgens wat hy gebruik het nie, maar feitlik asof hy lid is en dat hulle so iemand dus feitlik kan dwing om lid te word. Volgens ek van dieedelagbare die Eerste Minister verstaan het is hy nie bereid om met die boere sover te gaan nie. Ek sou graag van hom verneem of hy bereid is om die amendement aan te neem.

I do not oppose the amendment of my hon. friend. I should think it surplusage, but it may be argued as he has argued, that it is a “verduideliking.” It makes clearer the meaning which I put to the House when I moved my own amendment, and under those circumstances I am prepared to accept the amendment. After “of” to have “respect.” “He shall in respect of and to the extent of” it will be after “respect” so that “of” is not repeated twice. The amendment that I accept is the English amendment which sets out clearly the meaning I had. But I am told my hon. friend’s Dutch is at fault.

Hulle het my gesê, dat die Hollands van my edele vriend van Piquetberg (de hr. de Waal) verkeerd is en dat die Engels reg is.

Amendment, proposed by Mr. de Waal, put and agreed to.

Die edele lid vir Kaapstad (Kasteel) (de hr. Alexander) stel ’n nuwe amendement voor en ek staan op om dit namens hom te doen.

As die amendement van die edele lid vir Kaapstad (Kasteel) (Mr. Alexander) aangeneem word, dan verval daarmee die amendement van die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. de Waal).

Ek weet dit, rnaar as sekere amendemente aangeneem word, dan is ek heeltemal gewillig om myne te laat vaar.

Alles word weggelaat van lyn 21 tot aan die einde van die sub-artiekel (1).

moved—

seconded.

moved, as an amendment to this amendment—

I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) on behalf of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) with a slight amendment. My object in supporting it is that I wish to see wine for consumption relieved of the necessity of paying surplus on the spirits being the produce of his own farm which the farmer may use for the purpose of fortifying his own wine. As the clause stands, at the present moment, a farmer who makes wine for consumption and uses his own spirits for the purpose of fortifying that wine must pay surplus in respect of the quantity of spirits he uses. In certain cases it is necessary to use spirits for the fortification of wine. For example, in the case of sweet Constantia, within a fortnight of the making of that wine it is necessary to use a certain amount of spirits in its fortification, and in the case of port it is also necessary. I submit that, if once the principle is accepted that wine fit for consumption is to be free from surplus, then, logically, any of his own spirit which the farmer may use for fortifying his own wine for consumption must also be free from surplus; and from information put before me it would seem that the quantity used in that way is a very small quantity indeed, and no purpose would be served by making a special exception against the seller of wine for consumption except in special eases. I am told that the total spirits produced in the Cape Province amounts to sixteen or seventeen hundred thousand gallons per annum, and that in Natal you have between fourteen and fifteen hundred thousand gallons of spirit used per annum, and that out of that great quantity the total amount produced by the agricultural distiller is one hundred and sixty thousand gallons. That includes what he uses for the purpose of making brandy for sale and for his own use, so that the quantity he uses for fortifying his own wine is very small indeed, practically negligible, and under those circumstances I will submit there is no reason at all why the person who makes wine for consumption should be penalised in respect of his own wines which he converts into spirits and uses for the fortification of that wine. In quite a number of those cases it is perfectly true that a farmer goes to the merchant and gets rectified spirits for the fortification of his wine, but in a certain number of cases, particularly in the case of sweet Constantia, and, I understand, in the cases of port and sherry, the farmer will use his own spirits, and I submit that there is no reason at all why he should not be relieved of any surplus contribution in respect of the small quantity which he uses in that way. After all it is a very small matter. I understand that of the great quantity of spirits produced in Natal very little of it pays excise: most of it is manufactured into methylated spirits, and in that way a great quantity escapes excise; and there seems to be no reason at all why out of this entirely negligible amount the distinction should be made why this should be specially subjected to surplus. By my amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) the clause will read—

No qualification at all; and I will move that amendment accordingly, and if it can be said that it is not practical to meet them in this respect I would say, let the spirit that is used by the farmer in that way for the fortification of his own wine come under Clause A of the Excise Duty Act, which would make that spirit subject to the duty of 12s. 6d., or otherwise make it subject to excise of 2s. per gallon, and so let the revenue derived have the benefit of it. But there is no real and practical reason I submit, why spirits used in that manner should be made subject to surplus, and no inconvenience will result from an exemption also in its favour.

seconded.

I do hope that the Minister will not accept this amendment, because it would go to the root of any attempt to differentiate between wine and brandy in the South African market. It has been pointed out that the trouble in South Africa is that light wines do not exist, and there is a tendency to sell a wine which is really camouflaged brandy. They are selling in the form of wine that which, as a matter of fact, is incapable of being sold save when drugged with brandy with a full percentage of oil of vitrol or fusel oil, and which is foisted on the unfortunate consumer as light wine. I must admit that it is very difficult for one who is not a wine grower or interested directly in the industry to speak with any reasonable authority on the matter. From information, however, it is undoubted that the sale of this camouflaged brandy will do more than anything else to bring the standard of South African wine low and to bring it into disrepute. I hope that the Minister will not accept the amendment, and I go further and say that the proposal shows the cloven hoof of the Constantia group. I must confess that I appreciate and sympathize with the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset) in his gallant fight for his constituents, but I do not think that they have taken him completely into their confidence. There is one person in the constituency, who, I understand, has not sold a good class of wine in the last five years; he has sold wine which is a highly fortified wine, but I must confess that he does not attempt to foist his wine on his customers as other than it is, but it is simply camouflaged wine, and is sent immediately after manufacture to the market. I hope that the House in the interest of all concerned, and of the wine industry, will not support the amendment. It is time that the industry was re-constructed by the putting of a better article on the market, and not a villainous camouflage of brandy. The best class of farmers are anxious for this, and should be given every encouragement.

One can but express surprise at the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset) as it would have the effect of pouring hot stuff down the throats of people and, because it has been always recognized that he had been championing the rights of blue bloods of the wine industry. What he proposes to do now will have the effect of placing a highly fortified and inferior wine on the market, and he is mixing up brandy for fortification with brandy which has to pay excise. I should like to inform the hon. member that there is no question of excise when brandy is used for fortification as it then goes free of duty. What is the real position? We have to-day about 12,500 leaguers of wine distilled and used annually for fortification purposes. This wine is dealt with by the merchants who purchase from the farmers at the fixed price and contribute to surplus fund. If this amendment is carried free fortification by farmers will increase as a premium would be placed on such surplus from brandy or spirits. I only wish to emphasize that if this is done you are causing considerable harm to the industry. If the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset) really knew the effect of his proposal, he would be the last man to advocate it.

I suppose the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) is aware that there are different kinds of wine. For instance, you cannot have port wine without fortification, or Sweet Constantia. I think he knows it very well. The farmers who take an interest in the wine industry are those who are always anxious to produce the best class of wine from their own grapes, and without the introduction of much extraneous matter; they have to naturally fortify it, but the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) goes very far indeed when he classes all fortified wines as inferior wines. All wines must be fortified, a little less or a little more. Do not classify poor wine as bad wine.

Mr. Speaker—

What does the hon. member wish to speak on? The hon. member has already spoken.

I want to speak on my amendment in reply to the argument put forward.

The hon. member cannot reply on an amendment.

I am sorry I cannot accept either of these amendments. They both come to the same result. The matter was argued out very fully last time, and the Committee of the whole House afterwards divided on the point. It is useless now to recite the whole facts. I can only say that I cannot accept these amendments.

Amendments, proposed by Mr. de Waal and Mr. Bisset, put and negatived and the amendments made in Committee of the Whole House, as amended, put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 2 and 3 put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

moved—

I moved this when the House was in Committee, and at the request of the Prime Minister I did not press that amendment, but said I would consult those I represented, in the meantime, as to what their views were on the matter. I have done so and I find that they have a very strong objection to the very wide terms of Clause 4, and that they are very much afraid of it. They say that they do not see any practical reason why this clause should be in such wide terms as will cover wine to be sold for consumption in the form of wine. This Bill purports to give the Association control over wine to be sold for distillation, and there is no reason at all why this regulation should not be limited to wine for distillation. It was suggested, when this was last raised, that a clause of this nature was necessary in order to check the sales of wine made, and to prevent people from selling wine for the purpose of distillation. But the Excise Department keeps an absolute check upon every gallon of spirit which can be made by the wine-grower. The wine-grower is bound to return to the Department the amount of spirits which he is turning out, and the Excise Department knows exactly what quantity of wine is being used to produce that amount of spirits. That being the case the Department has an absolute check to the gallon, of spirits distilled, and that being so I do not see any reason at all why such wide power should be given which would cover in any way the sale or removal of wine being made purely for consumption. People making that class of wine are afraid that if you laid down such terms as these they would interfere with the carrying on of their business. They can see no reason whatever for the existence of this power. It is true it was said that the regulations would be framed by the Government, and not by the Association; and that the Government had no intention of framing regulations to hit the man who makes wine for consumption. But once regulations are promulgated it is very difficult to alter them, and people may find themselves unable to obtain any remedy. While the Department is desirous of preventing any loopholes being found in the Act, and to provide for the punishment of malefactors, they may be incidentally preventing people from carrying on their business in a perfectly legal manner. I hope the Prime Minister will meet me in this way, and if he does, the clause can still apply in the widest possible form regarding distillation which is, after all, the thing that he wants. Under the tremendous check which is taken by the Excise Department there is no possibility of any infringement of the letter or spirit of this Act. I move accordingly the amendment which stands in my name.

seconded.

I just rise to say that I am sorry I cannot agree to this amendment moved by my hon. friend. After the consultations taken in the Select Committee, and the Committee of the Whole House, I consulted the Excise Department, and they are of the opinion that this wider power is necessary if there is to be proper control. My hon. friend is quite right when he says that under the existing legislation the Government has full control over the sale of spirits, but in regard to good wine there is no power existing at all. In this Act a sharp line is drawn between two classes of wine: wine that is destined for distillation into brandy or spirits, and wine that is intended to be consumed as such. That is a distinction which is fundamental to this Act. Now, it is impossible to follow up the one unless you adopt powers, to a certain extent, to follow up the other too. Say a large parcel of wine is sent. The Excise Department has no information about it; it may be said it is meant for consumption or distillation into brandy, but anyhow, the Department has no information about it, and no returns are made, and they cannot follow the matter up. My hon. friend will see that where a dishonest use, or an abuse of the power is made, there is no independent check made as is afforded in this way. The Excise Department tells me this, that there is no intention whatever to use this regulation in any way which will hamper the sale or removal of ordinary parcels of wine. Wine that is sold in bottle, or sold in cask, will not be covered by any regulation, but will be left entirely free. But where wine is sent in large quantities, in big bulk, there the Department finds it is necessary to have the matter regulated as is proposed here. They say if that is not done there may be a door open to fraud, of which extensive use may be made here. Under the circumstances, I am sorry that I cannot agree with the amendment of my hon. friend. As he will admit, I have gone a long way to meet the wishes of those he represents, but where I am assured by the Excise Department that a provision of the nature as is laid down in the clause here is necessary, I am bound by such an opinion. I regret I cannot accept the amendment.

I am very glad to hear of the attitude taken up by the Prime Minister on this question. This amendment is a horse of another colour, but it is the same old horse. The amendment gives itself away. It talks about what is to be sold in the form of wine. It is a little bit like the hand that is the hand of Jacob, but the voice is that of Esau, or whatever his name was. Be that as it may, the words “the form of wine,” gives one furiously to think, because in the form of wine we have the most atrocious stuff served up. The whole point raised by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset) is that this should be limited to wine for distillation. Quite so, you can control wine which is openly used for distillation, but you cannot control wine which is secretly used for that purpose. At a time when the doctrine is being preached that in the Constantia area only the very best form is used, it is surprising to learn that there are some people in the Constantia area who are sending the very worst kind of wine out to be sold, and of all places where do they send it to? They send it down to the Relief Works, where wages are so low that hon. members in the corner over there say it is not a living wage, and these workers are having this particular form of muck sold to them. When that occurs, when sympathy with the problems of unemployment in South Africa is so entirely absent that people in that area will send out that kind of thing, then it is up to the decent wine-farmers in Constantia, of which there are many, to set their house in order, and allow the Government to then it is up to the decent wine farmers in Con-control those people who cannot control themselves.

Amendment, proposed by Mr. Bisset, put and negatived.

On Clause 5,

Ek wil graag ’n vraag doen in verband met hierdie klousule. Ek dink, dit is duidelik, dat tengevolge van hierdie klousule daar ophopinge sal moet wees, want die klousule sê, dat dit verbode is om spiritualieë te verkoop, tensy die bewaar is vir ’n tydperk van nie minder as drie jaar. Dit spreek vanself dat daar geweldige somme nodig sal wees om gevolg te gee aan die bepaling van die klousule. Daarom wil ek graag van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister weet of daar voorsieninge gemaak work om boere, die ko-operasie, of die wynhandelaars te help en of die Regering in die bres sal spring, om die moeilikheid te oorkom.

Ja, ek dink my edele vrind die lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. de Waal) verkeer onder ’n misverstand. Die oorspronklike Artiekel 6 is onuitvoerbaar gevind. Die artiekel het gesê dat na drie jaar, na die, 18de Junie 1928 kan geen brandewyn meer verkoop word nie, tensy die voor drie jaar gematureer is, en wanneer die artiekel in die vorm gepasseer sou wees, sou daar ’n ophoping van brandewyn gewees het na 1928, en die argument deur die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. de Waal) sou dan juis gewees het. Maar die konferensie van wynhandelaars het die artiekel afgekeur en gesê dat dit onuitvoerbaar sal wees. Die finansiële besware is so groot, dat tensy die Regering met fínansiële planne voor die dag kom dit onuitvoerbaar sou wees en hulle het toe voorgestel die gewysigde artiekel waarby daar 25 persent, minstens 25 persent van die brandewyn gematureer sal wees voor drie jaar. Dit maak dit veel makliker en ek glo nie, dat daar enige rede is om te sê, dat die artiekel, soos dit daar nou staan, gebaseer sal wees op die beginsel van hulp van die Regering nie. By my is die beswaar nie gemaak nie.

Amendments in Clauses 5 and 6, the New Clauses 7, 8 and 9, and the amendments in Old Clause 8, put and agreed to.

On Old Clause 8,

I move—

I want to point out that wine for the purpose of motor fuel is being used more and more, not only in Natal, but also in this part of the country. I think the Prime Minister will agree that this is a very reasonable amendment. It will not interfere with this Bill, but it will allow of the stuff which is made for motor fuel being sold. There is likely to he a great increase. All I am asking the Minister is that wine that is required for the purpose of making motor fuel shall not come under the operation of this Act.

seconded.

I would point out to my hon. friend that he is wrong in trying to effect his object in a definition clause. I am sorry to go against my hon. friend who has given me his very consistent support throughout this very difficult measure, but what he has in view he cannot achieve here on this definition. He defines wine as meaning wine which is used, sold or delivered for the purpose of distillation. If my hon. friend were to go through the clauses of this Bill he would see that as a matter of fact he is wrong. The word wine is used in this Bill in both senses, it is meant for wine to be drunk as wine and for wine to be distilled into spirits, and the hon. member cannot, when he comes to the definition, limit it to one of them. That makes the whole Bill awry, the whole Bill goes wrong because throughout the word wine is used for both things, and now my hon. friend wants to use it for one, and that sends the whole Bill askew; it will make the Bill lob-sided, and I am sure my hon. friend, who has supported me so far, does not want to see the Bill take this unnatural form at the end. I therefore have to resist the amendment.

I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12, and the omission of Old Clause 9, put and agreed to.

On New Clause 13,

Die edele lid vir Kaapstad (Kasteel) (de hr. Alexander) het ’n amendement en dit is feitelik dieselfde amendement as myne. Ek stel, namens die edele lid voor—

Daar word gesê, dat die Regering gaat hier geen monopolie an die ko-operasie gee nie en ek is seker dat dit in beginsel ook deur hom afgekeur word en dit sal tot die laaste afgekeur word, want dit skenk ’n te grote kontrôle oor die wynboere. Ek kan verstaan dat as die grote gros dit eis, ons dit nie kan weier nie d.w.s. as 75 persent om iets vra, gee hulle dit. Maar die vraag is hier of daar 25 persent van die wynboere is, wat die ko-operasie gunstig gesind is en daarom die Wetsontwerp sal goedkeur. Ek verneem dat dit nie die geval is nie en dat meer daar teen is, seifs lede van die ko-operasie, as daarvoor. Al wat ek wil vra is, dat wanneer die Minister sy diskresie sal uitoefen, hy eers goed sal uitvind wie bedank het vir die ko-operasie, asook hoeveel wynboere daar buitekant staat. As die Minister van Justiesie die reg sal besit om te besluit die Wet te rapporteer, sal ek bly wees as hy in aanmerking wil neem die aantal lede wat bedank het. Ek reken hy sal dan bevind, dat die ko-operasie nie 75 persent van die wynboere verteenwoordig nie. Dit was vir my baie treffend—ek het ’n vername wynboer van die Paarl ontmoet en hy is bitter teen die Direksie en dus teen die ko-operasie; ek het ’n vername boer van Stellenbosch ontmoet en van hom kan presies dieselfde gesê word. Ek het ’n seer prominente boer van Constantia ontmoet en ook een van Piquetberg en hulle is almal teen die Wetsontwerp en daarom sou dit bitter onbillik wees, indien die Minister net gehoor gee aan wat de direkteure hom vertel. Dit is waar dat die meeste mense as lede aangeskrewe staat van die ko-operasie, maar hulle is dit nie. Die Minister van Justiesie weet dit miskien nie en ek wil nie dat hy, die ’n eerlike man is, mislei word nie. Hy word miskien mislei deur die direkteure en daarom wil ek dat hy sal uitvind hoeveel het bedank. Hy sal uitvind dat honderde en honderde bedank het; hulle verteenwoordig vele produsente en hoeveel is daar nie wat nooit aangesluit het by die ko-operasie nie? Dis ’n baie billike versoek, maklik om uit te vind en ek hoop dat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister geen beswaar daarteen het nie. As hy beswaar het, sal ek vra wat skuil daar agter. As hy dit nie aanneem nie en verklaar julle het nie my Minister geraadpleeg nie, dan vra ek wat skuil daar agter. Ek vertrou daarom dat my edele vriend die Eerste Minister die amendement van die lid vir Kaapstad (Kasteel) (de hr. Alexander) sal aanneem.

seconded.

Ek wil ’n beroep doen op die edelagbare die Eerste Minister om die amendement aan te neem, omdat dit ’n ander middel is om uit te vind, hoedat miskien 75 persent van die wynboere dink oor die kwessie. Toe die Wet in die Komitee stadium was het ik een gelyksoortige voorstel wou indien, die Minister wou dit toe nie aanneem. Die enigste werkelike beswaar is, wat hy gemaak het was dat dit die Wet sal vertraag; nou gee hy ’n ander rede maar ek kan nie sien hoe dit die Wet sal vertraag nie en hoe dit in enige geval meer as veertien dae in beslag sal neem nie. ’n Eenvoudige omsendbrief sal myns insiens voldoende blyk om uit te vind hoeveel wynproduserende boere aangeslote is as lede van die ko-operasie.

Dit spyt my, dat ek die amendement nie kan aanneem nie, want dit het niks met die artiekel onder behandeling te doen nie. Die vriend vra in die amendement, dat ons die konstitusie van die vereniging sal aantas en dit is nie iets wat hier onder behandeling is nie. Die vereniging het natuurlik hulle eie statute ert daarin word neer gelê, hoe iemand lid word en wie geen lid mag word nie. Die amendement val dus heeltemaal buite ons bestek om, nl., daaroor uitspraak te gee. Dit word gesê, dat lede wat bedank het, al is die bedanking nog nie aangeneem nie, nie sal gereken word as te val onder die Wet nie en hulle wyn val ook nie daaronder nie. Ons sal heeltemal van de koers af raak en ’n wet maak die indruis teen ko-operasie. Ek dink daarom, dat ons moet bly by die artiekel soas dit daar staat. Dit is ’n pure wetlike kwessie wie lid is, wanneer hy ophou om dit te wees; dit word beslis onder die Wet op maatskappye, wat heeltemaal ’n ander wet is. Ons moet dit so laat bly, want ons is nie besig om die Wet op kooperasie te verander nie.

Op welke manier wil die Regering uitvind wie ’n wynboer is en wie nie?

Ek meen dat hierin sal ons alle lede moet kry, Wat op die hoogte is en kan oordeel of 75 persent deur die ko-operasie gekontroleer word. Daar is die lede sonder die ko-operasie, wat sê hulle, en wat sê die ander?

Ek stel my amendement nie voor nie, maar wel die van die edele lid vir Kaapstad (Kasteel) (de hr. Alexander) wat verskyn op bladsy 336.

I would like to say a few words about this Bill. These industrial Bills have a strange habit of disappearing when they leave this House. It is about nine years ago that a similar Bill to the one we are passing, now left this House, and that is the last we saw of it. I would like to say that we have, throughout this Bill tried to follow a definite line of action; we have tried to secure a free field for organisations of both employers and employees, and leave the Bill to work automatically. We have not quite succeeded in that object. The Bill, as the Committee reported it, would have worked automatically, and the Minister would then have had little or no choice in the matter; but, unfortunately, the Minister has loaded himself with the very onerous task of deciding many points under this Bill, and it is in regard to the discharge of those duties we desire to say a few words. For either the employers or employees to disregard the Bill would make it a dead letter. We must depend upon their commonsense, together with a feeling as to the fairness of the machinery provided to secure proper use being made of the measure. Where discretionary powers to the Minister are left under the Act, the Minister must be very careful in regard to his decisions. I foresee that, whichever way the Minister gives a decision, he will be accused of partiality. If his decisions do not suit the employer he will be accused of partiality from that quarter, and vice versa. He has got to be very careful or the Bill will be useless. Until you have found some way of making men work who will not work, and making employers pay who will not pay, then the penalties of this Bill are practically useless. It must depend on the good common sense of the men, and in their having the impression that both sides are getting a square deal. That is why we have fought against the insertion in this Bill of provisions which did not come before the Select Committee, and in which, as I suggested before, there is a very onerous task laid on the shoulders of the Minister. This Bill, too, is not in accordance with the evidence; in certain very important particulars it departs from it, yet the Committee were very careful to call any available evidence which might throw some light on the problem they had to solve. The Chamber of Mines were invited to give evidence, and they declined. I do not want to make an accusation without some grounds, but owing to the nature of the amendments made in Committee, bearing as they do on controversial matters which have recently engaged the attention of employers and employees on the Witwatersrand, I suspect very much why the Chamber of Mines declined to give evidence before the Select Committee. They preferred to state their case to the Minister. The amendments which this House has passed were the result. These deal with very dangerous subjects. It seems to me that the Minister, with his lack of technical knowledge, should not be called upon to decide highly technical matters, and I do hope that he will try as little as possible to give offence by coming to hasty conclusions, with regard to the appointment of a conciliation board, before hearing both sides. I also think that the House should ignore representations from persons who will not come before a Select Committee and give evidence, upon which they can be cross-examined.

I want to go on quite a different point, and a point I wanted to speak about before but, unfortunately, was too late. It is on the question of private registry offices being brought into a Bill like this. It seems to me that it is not a proper place to bring in any regulation of private registry offices in a Conciliation Bill of this nature. If I had been in time I should have moved for the deletion of all these provisions dealing with private registry offices, not only for the reason that, as I say, they are not at home in a Bill of this sort, they are not properly domiciled in a Bill of this sort, but because we are now repealing an Act in the Cape which worked very well and very satisfactorily. I should rather have seen the Minister bring in separate legislation on the lines of that Act, if the idea was, as he said before, to meet some requirements of the League of Nations, or some other body of that sort, to have these private registry offices regulated. That is just precisely what we did in the old Cape Act of 1906: it was regulated so that the person who keeps the office himself is registered, and has to be approved by the Magistrate on a certificate of character by a number of the people living in the neighbourhood. Now, under this particular Act, I wish to point out, if anybody wants to open a private registry office for domestic servants at Wynberg, say, to take my own constituency, he has to go to the Registrar of Trade Unions in Pretoria, I suppose, or somewhere else, and ask for a licence for a private registry office. Then we find that it is laid down here that regulations will be made by the Governor-General to meet all these cases. We have it laid down that “the registrar may refuse registration in any circumstances and for reasons prescribed by regulation.” That is another objection I have to this growing method of legislation by regulation if it is going so far as to leave to the Registrar of Trade Unions the question as to whether in any particular locality, say Wynberg, a certain person is a fit and proper person to carry on the ordinary avocation of a private servant’s registry office, and we thus have the position that Registrars of Trade Unions have the possibility of saying “I refuse this and I give you no reason for it.” It is another instance of over-centralization.

I wish to refer to the question of the Government printers. Hon. members will remember when this matter was before the committee the Minister said then that they were covered by the proviso. The members of the Government printing service consider that as Government servants they should be excluded in the same way as the railways’ servants are. They feel that although they are members of trade unions they are in no worse a position than the members of the railway service who are also members of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, etc. They feel that the interests of the Government would be best served if the Government printers were excluded from the provisions of this Bill. They maintain, that their work is a responsible work; that they deal with confidential matters and they should not be brought into any dispute which may arise in the printing trade. If a dispute arises in their own works it should be dealt with by themselves, and they should not be drawn into any outside dispute.

I would just like to say a few words with regard to the points which have been raised. I want to give the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) the assurance? that in my conduct of this Bill through the committee this year and through the House I was actuated by two motives only. One is to get a workable measure. There may be an honest difference of opinion as to whether some of the amendments which have been accepted will attain that object or not, but this has been my motive. Secondly, I have had the practicability of passing this measure on to the statute book in my mind all thé time. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) has referred to previous attempts of this kind; I have been long enough Minister of Mines now to know how difficult it is to get any industrial legislation of this kind through Parliament, and I trust that in this, our third attempt, backed up now by the report of a commission, the Industrial Board which inquired into this matter in 1922, we will now succeed in putting this matter through. I want to assure the hon. member that as far as the Chamber of Mines is concerned, I have listened to representations from employers as well as representations from employees in regard to these things, and during the recess I was by no means listening to only representations from the one side or the other. I was actuated only by the motives I have mentioned. With regard to private registries, I think the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Buchanan) has misunderstood me. The League of Nations have again passed the resolution wanting to abolish private registries, and they have called upon the Governments, which are members of the League of Nations, to abolish them, whether domestic or otherwise, and asking that they should be controlled by Government departments. I have not adopted the full recommendations of the League of Nations. We have our labour system in the Cape and in the Transvaal, but not in Natal or the Free State. What I have done is not to abolish private registry offices, but to control them and from this control as both employers and employees become accustomed to it, we will be able to say whether they should be allowed to continue or whether the view of the League of Nations shall ultimately be adopted. We have Government machinery—it was agreed to only a few years ago, but we have an excellent system of Government Labour Bureaus throughout the Union—certainly in the large centres, and both the employers and the employees can see how the machinery is working, and it may be possible to get rid of private registry offices. I understand from information in my possession that in large centres such as Johannesburg and Cape Town, these registries are required. I trust in the circumstances, hon. members will not oppose this. With regard to the Government printing at Pretoria, the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) has also asked a question as to what the position is in regard to that. My information is this: there has been a decided split, or a division of opinion in the Government Printing Works at Pretoria. Some are in favour of continuing with the Printers’ Council which has been working fox several years, and, working on the whole, very satisfactory. There is another section, as we often find, who are dissatisfied, and want to get out. I think I am meeting them very fairly by saying that if the Minister is satisfied that the majority in their own interest want to get out, let them make representations, and he will assist them; on the other hand, if the great majority wish to remain, they will make representations to the Minister, and after due enquiry the Minister will reply.

Amendment put and negatived.

Proposed New Clause, as printed, put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted; third reading on 5th March.

moved—

Agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I should like to say a few words. I do not wish to say anything further than what appears in the memorandum submitted to you, Mr. Speaker, and I propose to retire from the House during the discussion of this matter.

I would also like to make a personal statement. I have nothing to add to the facts as stated in the letter addressed to the Clerk of the House asking for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) was challenged in the Select Committee, I, for the first time, recognized that I was in a similar position to that occupied by him, and therefore stated to the Select Committee that when I was submitting the resolution with regard to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) I should also state the facts as they affected myself, and would ask for your ruling also. I must say that this was the first time it occurred to me there could be any question of my right to sit on the Committee. The easiest thing would have been to retire at once, but I felt there was something more involved than my right to sit on the Committee; there was also my right to sit and vote in the House on this and similar questions. I thought, too, that this matter affected the rights and privileges of every member of Parliament, and therefore felt it was my duty to remain on the Committee and to ask for your ruling. I subsequently joined in asking that the matter might be referred to the House. I think this is a matter of much importance, affecting not only the rights of myself, but also the rights and privileges of every member in the House. I shall not take part in the proceedings, and shall retire from the House during the discussion.

withdrew from the House.

then moved—

I should just like to say that this is a matter of considerable importance. I am glad that the Select Committee has thought fit to bring the matter to the notice of the House. As regards the ruling of Mr. Speaker, I do not think there can be any two opinions about that matter. It is very fully set forth in the minutes of the House, and I trust the House will agree with all the arguments therein set forth. I would like to say that this matter affects the rights and privileges of this House, and if we were to debar members from taking part in the deliberations of this House, if they were indirectly interested, as contemplated by the question, legislation would become impossible. I would like to ask: is there a single member of this House, whether that member sits on this side of the House or the other side, who is not indirectly interested in the question? If you want to take the matter that far, I would challenge the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), who represents a constituency of miners on the Witwatersrand, if he is not, as such representative, interested. I think, in that way, that all the members of Parliament from the Rand are in one way or another interested. The rule of Act of Parliament which covers this matter is quite plain. Clause 11 of Law 19 of 1911 says—

and sub-section (3) says—

I maintain this question of contribution towards the Miners’ Phthisis Fund is a matter of public and general interest. It has all along been treated as such, and this is the first time this matter has been raised. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) has repeatedly served on Select Committees and on a commission for 1921-22 dealing with the same question—the same as the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) and other hon. members. We have now a clear ruling before us, and I think it would be a grave mistake for this House not to express a definite opinion with regard to the regularity of ruling of Mr. Spaker and the rights of those hon. members to sit on Select Committees in matters on which they have a representative interest, and on which Committees they have been appointed by this House. I move accordingly.

seconded.

Die kwessie wat hier vanmiddag voor ons is—en ek dink ons almal hier in die Huis voel dit dadelik—is ’n kwessie van besonder belang. Dit geld hier in die eerste plek ’n kwessie, wat van die grootste invloed kan wees op die onpartydigheid en die eerlikheid van wetgewing deur die Huis in die toekoms en tegelykertyd geld dit ’n kwessie van reëling deur die Speaker te doen. Nou, ek neem die posiesie in dat die reëling van die Speaker m.i. heeltemal gelyk kom met ’n beslissing van die Hoërgeregshof en daarom gaat ek heeltemal saam met die voorstel van die edele Minister vir Mynwese en Nyverheid, dat die Huis daarin behoort toe te stem. Ek beskou dit so, dat ons hier te doen het met ’n kwessie wat vatbaar is vir twee antwoorde en of ons verskil met die Speaker of dit met hom eens is, dit is nie die kwessie nie. Die kwessie is, dat daar ’n beslissing geneem is in verband met die reglement van orde, reglement No. 119, en ons het maar net te oorweeg of ons dit by die beslissing behoort te laat. Nou sê ek dit, ek voel oortuig daarvan, dat ons behoort aan te neem die beslissing van die Speaker net soos ’n beslissing van die Hof, wat eerlik, ompartydig die kwessie oorweeg het en gesê het, dit is my sienswyse van twee of meer sienswyse wat daar is. Ons het nie die minste reg om iets daarteen te opper nie, maar dan wens ek dit te sê, en ek hoop dat die edele Minister dit gaan aanneem, dat daar bygevoeg word die volgende. Die Minister het voorgestel—

en ek wens daarby te voeg—

Hierdeur, Mnr. Speaker, doet ons wat reg is, ons doet voile reg aan die waardigheid van hierdie Huis, voile reg aan die waardigheid en gesag van Mnr. Speaker se reëling, welke reëling ons aanneem en ek sê ons kan nie anders. Die Huis behoor dit aan te neem. Ons behoor die Speaker te ondersteun solank ons oortuig is daarvan, dat die sy beste gedoen het, hoe ons ook daarvan verskil. Maar dan bly nog die verdere kwessie en daarom die amendement, in hoever ons kan aanneem, dat dit in die toekoms ons reglement van orde gaat wees, en wat dit betref wens ek ’n paar woorde te sê, omrede dat ek beskou, dat as ons dit gaat aanneem, dan het ons so goed as geen waarborg in die toekoms, dat lede van die Parlement hulle stem uitbring, hier en in die Gekose Komitee alleen met die oog op die belange van die publiek en nie met die oog op hulle eie sakbelange me. Ek wens net ’n paar woorde daaromtrent te sê, om aan te toon hoe noodsaaklik dit is. Seksie 119 sê in die eerste seksie, dat geen lid geregtig is in die Huis of in Kommissie van die Huis deel te neem aan stemming of bespreking van sake waarby hy direkte geldelike belang het.

Direkte.

Direkte geldelike belange. Maar dan sê Seksie 2, en ek wens die aandag van die hoogedele die Eerste Minister ook daarop te vestig: dat ’n lid beskou word geldelike belange te hê wanneer hy ’n direkteur van ’n maatskappy is of andere ampt beklee, m.a.w. mits dit kan aangewys word, dat die maatskappy ’n direkte belang het daarby, dan mag hy nie stem en aan die bespreking deelneem, want dan beskou die reglement hom as optredend as maatskappy. Die hele kwessie sou dus wees, wat ons onder ons reglement te doen het met direkteure van maatskappye as die maatskappye daarby belang het. Dit is die hele kwessie vir die Selekt Komitee, of die goudmyne maatskappye, en ek glo dat die maatskappye hier verteenwoordig word deur die edele lid vir Troyeville (de hr. Webber) en ek glo ook deur die edele lid vir Pietermaritzburg (Suid) (de hr. O’Brien) direkte belang by die saak het. Ek sê, hier is sekere maatskappye waarvan hulle direkteur is en die maatskappye is direk onder die Mynteringwetsontwerp verplig om by te dra tot die Mynteringfonds en die hele kwessie waaromtrent die Gekose Komitee ondersoek moet doen is of die myne genoeg kontribueer of nie. ’n Direkter kwessie van geldelike belang kan ’n mens tog noueliks vind. Die kwessie is of die maatskappy verteenwoordig deur die edele lid van Troyeville (de hr. Webber) en andere genoeg betaal of nie genoeg nie. Die edele lid vir Troyeville (de hr. Webber) is direkteur daarvan. Ek neem nou die ene syde wat nie ingeneem is deur die Speaker, en ek sê daar kan dus geen twyfel van wees nie—en ek dink ieder is geregtig om die saak van sy kant te beskou—dat die edele lid vir Troyeville (de hr. Webber) onder sub-seksie (2) van Seksie 119 van die Reglement van Orde as verteenwoordiger van die maatskappy as sodanig geldelike belang by die saak het, want die sub-seksie sê, dat as iemand direkteur is of ’n ander amt beklee by ’n maatskappy, dan het hy geldelik belang, en dus volgens my opienie geen reg om in die Selekt Komitee te sit nie. Maar aangenome nou dat dit nie reg is, dat die sienswyse van die Speaker meer reg is, dan vra ek die Huis, is dit gewens, dat ’n maatskappy wanneer die kwessie loop so direk op die punt van betaal, of die maatskappy genoeg betaal of nie genoeg nie, of dit dan reg is dat die maatskappy aan die diskussies hier of in die Selekt Komitee deel neem en deel neem aan die stemming. Ek dink die Huis moet dadelik erken, nee. As b.v. die edele lid vir Beaconsfield (Kol. Sir David Harris) ’n voorstel doet, waarby hy persoonlik voordeel het of die edele lid vir Paarl (Dr. de Jager) en die hele kwessie daaroor ging of die edele lid wel genoeg betaal of nie genoeg betaal, of hy meer of minder moet betaal, as die hele kwessie daaroor ging, dan sou tog niemand beweer dat die edele lid vir Paarl (Dr. de Jager) nie direkdaarby betrokke is nie en beweer dat onder seksie 119 die edele lid nog geregtig sou wees om hier te kom stem in die Huis of in die Selekt Komitee. Maar dan vra ek as dit nie so is nie, wanneer het dan ooit ’n man geldelike belangé. Die gevolg sal wees, dat mense wat betrokke is by ’n groot saak, die kan iemand aanstel, hulle kan hom besoldig, en waar hulle nie in die Parlement kan inkom nie en hulle stem uitbring nie, daar kan hul dat laat doen deur iemand wat hulle angestel het. Dit gaat die gevolg wees. Die edele Minister sê, dat as ons nie die reëling van die Speaker aanneem nie, dan gaat dit baie moeilik wees om hier in Suidafrika die nodige manne te vind, wat kennis het van sake om hier te verskyn en in Selekt Komitee te verskyn. Maar dan sê ek as dit so baie moeilik sal wees, dan sal dit tog nog baie moeiliker wees, om in die toekoms, sake waarby geldelike belange by te pas kom, om oor die sake ’n onpartydige en eerlike beslissing te kry in Kommissie en hier in die Huis. Wat gaat die swaarste weeg? Ons het hier keer op keer te doen met sake, waar persone in Selekt Komitee optree, en waar hulle so goed as niks van af weet nie. Hulle is daarom nie minder bekwaam nie en hulle het die reg om getuigenis te hoor en eksperts in te roep en hulle op die hoogte van sake te stel. Selfs in besonder sware tegniese punte kan hulle eksperts kry en die mense in die Komitee vertrou ek baie meer nog dan jou belanghebbende eksperts. As één week nie genoeg is om hulle op hoogte van sake te stel nie, dan neem hulle twee weke en as twee weke nie genoeg is nie, dan neem hulle ’n maand. Maar waarom die deur ope te set vir eksperts, wanneer die eksperts belang het by die saak, wie se sake direk geaffekteer is? Waarom dit te doen? Ek se wanneer die edele Minister sê dat ons nie genoeg geskikte mans sal kry nie, dan sê ek, ek glad nie bang daarvoor nie. Ek kan my dus tot my spyt wat dit betref nie verenig nie met die besware van die edele Minister nie. Die edele Minister het gesê, dat hierdie saak die regte, die priwilegies van die lede affekteer. Welke priwilegies, welke regte? Moet dan diegene wat geroepe word om die volksverteenwoordiging te vorm, nie in alle onpartydigheid besluite neem nie? Welke man het die reg om hier te kom praat waar die saak sy eie belang betref. As dit so is, dan behoor seksie 119 daar glad nie te wees nie. Sektie 119 die ontseg juis aan edele lede enig reg om in die Parlement te kom of in Kommissie te gaan en te spreek wanneer hy geldelike belang by ’n saak het. Hy het dus geen reg, geen priwilegie wat sake van die aard betref en geen reg of priwilegie word hom hier ontneem, nie onder die voorwaarde kom hy hier as lid van die Parlement. Ek het dus gesê, dat ek die reëling van die Speaker aanneem, maar dan sê ek, dat dit nou tyd is om seksie 119 weer in oorweging te neem, of altans dat die Kommissie waarin Mnr. Speaker is en andere lede, Ministers van die Huis, dat ons die Kommissie vra om seksie 119 nog eens in oorweging te neem en indien wenselik om daar die een of andere bepaling aan toe te voeg, waarby dan duideliker word omskrewe wanneer ’n edele lid van hierdie Huis deel kan uitmaak van Kommissies, of liewer wanneer hy deur geldelike belange in ’n saak nie deel kan uitmaak nie. Dis vir my baie duidelik, dat na die Reëling van Mnr. Speaker, dat nou blyk, dat die Huis nooit die betekenis daarvan geken het nie, as die reëling van Mnr. Speaker juis is. Dis natuurlik die beste om die Kommissie te laat beslis ja of nee. Ons is hier ’n groot Huis en dis duidelik dat ons soo ’n kwessie hier nie in die fyne kan nagaan nie. Daarom stel ek voor—en dit sal die edele Minister nie affekteer nie, en die Speaker nie affekteer nie, om die saak deur ’n Kommissie te laat ondersoek, want ons beskou dit in die belang van die toekoms van die Parlement en die gesag en waardigheid van die Parlement te wees. My dunk, een ding wil ons hoog hou, dit is, dat dat van ons nie gesê kan word en dat van ons nie in die toekoms gesê kan word nie, soos ek dink dat niemand die reg het om dit van die verlede te sê dat die Parlement geinfluenseer is om stappe te neem. Ek dink dit kan nie van die verlede gesê word eft ons moet baie versigtig wees, dat dit ook in die toekoms nie kan gesê word nie. Een ding, wat nie van die Parlement kan gesê word of nog ooit gesê is nie, is dat bedoelde liggaam beinvloed geword is om bepaalde stappe te neem terwille van hierdie of daardie lid, en ons behoort baie versigtig te wees dat dit nie sal kan gesê word in die toekoms nie. Ek is bang dat as ons dit so laat bly tereg of ten onregte, die beskuldiging ingebring sal word. Die soort bespreking bring altoos ’n sekere mate van animus te weeg en mens het so selde in die Huis kans om dit kalm en objektief te bespreek. Ons behoort geen stap te neem of plek oop te laat nie, dat wat in die verlede geskied is, nog meer sal geskied nie; daarom sal ek bly wees as die Minister die volgende amendement op die amendement van die Eerste Minister wil aksepteer—

I wish to second the amendment, and in doing so, I should like to say that I have never on such an important subject as this, heard the matter introduced and supported by such an unimportant speech as that of the right hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries. I think he must have realized that, in asking the House to accept an important ruling of this character in the manner he did, was really not worthy of himself—especially when he said that to contend that the hon. members concerned were pecuniarily interested was almost on a par with saying that the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) had a financial interest, because many of his constituents had a financial interest in miners’ phthisis compensation. I think that, in saying that, he must have realized that he was reducing the whole argument to an absurdity. The whole thing really strikes at the moral foundation of our public life, and in view of the experiences of other countries, especially of America—experiences which fortunately South Africa has been free from—it behoves this House to give this question the most careful consideration and to do justice to the subject, and once and for ail lay down what can be done and what cannot be done. I take it that the Ruling given by Mr. Speaker is now open for discussion by the House, and I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, and any hon. member, will appreciate any honest criticism in the interest of our public life. The question we are asked to consider is whether the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) are contravening Standing Order No. 119 by sitting as members of a Select Committee which is dealing with the question of miners’ phthisis, on the ground that they have, or are supposed to have, a direct pecuniary interest in any legislation which might result in consequence of their deliberations. It is admitted in the report, and it is admitted by the hon. members themselves, that they are directors and that they are shareholders in several gold-mining companies, and those mining companies have to pay into the miners’ phthisis fund their various contributions. Consequently the companies they belong to, as directors in the first place, and as shareholders in the second place, are financially affected by the contributions they pay to the miners’ phthisis fund. That is admitted by themselves and by Mr. Speaker’s Ruling now before the House. Now, Mr. Speaker divides his Ruling into two parts, and deals with these hon. members: (1) In their capacity of shareholders and as directors, Mr. Speaker rules as follows—

That is to say, that as shareholders they are not precluded from taking part in the Committee Then as directors I will read Mr. Speaker’s ruling too—

As directors, therefore, they are ruled in order on the ground of public policy. Well, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that practically all the legislation dealt with by this House is public legislation, or can be brought under the category of public policy. I venture to ask where is it laid down what is public and what is private business, except private Bills or hybrid Bills. Any Bill taken by the Government which comes before the House, unless it is described as being otherwise, is public, and therefore every matter of deliberation is covered by the term public business. If we are going to admit that as directors they are entitled to take part in these deliberations on the ground of public policy, then I submit, with all due respect, that the House might as well eliminate Standing Order No. 119 from the Standing Rules. We might as well remove Standing Order No. 119 if that Ruling is to be taken as correct. But I should like to go further and submit to this House that Standing Order No. 119 as far as the question of public policy is concerned, might be regarded as ultra vires. I am now referring to sub-section (3) of that standing order. We are governed by the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act of 1911.

Read sub-section (3) of Section 11.

Yes, I will read that. And then I will point out how our Standing Orders go much further than the Act itself allows. The Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act has no reference at all to public policy as the Standing Orders have, and I submit for the consideration of the Standing Orders Committee whether we have power, if these orders are based on and governed by the Main Act, to recognise this question of public policy as laid down in the Standing Orders, for the simple reason that the Main Act gives no such authority. I have these sections here, and I shall first of all read Standing Order No. 119, subsection (3)—

But the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act does not contain these last two lines “or to any vote or discussion on a matter involving a matter of public policy.” I will quote to the House sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act—

There is no reference to public policy, and therefore I submit that where Mr. Speaker’s ruling here lays down that as directors the hon. membes are competent to act under the terms of our Standing Orders, because they are acting on a matter of public policy, I submit that there is no authority for that, because the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act does not provide that. And why is it not provided, I ask? For the simple reason that it covers practically all our legislation. It means that if we are going to accept the public policy argument, then we may as well do away with Standing Order No. 119 and with sub-section (3) of the Act, because all our legislation can be classed to fall under public policy. Then there is another point. Under the same Ruling; it says that it is competent for them to act, because more than one mine is affected—it does not only affect the few mines they are interested in, but all the other mines. It only becomes a question of degree. If under the Ruling, they would be precluded from taking part, if there was only one mine affected, would they be precluded from taking part if there were two or three? We say that, although there are roughly fifty mines affected, they are still precluded from taking part, because all the mines are affected. It l as been pointed out by the House that this Miners’ Phthisis Contribution Fund is not a public fund, it is not a State fund, it is a purely private fund, and it is a fund subscribed by these few mines which are operating, those fifty mines that are operating. They are the only mines that subscribe to this fund, and to accept the principle that any members of this House who are also directors and financially interested in these mines can take part and vote on these questions is to accept and to admit them to be able to divorce their personal interest from their public duty, and that to my mind is too much to ask of these members. Because, in the first place, any legislation which that Committee recommends, and which this House passes, must of necessity either benefit or penalize the financial interests of those directors and those concerned in the mining group. Consequently, if this House urges that there shall be an increase in the contribution towards the Miners’ Phthisis Fund then naturally a director of the mine, and the shareholders of the mine, and the private and financial interests of those two members, will be directly benefitted or directly adversely affected, as the case may be, as the Committee recommends. Therefore, on the ground of public policy it is quite clear to me that there is no authority given for adjudicating on the ground of public policy, and on the ground of only being interested in a few mines and not in all the mines; that argument is exceedingly weak, because all the mines together contribute towards a private fund and that has to be increased or reduced according to the recommendation of the committee in which these two hon. members are allowed to sit. So much for the question of directors; let me come to the question of shareholders. It is laid down in this ruling that as shareholders they are not precluded from taking part in the deliberations because they have an interest in common with the public generally. Can we define what “an interest in common with the public generally ” is? First of all, we must try to get a definition what the interest in common with the general public is. At a rough and ready guess, if I were asked to define what it meant, I would say: how many people in South Africa have a common interest in the mines? If it is to be a common interest with the public generally it seems to me that half the public would have to have a common interest; such a definition would produce a common interest. I do not think eight per cent. of the general public have a common interest with the two hon. members mentioned; I do not think eight per cent. of the general public are shareholders in gold mining in South Africa. How many are there who have a common interest as directors? I do not think one per cent. of the general public have a common interest as directors or eight per cent. as shareholders; therefore, on the question of common public interest as shareholders they are allowed, according to Mr. Speaker’s ruling, to sit and take part in the deliberations of that Committee, I venture to suggest that that argument is very weak and open to further consideration, because so few of the people in South Africa have a common interest in gold mining. I hope the Prime Minister will support the amendment and have it laid down once and for all so that a member of this House is not placed in the invidious position of having his actions brought into review, and I hope it will be laid down so that a member will see how he falls under Standing Order 119; that is, if he has a direct pecuniary interest in the matter to be deliberated upon. I think, after all, it very largely depends upon members themselves who instinctively will know whether legislation will affect their interests in this or that way. I believe the House of Commons’ practice is not to rule definitely, but to leave it to the member himself, and then leave it to a member to challenge any vote which is taken upon any particular issue. I think, in the interests of this House, and I hope, that the Prime Minister will agree, the whole question of Standing Order 119 dealing with the subject and of section 11 of the main Act should be considered by the Standing Orders Committee. After all is said and done, the Standing Orders Committee is the advising body on the Standing Orders. If we want to amend our Standing Orders it can only be done, or is generally done, on the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee, and the Standing Orders Committee is not the South African party, the National party, or the Labour party, but is Parliament deliberating on the Rules and Procedures it will adopt for the guidance and business of this House. To me, as I say, this is one of the most important things the House has to deal with, because it strikes at the very foundation of the purity of our public life. I hope that the Minister of Mines and Industries will not brush the matter so lightly aside when he replies, as he did when he moved the motion, but will agree in the best interests of the purely of public life, without casting any reflection whatever on Mr. Speaker’s ruling or on the two hon. members concerned, and that this House will accept the amendment and let the Standing Orders Committee discuss it and let us know once and for all what an hon. member’s position is under Standing Order 119 and Section 11 of the Act.

I rise to point out that there are two questions here which we ought to keep quite clear and distinct from each other. The one is a ruling of Mr. Speaker with regard to which my right hon. colleague has moved that the House concur in, and with regard to which the hon. member the leader of the Opposition (Gen. Hertzog) has said he has no fault to fin 1. Taking the Standing Order 119 as it is, although he himself might see the possibility of a different interpretation, he has no fault to find with that Standing Order or with the ruling which Mr. Speaker has given, and, therefore, he also is prepared to support the concurrence in the opinion given by Mr. Speaker. That is one matter. The other matter is Rule 119. The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) says that he is somewhat perturbed at the scope of this rule as now interpreted; that to his mind it goes further even than he, at any rate, had intended to go, and that, in his opinion anyhow, a case is made out of the redrafting, or curtailment, or reshaping of that Standing Order 119. The hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell), whilst saying that, also goes further, and says that, in his opinion, there is even a case made out that Rule 119 is ultra vires; that it merits a fresh consideration into the matter; in referring to matters of public policy it merits a fresh consideration, which also requires the reconsideration of Rule 119 on a question of ultra vires These, to my mind, are two entirely different questions. Rule 119, whether it goes too far, whether it is ultra vires, is one question; the ruling which, on the assumption that Rule 119 is so, and on which Mr. Speaker has given his ruling, is quite a different question, and the House, I think, would be making a mistake if by any resolution that it passes to-day it were to mix up these two questions. I am not going to enter into the merits of this question; I do not think it is necessary to thresh out the merits of the question: to argue whether from the point of view of the purity or morality of public life this or that should be the character of the rule. I am not going to enter into that question, nor into its application in the cases under discussion. I simply want to keep on the right procedure in dealing with this question, and I would say to my hon. friend the member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), do not let us mix up these two questions in the resolution we are going to pass. Mr. Speaker has given a ruling; we, on the basis of Standing Order 119, do not question that ruling. If the House wants to question it; let it do so directly and openly; if we want to question the ruling which Mr. Speaker has given, and to challenge and reverse it, as it is in our power to do, let us do directly, and do not let us do so by a subterfuge. But that is not our intention; it has been clearly stated by the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) that that is not his intention; he is prepared to concur in the ruling given by Mr. Speaker; let us then concur in, the ruling of Mr. Speaker, as moved by my right hon. friend the Minister of Mines and Industries, and leave the matter there, so far as this resolution is concerned, to be taken up, quite apart from any direction of this House, by the Standing Orders Committee. That is the suggestion I shall make to my right hon. friend. The Committee is there for this very business of considering cases like this; let us dissever the reference to the Committee entirely from the concurrence with Mr. Speaker’s ruling, and let us dispose of it by concurrence. But our attention having been drawn to the facts now in the application as stated to us to-day, let the Standing Orders Committee, on its own action and without any hesitation, proceed to consider Rule 119 on those grounds which have been mentioned to-day by the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) and by the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell). Let us consider, in the first place, whether Rule 119 does not go too far in the public interest; let us consider, in the second place, whether Rule 119 is not ultra vires, in view of the provisions of the Act on which it is founded. These are entirely separate questions which can be dealt with separately, and ought not to be mixed up with the resolution now before us. I would therefore ask the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) not to press his amendment which might be construed as a challenge, not openly and directly, but secretly and by way of subterfuge—a challenge of Mr. Speaker’s ruling which the hon. member says he does not intend to do.

May I say that it must come before the Committee by way of a motion? Will you consent to an unopposed motion?

It need not by way of motion; the question can be raised in the Standing Orders Committee without any motion from the House. If the hon. member wants a meeting I assure him that a meeting of the Standing Orders Committee to consider this question will be held. I shall agree to it. I am sure Mr. Speaker will agree to it, and that hon. members and every member of that committee will agree to holding this meeting and deal with this question. It is there fore not necessary to mix it up with this motion; I simply want to deal with this matter in a plain and regular way and not to mix up the question of Rule 119 with the Ruling which Mr. Speaker has given in this case. Let the law be considered apart from his application. This application we approve, but we are going to amend the law if we consider that amendment is called for under the circumstances. I certainly, so far as the Government is concerned, would not like to agree to an amendment such as is moved by the hon. member, which would seem to censure, or rather to challenge, the ruling which has been given by Mr. Speaker, and does not do so openly or in a manly way, but does so by way of a flank attack and by way of subterfuge. If we do so let us do so openly, but I do not think that is the intention. Reconsider Rule 119, and if it is to be amended, bring up the amendment. That the Select Committee can do without any motion from this House, and they will do generally whatever is required, even if the hon. member withdraws the amendment of which he has given notice.

I cannot understand precisely the Prime Minister’s objects in the remarks he has made. Our position is a perfectly clear one. There is no attempt to mix matters—The resolution and the amendment refer to the same matter which has been brought before this House. We are all, in whatever quarter of the House we are in, concerned wherever we possibly can to uphold the authority of the Chair. It is only in the most extreme cases that any of us, with any sense of responsibility, would ask the House to dissent from the Speaker’s ruling. In this particular ruling I am not dissenting from it. I have read the ruling very carefully. I do not care who is in the Chair, but there is a difficulty in interpreting the loose and comparatively vague terms: “class” or “section.” The point is, whatever the ruling is, those who in their hearts and minds differ from you, think that it might be interpreted in a different manner. The feeling is that one is not justified in asking the House to differ from the ruling, but there is a gulf as wide as the Atlantic between refusing to accept the ruling and objecting to a Standing Order. The whole intention of the Standing order is clearly to provide against any hon. member being placed in a position where he has to adjudicate on something in which his own pecuniary interests are concerned. In matters considered by this House the members sitting here are the guardians of public interest and should be under no temptation, direct or indirect, to consider their own pecuniary interest as against the public. That is the object of this standing order. Here let me say that I associate myself with the hon. member, the leader of the Opposition, and I entirely exonerate the two hon. members from any sort of suspicion or aspersion whatever upon their bona fides in sitting in the Committee. This is simply a matter of principle, and as the occasion has arisen, one feels that Mr. Speaker felt that he was bound to rule as he did, but whatever attitude he took he could not arrive at a different conclusion. I presume when ruling on this point, Mr. Speaker had to consider the position of a large number in this House, and his ruling, which we do not dispute, will, it is quite clear, affect a large number of cases, though an almost inconsiderable number of persons. To pass without any comment the resolution of the right hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries would be establishing a precedent giving the concurrence of the House—this is a matter in which we are all responsible—giving the imprimatur of the House that the standing order in its present position is satisfactory—not alone that the Speaker’s ruling, but the standing order is acceptable. I do not think that that is the opinion of any member of these benches, and I do not think it is a feeling shared by members on the other side. Therefore I can see nothing whatever in the Prime Minister’s plea that we should abandon our rights to refer this matter to the Standing Orders Committee with instructions. This is not an expression of want of confidence in Mr. Speaker. We accept his ruling, as we are bound to accept his ruling unless there are very serious grounds for disagreeing, but as far as the standing orders are concerned, it should be referred to the Standing Orders Committee not only for deliberation and discussion, but also for a report for this House, and the matter should not rest as it is. I do not propose to go into any arguments, but there are not many hon. members in the whole of this House who can accept the standing orders. Take, for instance. “section.” How does it affect a board of directors of the gold mining industry or the whole of the personnel of directors of all gold mines? Such personnel might be reduced to a matter of 100 persons. If they do not constitute a part or section, do 99? This is a matter in which Parliament cannot be too careful, too meticulously scrupulous that in the proceedings in this House there is no loop-hole in our laws and proceedings of which advantage might be accidentally taken in which members’ private interest is concerned. I hope the amendment will be accepted that the matter be referred to a Select Committee with instructions to report to the House.

Na aanleiding van die suggestie wat daar gekom het van die edele die Eerste Minister, wil ek net sê dat sy suggestie eientlik nie aan die moeilikhede van die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) tegemoet kom nie. Die edele lid het duidelik te kenne gegee, dat, hoewel hy persoonlik mag verskil van die reeling van die Speaker, hy tog onder die omstandighede die reëling aanneem as synde korrek ooreenkomstig die intensies van die reglement. Maar die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) meen, dat dit ’n saak is, en dat dit ook die mening van die Huis is, dat verder ondersoek gedaan moet word omtrent seksie 119 van die Reglement van Orde en dat dit gedoen sal word deur die Staande Komitee. Ek weet nie of die edele die Eerste Minister van mening is dat daar verandering gebring moet word in Seksie 119 nie, maar in elk geval is dit die gevoel in die Huis, dat die Kommissie in verband met die bestaande reglement die hele saak sal ondersoek en rapport sal uitbring aan die Huis. Maar dit wil ek die edele die Eerste Minister laat voel, dat die moontlikheid bestaan, dat die Kommissie van Orde sal sê “nee, ons gaan die saak nie behandel nie.” Die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) wens, dat die Huis instruksie sal gee vir die ondersoek, maar hy wil nie suggereer nie, dat die minste sweem van blaam daardeur gewerp word op die reëling deur die Speaker. Die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) sal sy voorstel terug trek, rnaar onder die versekering dat die edele die Eerste Minister more of op ’n andere geskikte tyd ’n onbestrede mosie sal indien, om instruksie te gee tot ondersoek van Artiekel 119 van die Reglement van Orde.

Ja, seker.

As die edele die Eerste Minister daartoe bereid is, dan bestaan daar geen verdere beswaar om die mosie terug te trek nie.

Ek wil net dit sê, dat dit presies is wat ek dink, wat die edele lid vir Humansdorp (de hr. C. W. Malan) net gesê het omtrent ’n voorstel deur die edele die Eerste Minister te maak, dit lyk vir my heeltemaal die beste weg. En wanneer die edele die Eerste Minister daartoe bereid is, dan wens ek met verlof van die edele lid, wat my gesekordeer het, my amendement terug te neem. Ek weet nie of die edele lid, wat my gesekondeet het, verstaan het wat die edele lid vir Humansdorp (de hr. C. W. Malan) gesê het—[EEIN EDELE LID: “Ja, hulle het hom dit net vertel.”]

I would just like to say one word here now that an arrangement has been come to. The Prime Minister will move as a motion—

I should like to say a few words before the Minister replies. I wanted to suggest that it would be better to withdraw the motion now that the amendment has been withdrawn. I understood that it was held that the motion with the amendment cast some sort of slur upon Mr. Speaker’s ruling, but we are exactly in the same position now with regard to the motion. If the motion is not carried, it will distinctly cast a slur upon Mr. Speaker’s ruling. I am quite sure that nobody desires to cast any sort of slur upon Mr. Speaker’s ruling, although I, personally, felt surprised when I saw it. If I had been Mr. Speaker, I should not have given that ruling, and I am quite sure that if Mr. Speaker had known all the ramifications of the Miners’ Phthisis Act, and how certain members of the Select Committee are pecuniarily interested in those ramifications, he might possibly have given a different ruling. In regard to this particular matter, my opinion is that the rule was purposely drafted wide. While, on the one hand, to prevent it being construed to cover such an eventuality as preventing a member from voting upon a question by which he might benefit in common with a section of the public, on the other hand, it can be construed, as on an occasion like this, that where a person is found to be voting upon a question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, he should not be allowed to vote upon that question in this House or its Committee, or to sit upon the Committee which is discussing it. My knowledge of the miners’ phthisis leads me to believe that those hon. members who have been referred to are directly and pecuniarily interested in such a question, as to whether a mine which is not working at the time, is discharged at the time of its closing down of its liability to the Miners’ Phthisis Act. These members have a direct pecuniary interest in the funds from which the money paid for miners’ phthisis is drawn. There is no difference in their case than in the case of a private employer dealing with a workman under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. My knowledge of this Act leads me to say that there is no clause in this Act, or, say, with the exception of a very few clauses, where hon. members whose qualification is in dispute will not find himself in a false position. I consider that this clause was devised to prevent members from having to occupy that false position. Mr. Speaker himself admits in his ruling that if a separate company had been spoken of in this Act, and it was a question of these hon. members being directors of such company, and being called upon to vote, then his ruling would have been in the opposite direction. He admits that point, but there is absolutely no difference between the one company specially mentioned in this Act and those which are mentioned on the scheduled list. In regard to these assessments as between company and company, just think of the position of directors of various companies who are members of one Select Committee. Such a director sitting on a Select Committee has to determine the nature and manner of assessment of the levy. So much per cent. has to be levied on the profits of the mine, so much per cent. on its silicosis rate, and so much per cent. on the earnings of the miners. A director of a mine has knowledge of all these things in regard to his mine, and one can see the diversity of interests between the low-grade mines and the new-grade mines. The newer mine would have large profits, but a director of a low-grade mine would prefer a greater percentage of the phthisis rate to be levied upon profits rather than upon the silicosis rate. A director of the newer mine would like to see his company relieved of its contribution, which is based upon the amount of income tax which is paid. Consequently, we can see what a wrangle would go on. All the way through the Bill, in the matter of awarding benefits, a director would have had pecuniary interest in the company impressed upon his mind when he sat upon the Select Committee. I do not agree with the ruling of Mr. Speaker, but I believe he has done his best to give a fair general ruling on the matter. But owing to the vagueness of the rule and his lack of knowledge of the intricasies of the Miners’ Phthisis Act, he has failed to give a ruling with which I can agree. I suggest to the Minister that he might withdraw his motion, and wait for the amendment to be moved as a substantive motion.

I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) should appeal to the Prime Minister. We are now departing from what is laid down in the previous rule. The same thing happened, as hon. members will remember, when the mine trading question came up. Mr. Speaker then gave his ruling, and his ruling was accepted by the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) who retired from that Committee. Only a day or two ago another gentleman did the very same in regard to the Select Committee on the Wine Bill. If this is going to be an accepted ruling, then Rule 119 should be carried out so far as directors are concerned. Rule 119 has been a rule which has guided Select Committees in the past; now we are going to say that a director of a company is going to be eligible to vote and sit on any Select Committee. I would put it to the Prime Minister that the Miners’ Phthisis Bill is not so much a public Bill, but more in the nature of a privately contested Bill. To show that these facts are not entirely in accordance with what would have been the case if Mr. Speaker had been in possession of the whole facts, the Minister of Mines will tell the House that one of the most difficult subjects that the Phthisis Committee has to deal with is what the contribution is to be after mines close down, that these companies have to pay to keep these unfortunate men in existence. And as that amount is much, so the pecuniary interest of those gentlemen is small, and as that amount is small, so their pecuniary interest is increased, and it is to their interest to see that that amount gets off the schedule, and that that particular mine pays as little as possible to the compensation fund. At present the law which is in operation says that a basis is taken over seven years, and the contribution to be paid has to be based on three-sevenths of the contribution paid by the mine during the preceding seven years, I submit that the amount is inadequate, and these companies have largely created the miners’ phthisis patients, and they should pay the full amount for these patients with their necessary contingencies, which they have created. These gentlemen are directly interested to see that that article is made as large or as small as possible, and it is not, as Mr. Speaker states, that because these mines have closed down that these gentlemen are released from liability. On the contrary, their pecuniary interest is more directly involved. That is a technical question which arises. Now, Mr. Speaker in his Ruling deals with the question of public policy. I submit that this is not a question of public policy, but of private policy in so far as these companies are concerned. In May’s parliamentary procedure two cases are quoted in which two directors were involved; two members in question were directors, and the third was a shareholder, and I suppose it was on these rulings that this question was inserted in the Standing Rules and Orders with regard to these directors’ direct responsibility. Another mistake which I submit has unwittingly been made by Mr. Speaker, through want of knowledge of the facts, is where he says that a few mines, and not all the mines, are concerned. The position is that the schedule contains forty mines. Out of these forty the hon. member for Maritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) through the parent company, indirectly and directly, represents five mines, and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) seven, so that twelve out of this group of forty mines are represented by these two gentlemen. It is only forty mines, not all the mines. It is the forty on the Witwatersrand which are concerned and these gentlemen are directly responsible for the contributions of twelve of these mines. The Act lays it down in Clauses ten and twelve that the funds must be paid into a miners’ phthisis fund through these forty companies, and this law, which we are now sitting on in Select Committee, has to decide what the snare of each company is going to be. I cannot see how a director of each one of these twelve companies can fail to be pecuniarily interested Say these twelve companies in sitting in Select Committee were in a position to outvote the others on the committee and decide that they would contribute nothing to those funds and lay that down in the Act. Say that they were going to lay it down that there was to be no contribution from these twelve companies. Would that be in the interest of the public? I submit it would not. At the last session of this House, the Prime Minister said that the Select Committee was on its trial. If this sort of thing is going to go on, many of us would find it impossible to go on these Select Committees. The Government can place a majority of its supporters on each Committee, and if the Committees are going to be from one side then we shall have difficulty in getting through legislation which would have any ameliorating effect. We put in a lot of time on these Committees, and we have to do a lot of hard work, and if a suspicion gets abroad that these Committees are packed against us, then I say they will defeat their own object and the calm atmosphere of deliberation will be completely lost.

May I call attention to this fact that there seems to be a great deal of confusion about this matter? I should like to direct the attention of the House to the terms of reference to this Select Committee, as they appear on page 144 of the Votes and Proceedings—

It seems to me that all this discussion is a storm in a tea cup. In any case, these gentlemen sitting on that committee cannot do anything that could possibly be reprobated because they are only enquiring into the Act of 1919 and how it works. That is why I thought at the time when the motion of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) was moved that it was futile.

I would not have spoken on this question, but I happen to be a member of the Committee concerned, and I also happen to be a shareholder in certain gold mines. Now I must say that I was amazed at the startling and arbitrary definition given by the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) of one of the clauses of No. 119 Standing Rules. This Rule lays down, as has been stated, that a member cannot be on any committee and take part in any discussion on any matter in which he has a direct pecuniary interest. And then the exceptions to that rule followed, and sub-section (3) says the Standing Order shall not apply to any vote or discussion concerning any remuneration or allowance to be received by members in their capacity as such, or to any interests which a member may have in any matter in common with the public generally, or with any class or section thereof, or to any vote or discussion on a matter involving a question of public policy. Well to my astonishment the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) interpreted these words “in any matter in common with the public generally” to mean that at least half the population of the Union—I presume he meant the white population—must be concerned, for instance, as shareholders, and I understood him to mean that anyone who was a shareholder would be prevented from sitting on this Committee, unless at least one half of the population were shareholders. If the interpretation which the hon. member gives, and which I cannot for a moment accept, is correct, then a holder of mining shares might be precluded, but I would ask the hon. member to read further. In stating that exception, or that which excepts an hon. member from coming under the provision of this standing rule, it says—

The significance of those words or exceptions have not had given to them the due weight which is required in the circumstances. An hon. member is entitled to sit on a Select Committee and to vote on any question in which he is interested in common with the public generally, or with any class of the public or with any section thereof. Now, Mr. Speaker, I, as a shareholder in gold mines, or the owner of gold shares, in reading this provision of section 119 came to the conclusion that I was not debarred from the mere fact of being the owner of gold shares from sitting on this Committee, because I have an interest in common with certain classes of the public, or with a certain section, namely, that class or section of the public which holds gold mining shares, and, therefore, I say, in view of the very startling definition, and the very arbitrary and untenable definition, given to this proviso or exception, or, let us say, this interpretation of sub-section (3) by the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell), I thought it was due to myself, being a member of that Committee, to make clear why I considered myself as being, although an owner of gold shares, fully qualified, or as not being excluded under the provisions of this Standing Order 119 from taking part in the work of the Committee. After having made my own position clear, I wish to say that, in regard to the matter generally, I think there can be no doubt as to the position of the two hon. members whose right to sit on this Committee was challenged. These hon. members also hold an interest with a certain class or certain section; they are shareholders, particularly in the case of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber), who does not even hold shares directly in a gold mining company, but is a director of a company who holds gold mining shares. I say he is interested as a shareholder with the class or section of the public. The Act which is clearer than the Standing Order, because if there is any doubt as to the provisions of the Act and Standing Order 119, as to whether these are ultra vires of the Act or not, the wording of the Act will prevail, and therefore it is clear that anybody by reason of his merely having an interest in gold mining shares, which interest he must have with some other class or section of the public generally, is not debarred from sitting on this Committee.

I think that the House will approve of the motion that we should deal with this matter of the interpretation of an existing law apart from any question of altering the law. Now, the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) used the expression that he regards this judgment of Mr. Speaker as the judgment of a court of law. Very well, and we sit here as a court of appeal, and we have got a perfect right to alter that judgment as we think fit according to our judgment. But in that we cannot be a court of appeal and a law-maker at the same time. We must first settle the question of the interpretation of the law, and then afterwards in our capacity as law-maker consider the question whether the law is good or bad and whether it should be altered and in what way. I think it is also advisable to do this on account of the nature of some of the speeches made here under the cloak of accepting the ruling of Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) and the hon. members for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) and Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) have attacked the ruling of Mr. Speaker, so that if we were to mix up these two things there can be no doubt that it will be intended as an indirect slur or an attack on the ruling of Mr. Speaker; but I think two things on this account should be kept separate, and I am very glad the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) has accepted the position and withdrawn the amendment. Now, with regard to the amendment of the law whether rule 119 interprets number 11 of the Powers and Privileges Act—it is a matter which will have to be very carefully thought out, and I think a Select Committee should take it into consideration. I think that in the House of Commons questions of this kind are generally left to the House itself, and Mr. Speaker does not give a ruling. The reason is, that having no law as we have, defining the privileges of members of Parliament they go from precedent to precedent; they quote from time to time, one decision is given, but the House following does not follow that decision. They have no definite rule or regulation, or a written constitution for Parliament as we have in this Act of 1911. I do not know whether on the whole that is not a better system, because by trying to lay down too meticulously what is and what is not permitted, you may find yourself in very great difficulty. Take the case in question of the Medicine Tax that was before the House last year. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) made an impassioned appeal to this House, not once but repeatedly, and voted as well. I think it is common knowledge that if you were to apply to him the strict interpretation of the rule which is now sought by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) would have been disqualified. Take another case; every member of Parliament is interested in gold mining. [Dissent]. Oh, yes you are—

I have none.

Yes you have, though without your own knowledge, and I will try to prove that you have. We have as a Government seven big leases—gold-mining leases, and we have got a share in them. We are shareholders.

What a stretch of imagination!

Yes, we are the directors. The right hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Merriman) has not once, but repeatedly, used the expression with regard to the railways that every member of Parliament is really a director of the railways. In the same way you can see, in regard to these gold-mining leases, that if you are going to stretch the point to that extent, I am afraid we will have no members of Parliament at all.

Too far removed!

At all events, it is a matter for the Select Committee. We should refer to it the Standing Order 119; it could be calmly considered by it, and then come before Parliament in its capacity as law-maker.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Ek het Donderdag j.l. my sienswyse oor hierdie saak duidelik gemaak en geseg, dat ons moet die naturelle eerlik en opreg behandel; as ons hulle iets beloof het, moet ons dit nakom en as ons hulle iets gegee het, moet ons onder generlei omstandighede met slim draaie hoe ook, al probeer om daar uit te kom en hulle dit ontneem nie. Ek het aangehaal, hoe in 1886 daar in die ou Vrystaat ’n beweging aan die gang was om die verkoopverbod besluit van die Barolongs se grond te herroep, maar dat die Volksraad met dertig teen negentien stemme besluit het om by die besluit te bly. Daardie punt het ek aangeroer, en dat ek verder gaan is op versoek van enige lede, wat miskien nie die hele toedrag verstaan in verband met die moord op Sepenari Maroco nie, wat vooraf plaagevind had. Maroco en sy volk was bondgenote van die Vrystaat, daardie tyd en toe hy dood is, het twee seuns van hom, Sepenari Maroco en Samuel Maroco, dispuut gekry oor die vraag, wie van hulle beide die vader sou opvolg. Die saak werd aan President Brand as skeidsregter voorgeleg en hy het beslis ten gunste van Sepenari Maroco. Die Barolongs was verdeeld in twee mekaar vyandige kampe, en nadat Sepenari erkend was as opperhoofd, is hy op verraderlike manier vermoord deur Samuel Maroco en die se volgelinge, soas reeds deur my duidelik gemaak. Dit is wat plaasgevind het. Die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) het gewaag van sekere gronde, wat verruil werd aan sekere blanke persone voor grond in Betsjoeanaland, en wanneer ek hieroor spreek, doen ek dit onder korreksie. Die Minister van Naturellesake het die stukke voor hom, en kan maklik die besonderhede in die hande kry, ook wanneer nodig, op andere wyse. Hy sal bevind, dat ’n groot deel van die plase, wat door die Barolongs aan ’n privaat persoon verruild werd door hem, na die Anglo-Boereoorlog aan de kroonkolonie administrasie verkocht werd, en dat dit vir ’n groot deel aan setlaars verkoop is voor gemelde administrasie. Dese het, op hulle beurt, soas reeds deur die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) aangedui, huise gemaak, plantasies en landerye aangeleg en dit sou onreg wees om mense, die die Regering self daar geset het, te gaan omring met kleurlinge. Die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) het duidelik aangetoon, hoe onmolik dit sou wees vir die mense om daar te bestaan, indien omringd deur kleurlinge en daarom sal ek op hierdie kant van die saak nie verder ingaan nie. ’n Ander punt, waarop ek die aandag van die edelagbare die Minister wens te vestig is, soas reeds Donderdagaand hier deur my geseg en ook deur die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) dat honderde Barolongs na die moord weggegaan het na Betsjoeanaland toe en dat dit onwenselik sou wees om daardie mense, na ’n afwesigheid uit die land van veertig jaar, weer te gaan terugbreng om daar moeilikheid te veroorsaak. Ek sal ’n stuk voorlees uit ’n redevoering, wat President Brand op 5 Mei 1885 gehou het, dan sal die edelagbare die Minister sien wat ek bedoel het met “verdere moeilikheid maak”—

Dit is wat ek bedoel het, toe ek verklaar het dat geen onreg gedaan moet word aan die Barolongs nie dat sekere van hulle maats bly sou wees, dat hulle weer kom en weer onrus kan help stook, wat weer op moord en geweld sal uitloop. Ek wil net herhaal, dat ek vir die tweede lesing sal stem, omdat ek wil help om ’n grief die bestaat, weg te neem en omdat ek woord wil hou en ’n mens, as jy ’n belofte gedaan het, dieselwe moet nakom. Ek stem vir die tweede lesing op voorwaarde, dat die Minister dit na die tweede lesing sal verwys na die Selekt Komitee op Naturellesake, die dit dan ter ratifikasie weer aan die Huis moet oorleg.

Ik sta op om de tweede lezing te steunen en denk, dat dit recht is, na de aanbeveling van de Naturellekommissie, welke verleden jaar door de Minister voor Naturellezaken werd ingediend. De Kommissie heeft de plekken bezocht in Thaba ’Nchu en de Maroco wijk en een van de grootste grieven van de Naturellen was, dat de Wet verbiedt dat leden van de stam, behalve dan familie, grond kunnen krijgen en ik reken, dat elkeen, die verstandig over de zaak wil nadenken, zal toestemmen, dat de nodige verandering gemaakt moet worden. Gevallen zyn voorgedragen van hoe naturellen langs omwegen in bezit van grond zijn gekomen. Een b.v. was instaat om ’n plaats te kopen, maar kon niet, omdat hij geen direkte familie was van de eigenaar. Zijn vader echter kon wel kopen, daar hij ’n broeder was van de eigenaar; zo kon hy eerste kopen, vervolgens weer de eigenlike koper van hem als zoon van de eerste koper. Hieruit is m.i. duidelik, dat het nooit de bedoeling was de Wet op die manier te doen uitleggen, doch was de bedoeling om de grond toeganklik te maken voor alle bona fide leden van de Maroco of Barolong stam. Wat tans gebeurt, is, dat de grond langzamerhand in handen valt van blanken, aangezien die na-familie niet altoos instaat is om te kopen en de anderen belet worden dit te doen. Het is alsdan onvermijdelik, dat een witman de koper wordt. Dit zo zijnde is het noodzakelik, dat de Wet veranderd wordt. Ik wil hier enkel bijvoegen, dat het nooit de bedoeling was van de Kommissie aan te bevelen, dat andere naturellen, behalve die behorende aan de Barolong stam, toegelaten zouden worden toegang te krijgen tot grondbezit. Wanneer dat gedaan wordt, zal de grond misschien langzaam aan overgaan in de handen van blanken. Dit moet stopgezet worden en waar nodig opgeheven. De Beaumont Kommissie heeft ’n aanbeveling gedaan en op grond daarvan is ’n plaatselike kommissie benoemd en die heeft andere meer praktiese aanbevelingen gedaan, terwijl de Regering reeds besloten heeft te handelen op grond van de aanbevelingen van die plaatselike kommissie. Als ons doel is de streek als naturelle-reservaat te behouden, dan is wetgeving noodzakelik, anders zal de grond naderhand alles in het bezit van blanken zijn. En als segregatie uitgevoerd moet worden dan moet belet worden, dat die grond verder in de handen van blanken overgaat. Wat verder gedaan moet worden is dat ook de Regering administratief moet optreden en ’n staf aanstellen als ’n soort grondnederzettings-kommissie ten einde openvallende grond in die streek op te kopen en te behouden voor naturellen. Dit zal uitgaven veroorzaken, doch wij mogen dat als Regering niet achterwege laten. Het kan altijd weer aan de kaffers uitgegeven worden, die het geld geleidelik aan de Staat terugbetalen. Het is wenselik dat zulke stappen genomen worden. Om de opgegeven redenen zal ik voor de tweede lezing stemmen. Ik stem zaam met de leden, die zeggen dat wij voorzichtig moeten handelen, omdat naturellen die geen recht hebben op grond, dit niet in handen kunnen krijgen, doch dat dit beperkt wordt tot leden van de Barolong stam.

Ek is verplig om iets oor die Wet te sê. Dit is feitelik grond van Maroco en dit is jammer, dat die politiek van die ou Republiek nie gevolg is nie, want die grond, hoewel geannekseer, het jare oop gestaan, en dit werd naderhand deur die Regering verhuur en die geld gebruik in die belang van die Maroco-stam met die doel dat dit later beskikbaar sou wees vir die stam. Ongelukkig is onder Lord Milner die grond opgemeet en aan setlaars uitgegee en ’n groot deel van Maroco se grond werd op hierdie manier uitgegee as Vrystaatse grond en verkoop aan setlaars. Dit het altoos ’n groot grief gewees onder die Maroco-stam en ’n paar jaar gelede, toe ek lid van die lokale kommisie was, wat die kwessie van segragasie ondersoek het en toe ons ook getuienis daar afgeneem het, het dit mij baie duidelik geword, dat ’n groot onreg gepleeg is teenoor die Marocostam en teenoor die ou bondgenote van die Vrystaat, omdat die grond ontneem is aan die Barolongs. Daarom is ek bly dat—hoewel dit na my opienie nie ver genoeg gaan nie—bepalinge gemaak word, dat die Barolong-stam die grond sal behou wat nou nog in hulle besit is. M.i. is die grond wat nou oorbly vir die hele Barolong-stam te klein om op te woon. My inrduk is, dat ’n groot fout gemaak is dat in 1884 die grond nie as gemeenskaplike grond getransporteer is aan die stam nie, maar aan indiwiduele hoofde en indiwiduele kapteins van die Barolong-stam. Dit is die groot flater wat gemaak is en aanleiding daartoe gegee het, dat baie van die kapteins en voormanne, wat roekeloos en in brassery gelewe het stadig aan grond verkoop het aan blanke mense. Die kapteins het hulle besit vermors en die grond het aan die blankes gekom met die gevolg, dat die stam nou net gekonsentreer is in twee lokasies, nl., Thaba ’Nchu en Sileba en dis feitelik al gemeenskaplike grond wat nou nog vir die Barolong-stam bestaan. Deurdat die grond gegee is aan indiwiduele kaptains, wat tot nege duisend morge of nog meer grond gehad het, maar wat deur hulle lewenswyse—hulle het seifs motorkarre gekoop—gedwing was om die grond aan blanke te verkoop, is daar nou byna geen gemeenskaplike grond meer oor vir die Barolong-stam nie. Nou kom ons aan die kwessie, wat nou eintlik die Barolong-stam is wat die edelagbare die Minister in die oog het. Een van die bekendste inwoners van die gebied, Mnr. van der Walt, wat nou nie meer leef nie, maar wat een van die oudste inwoners daar was, het voor die plaaslike kommissie ook getuienis gegee en dit is, dat daar genoeg grond vir die Barolong stam is, maar dat die ongeluk is dat al die loskaffers en al die loslopers, wat feitlik te lui is om te werk, het ingesluip in die Barolong gebied en die gevolg is, dat daar onder die Barolong-stam baie Basoetoes en Korannas is wat van Boshof en andere plekke ingetrek het en waardeur vandag in Thaba ’Nchu meer as die helfte wat in die gebied woon nie meer Barolongs is nie. Nou ora vandag onderskeid te maak tussen die egte Barolongs en die andere is baie moeilik, want hulle het ondermekaar getrou en ek weet nie hoe die edelagbare die Minister wil te werk gaan om die kaffers uit mekaar te hou nie. Dan kom ons aan die kwessie wat die posiesie sal wees van die kaffers, wat onder Samuel weggetrek het toe hulle verbanne geword is en wat nou is gaan woon in die gebied van Taungs. Die is meestal—as ek my so mag uitdruk—die uitskot van die Barolongs. Selfs die moordenaar van Sepinare is ook saam getrek. Niemand is gestraf geword nie, alleen verbanne, maar die Barolongs wat saam getrek het met Samuel na die gebied van Taungs behoort nie meer tot die Barolongs nie. As die terug mag kom, as hulle die reg kry, dan gaan die Minister in baie moeilikhede kom ens ons ou Vrystaters is daarteen. Daar is nog baie wat die geskiedenis goed ken en wat daarteen is dat daardie mense terug mag kom na Thaba ’Nchu. As die edelagbare die Minister egter die mense nie sal laat terug kom nie, dan sal hy die hartelike ondersteuning hê van al die Vrystaters, want daar is niemand wat nie daarvoor is nie, dat die Maroco-stam die grond moet hê. Vandag is daar nog mense wat treur dat die Barolong nie in die besit gebly is van meer grond. Daar word besware gevoel dat die Barolong plase het en rondom woon blanke mense en dan gebeur dit ook, dat ’n boer ’n plaas het en dat rondom Barolongs is. Hulle is nie presies boere nie en jy het altyd te kampveg met brandsiekte en andere soorte van siektes, en daar is geen andere plase daarom heen nie. Ons het die gevoel dat as jy ooit ’n rustige kafferlokasie wil he, dan sou jy ’n deel van die distrik aanmekaar moet kombineer, feitlik een blok grond moet maak van Thaba ’Nchu na Sileba. Dit sou beteken dat omtrent 15 of 20 plase sou moet opgekoop word om een blok grond te kry. Die mense sal dan grond êrens anders moet kry en miskien kan daar ’n omruil van grond plaasvind om op die manier vir die Barolongs een blok grond aanmekaar te kry. Ek is seker daarvan dat as dit gebeur, dan sal ons ’n baie gesonde toestand kry wat satisfaksie sal gee aan blankes en gekleurdes. Ek hoop, dat die edelagbare die Minister nog kans sal sien om uitvoering te gee aan die gedagte van die plaaslike kommissie. Ek weet dit sal moeilik uitvoerbaar wees, want dit sal baie geld kos. Die boere wat daar in die distrik van Thaba ’Nchu gekom het op die Barolong grond, wat baie goeie grond is, was eersteklas boere en hulle het ’n sukses van die boerdery gemaak. Ek wil dit erken, maar dit neem die grief nie weg nie. As jy die grief wil wegneem dan moet jy tevredenheid gee aan die Barolong-stam en ek hoop dat die edelagbare die Minister dit nog reg sal kry om een blok grond aanmekaar te kombineer vir die hele Barolong-stam. Ek wens nog net hieraan toe te voeg, dat die voordele beperk bly tot die Barolongs. Ek lees in die Cafe Times dat die regte nie moet gegee word nie. In die Vrystaat bestaat baie besorgdheid oor verkoop van grond aan kleurlinge, maar wat Thaba ’Nchu betref is almal dit daarmee eens dat ’n onreg aan die Barolongs gedaan werd.

I think the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Brand Wessels), who has just sat down, is nearly as mixed in his facts as the right hon. the Minister was in his history of the Barolongs. I read in the Cafe Times that the right hon. the Minister had said that the Barolongs helped the Free State in the 1866 war, and that that is one of the reasons why he is going to help them. We might have gone back and said that the Barolongs helped the South Africans at Vegkop, and that that is the reason why we want to help them. It is quite a different reason. But I am glad that the Minister has brought the Bill here, although I hope that he will send it to a Select Committee. It is news to me to hear that the Free State or the Orange River Colony Government sold the ground of the Barolongs to the settlers. I was under the impression that it was bought by Mr. Charles Newbery, who bought it from Samuel Maroco. I think there are roughly ninety-five farms involved. I also hope the Minister will take this into consideration—that once the people get this land they will not be able to sell it back to white people. The Government has allowed this sort of thing before. Let these people keep their land. Then I want to ask the Minister whether he is going to allow Samuel Maroco to come back? Only two years ago Samuel came to me and said that he wanted to go and see the grave of his father, but the Government had stopped him. Quite right. If Samuel comes back there will be trouble. He is an old man, he is practically blind, he is over eighty years of age, and it is better to leave him in Rhodesia or Bechuanaland than to let him come back. Then is the Minister going to allow whites and blacks to farm cheek by jowl? We have once made this a segregation country. The Beaumont commission have dealt with that. The best thing is for the Government to go and buy land there, although I do not know how they are going to do it, because immediately it gets known that the Government wants land the price will go up. But I do hope that a proper native reserve will be made there, and that the only people who will be allowed to live on the native reserve will be the people who followed Sepinare and not the people who followed Samuel Morocco, otherwise you will get a class of people coming back whom the old legislators turned away. They should stay in Bechuanaland. I shall vote for the Bill, but hope it will go to a Select Committee.

In verband met die Wet wil ek net ’n paar woorde sê. Dit lyk vir my, dat daar ’n groot misverstand veroorsaak is deurdat die edele lid vir Ficksburg (de hr. Keyter) beweer sou het, dat die edelagbare die Minister vir hom gesê het, dat die Wetsontwerp alleen voorsiening sal maak vir die verkoop van die grond wat vandag nog deur die Barolongs besit is en nie van die grond wat vandag in die besit van blankes is nie. Die Wetsontwerp maak nie alleen daarin voorsiening nie, maar maak ook nog voorsiening, soos die Minister natuurlik self ook gesê het, dat die grond wat vandag in die hande van die blanke is, ook in die vervolg aan die Barolong verkoop kan word.

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

Toe die debat verdaag werd, was ek besig ’n blykbaar grote misverstand te probeer uit die weg ruim. Die edelagbare die Minister het in die loop van sy toespraak verklaar, dat hy verlede jaar die edele lid vir Ficksburg (de hr. Keyter) gespreek het, en dat dese toegestem het in die Wetsontwerp. Die edele lid vir Ficksburg (de hr. Keyter) egter verklaar dat hy nooit toegestem het in die Wet soos dit daar staat nie; dog al wat hy in toegestem het is, dat die bepaling weggeneem sou word, dat lede van die Barolongstam slegs aan famielie kan verkoop, maar seker nie in die Wet in sy hele omvang nie. Daarom is dit wenslik, dat die Wet verwys sal word na ’n Selek Komitee en ek reken, dat na die aansprake hier en die moeilikhede wat aangewys is, die edelagbare die Minister daarin sal toestem. Die stuk grond, waaroor dit gaat, lê in my kiesafdeling en ek kan beaam wat die edele lid vir Bethlehem (de hr. Brand Wessels) gesê het, dat die mense nie in die minste afgunstig is op die Barolongs nie, soas beweer deur Sol Plaatjie en andere. Maar ek kan die versekering gee, dat die boere die saak en die geskiedkundige posiesie verstaan en nie in die minste naywerig op die volk se grond is nie. Ek kan die Huis die versekering gee, dat hulle die noodsaaklikheid insien daarvan om die so te hou, maar as die Wet soos dieselwe daar staan deur gaan, dan sal gebeur waar ons teën opsien, dat die Barolong die grond van ’n witman kan koop en nie slegs die Barolongs, aan wie dit vroeër toegestaan was, maar ook die volgelinge van Samuel en ander naturelle. Hierdie Wet sit die deure te wyd oop. Dit is wenslik dat dit nie toegelaat sal word nie, dat die kaffirs na die gedeelte toe stroom en die grond van die witman koop. Ek is bly, dat die saak deur die edelagbare die Minister aangepak is, want daar het die mense regtig met grote moeilikhede te kampe. ’n Deputasie het my kom sien en meen dat die plase deur die Regering gekoop moet word. ’n Aantal boere het grond tussen die naturelle in omtrent drie duisend morge, en kan dit nie verkoop nie, want geen witman wil koop, en hy kan nie aan ’n Barolong verkoop nie, terwyl die boerdery daar onmoontlik word. Soos aangeroer deur die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), maar soos elke boer ook weet, is dit feitelik onmoontlik om vooruit te boer, as jy aan drie kante omringd is deur naturelle. Baie van die omstandigheid is uiters moeilik en die boere sou graag verkoop en buite weer koop en ek hoop daarom dat die saak ook in Selek Komitee terdege bespreek sal word. Ek stem met die wenke saam, wat hier gegee is omtrent die vasstelling van ’n bepaalde area sodat die mense in daardie distrik die area, die aangewys is, ken en weet dat daar geen persoon grond kan kry nie, sodat hulle eenmaal kan weet waar hulle staat; tans is die toestand baie onbevredigend. Baie mense kry van die kaffers grond te koop om later baie spyt te kry. Dit gaat daar sover, dat sommige mense as bywoners by kaffers woon; dit is ’n treurige toestand, hulle gaat agteruit, die kinders kry geen opvoeding nie en word feitelik as kaffers groot. Gelukkig het die Ned. Ger, gemeentes van Thaba ’Nchu en Excelsior vele famielies uitgebring, maar daar is nog. Ek is bly dat die edele lid vir Marico (Gen. Lemmer) die saak van segregasie aangeroer het en hoop, dat bepaal sal word, dat mense daar nie mag woon onder die kaffers in hulle land want dit is tot nadeel van die mense self, tot nadeel van daardie distrikte en tot nadeel van ons volk. Ek hoop dat die saak alle aandag sal geniet, veral as dit gaat tot die bestaande area wat duidelik afgesny moet word en die kwessie dat die mense wat reeds grond besit in die area wat vir kaffers afgesonder word, in die geleentheid gestel sal word om weer aan kaffers te kan verkoop.

Dit spyt my dat die saak nie eerder voorgebring is nie, maar dit is beter as wat dit haastig sou geskied, want die edele lid vir Bloemfontein (Noord) (de hr. Barlow) het ’n skrywe van Sol Plaatjie, in die Argus verskene, voorgelees, waarin te kenne gegee word als sou ek gesê het, dat die geskiedenis van die saak pas in 1883 begin, terwyl ek gesê het dat dit terug gaat tot die tyd toe die Barolongs ’n onder-stam was van Montsua in Betsjoeanaland en dat hulle in 1829 na Thaba ’Nchu getrek het. In 1899 het hulle die westelike plase gekoop en hulle is erken deur die Basoetoes; en ’n grenslyn is getrek tussen hulle en die Basoetoes, maar ons het al soveel gehoor dat daar kan twee punte opkom, wat indirek met die Wet in verband staan. In die Wet word ewewel gevra, dat Barolongs nie net aan die naaste famielie lede grond moet kan verkoop nie, dog ook aan lede van die stam in die algemeen. Welke grond word hierop bedoel? Geld dit ook van vroeër Barolong grond, dog wat nou in besit van witmense is en wat nie op dieselfde plek gelee is nie t.w. Seliba in Thaba ’Nchu? Die naturelle voormanne en die plaaslike raad het ’n aanbeveling gedaan en die Regering volg by die administrasie van die Wet van 1913 die aanbevelings van die Kommissie en die area, welke deur die twee Kommissies opsy geset is vir die naturelle, word gebruik. Dit is wat die Kommissie verklaar—

en later—

Al wat ons nou vra, is dat aan die Barolong die reg gegee sal word om aan ’n lid van die stam te verkoop, solank as die grond binnekant die afgebakende area geleë is. Die twede vraag is, aan wie kan hy verkoop? En die moeilikheid is, dat die Wet van 1884, toe die rusie tussen die twee broers Samuel en Sepinare ontstaan het, is die stam in twee seksies gesplits. Samuel is na Taungs in Betsjoeanaland gegaan, terwyl Sepinare gebly het en seker nie die bedoeling had om die reg te verleen, dat die meeste lede van die weerstrewige stam eendag sou kon terugkeer nie.

Die Wet lees so.

Maar dit kan nie die doe! wees nie. Ek is bereid te verklaar, dat ons bereid is om elke saak op eie meriete te beskou, en dat die persoon, aan wie verkoop word, die goedkeuring van die owerheid sal wegdra, en dat tensy dit ’n persona grata blyk te wees, hy dit nie sal kry nie. Dog dit is van die ondergeskikte punte wat met gerief in Selekt Komitee voorgebreng en behandel kan word. Daar word graag beweer, dat dit is soas die Kommissie dit in 1884 gevind het, toe daar 95 plase in besit van Barolongs was, maar die reg om aan witmense te verkoop, het hulle die nekslag gegee. Daar is nog net 54 plase, met ’n oppervlakte van 82,677 morge, waarvan vele aan blanke onder verband gegee is t.w. 43 met ’n oppervlake van 56,525 morge, terwyl die vooruitsig om dit ooit afbetaal te kry gering is en in sommige gevalle daardie hoop glad nie bestaat nie. Dit blyk dus daaruit dat die grootste gedeelte nie meer in besit van Barolongs is nie en as dit geleë is binnekant die afgebakende area, dus die lokasie, dan kan dit toegelaat word, maar indien daarbuite, dan nie. Maar daar sal ’n plan gemaak moet word om die mense binnekant die lokasie tegemoet te kom, want my informasie is, dat die plase verskriklik oorstok is en sommige plase is verbonde tot op die hoogste punt en daar is absoluut geen geld vir verbeterings of seifs aflossing nie. As die plan van die Kommissie uitgevoer word, sal die gebied ’n prooi en lokaas word van spekulante en hulle sal seker uitgeroei word. Daar sal ’n uitkoping moet plaasvind en die Parlement sal die geld moet verskaf. Dit staat nie in die teenwoordige Wet nie, die Wet bestendig die area van die Wet van 1913, volgens diewelke hulle nie kan verkoop aan ’n blanke of enigsins verre famielie nie. Eén geval waar die grond verkoop meet word, kan dit nie geskied aan ’n witman nie en ook nie aan ’n Barolong nie, volgens die Wet, van die Vrystaat, wat die beperk tot die allernaaste famielie. Die Wet sê broer, suster, vader of moeder. Dit is die moeilikheid, wat ontstaan het deur die Wet van 1913. Ek vertrou dat die edelagbare die Minister daarin sal toestem dat die Wet na twede lesing na die Selekt Komitee vir Naturellesake verwese sal word, sodat dieselwe op al die punte kan ingaan. Dit sou die toestand helemaal kan verander.

Motion for the second reading put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs for consideration and report.

moved—

He said: I do not think it necessary to take up at any length the time of the House in moving the second reading of this Bill, because this Bill, as hon. members will see from perusing it, is of a very simple character. A short time ago Mr. Lounsbury, the Chief Entomologist of the Agricultural Department drew the attention of the Department to the fact that there was no legislation to deal with the importation of the dead portions of plants. We made provision in the Act of 1911 for keeping out and supervising live plants, but there was no provision made for dealing with the importation of dead products of plants. Some short time ago we had an importation of broom corn into this country. [An Hon. Member: “Importation of what?”] Of broom corn—corn for making brushes and that sort of thing, a prepared product, and in that broom corn it was found that instead of insects dying they were in a living state in the prepared article, and under these circumstances I think it necessary that the House should take, as quickly as possible, the necessary steps to prevent this. We were able to make arrangements to have this disinfected, but it would be an extremely serious thing if we made no provision in our law for inspection and the prevention of the importation of borers, if such corn were found to be infected. In this particular importation live borers were found, and if we had not discovered them they might have brought a very serious infection into this country. We should do our best to get this Bill through as quickly as possible, for not only in cases of stocks of broom corn is there a probability of infection, but also in view of the great possibilities of cotton development in this country, we should see that this borer is not permitted to enter as cotton disease in lint containing seed. The second clause in the Bill is just the remedying of an oversight in the Bill of last year in regard to the destruction of locusts. Then provision was made that an owner should be compelled to destroy locusts on his own farm, but there was no provision made in regard to the adjoining owner when the locusts were on his boundary. Section 4 reads—

The Agricultural Advisory Board the other day also strongly advised this amendment to be put in the Act, and I think it very necessary.

That is only, in so far as voetgangers are concerned.

I myself would like to see fliers included, but the Locusts Advisory Board considered there might be a difficulty in making this compulsory in regard to fliers. We hope, however, there will be harmonious co-operation in the work of destruction of the flying swarms. I now move the second reading of this Bill.

Artiekel 3 van Wet 12 van 1922 bepaal, dat iedere besitter van grond, waar ’n swerm sprinkane verskyn, is “gehouden om die onmiddellik te vernietigen.

Die Wet van 1922?

Ja, en dis heeltemal aanneembaar en heeltemal verstaanbaar en ek sou die ondersteun, maar hier kom die edelagbare die Minister en hy wil he, dat iedere grondbesitter grensende aan ’n plaas waar sprinkane verskyn het, sal verplig wees om te help die swerm te vernietig sodra die verskyning van die swerm ter syner kennis gebring is. Elkeen wat met die uitroeiïng van sprinkane te doen gehad het weet wat dit beteken om te probeer sprinkane te vernietig op sy plaas. En nou word onder hierdie wetjie ’n mens ook nog gedwing om sy buurman te help sprinkane uitroei. Met daardie kommandeer order van die Minister van Landbou kan ek nie saam stem nie en ek glo daar is nie een boer, of hy nou sit aan hierdie kant van die Huis of aan die anderkant, sal nie met my saamstem dat so ’n order onbillik en onregverdig is nie. Ek weet nie of die edelagbare die Minister daarvan in kennis gekom het watter onbillike vervolginge daar gewees het. Toe die sprinkaanplaag op sy hoogste was het daar vervolginge plaas gehad, waarvan, ek seker is, dat as die ter kennis van die Minister gekom was, dan sou die nooit plaas gehad het nie. Ek het die ander dag vertel van ’n man wat voor die magistraat gebring was en wat omtrent ’n dosyn getuies het moet inhaal en die magistraat het hom later vrygespreek. Om nou te verwag, dat ’n boer ook die sprinkane op ’n aangrensende plaas moet doodmaak, terwyl miskien deur die nalatigheid van die boer die sprinkane daar uitgebroei het, dit sê ek is onregverdig. Solank boere verplig word om op hulle eie plase sprinkane te vernietig, gaan ek saam met die edelagbare die Minister, maar ek is daarteen dat ’n boer verplig sal word om te gaan sprinkane vernietig op ’n aangrensende plaas. Al sou ek met die Wet in al sy dele my kan verenig, so is ek tog teen die artiekel.

Ek is bly dat die edelagbare die Minister dit goed gevind het om ’n wetjie van die aard in te bring en ek is jammer dat ek moet verskil van my vriend, die edele lid vir Cradock (de hr. I. P. van Heerden) en ek sê, dat hy anders sou praat as hy ’n bietjie ervaring opgedoen het in die Vrystaat wat die uitroei van sprinkane betref.

Ek het meer, nog meer ervaring.

Die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou sê, dat hy geadviser geword is, ek glo deur die Uitvoerende Rade.

Nee, deur die hoogste deskundige amptenare.

Ek vind dit goed, maar ek betreur dit dat nie meer vertroue in die Huis gestel is nie en die advies van die Huis gekry het nie, voor Hy met ’n wet van die aard gekom het. My opienie is al duidelik gemaak, dat ons ’n Selekt Komitee moet benoem en ek is oortuig daarvan dat as dit gedoen word, dan sal die beste middel aan die hand gegee word om die uitroei van die sprinkane so doeltreffend moontlik te maak. Hier is nie ’n enkele boer in die Huis wat nie besield is om die uitroei van sprinkane so doeltreffend moontlik te maak nie. Die edelagbare die Minister gaan m.i. nie ver genoeg nie. Ek wil hê, dat nie net ’n paar boere wat die ongeluk tref van ’n sprinkaanswerm op hulle plaas te kry, cue behoort dit te vernietig nie, maar dat dit vir almal ’n verpligting gemaak word. Ek kan die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou sê, dat in die afgelope seisoen daar sprinkaanswerme gewees het op sekere plase en dan myle en myle ver geen sprinkane gewees het nie. In die wetjie sal alleen die aangrensende boer geroepe wees om te help doodmaak. Ek meen die sprinkaanplaag is ’n nasionale ramp in SuidAfrika. Elite boer het direk belang daarby en elke boer realiseer dit, dat die doodmaak van sprinkane van die grootste belang is. As die boere van die Westelike Vrystaat laaste jaar geen sprinkane doodgemaak het nie, dan sou ons nooit die oes gehad het, wat ons nog laaste jaar gehad het. Ons realiseer en sê, as twee of ’n klompie plase die ongeluk getref het, van sprinkane op hulle plaas te kry, dan behoort ons hulle nie alleen te laat nie. Ons behoort in die bres te spring en ons sê om die doeltreffend te maak, moet die sprinkaanwet so geamendeer word, dat elke distrik in sirkels verdeel word, elke sirkel omvattend b.v. 10 of 12 plase. As dan sprinkane verskyn op ’n sekere plaas, dan moet al die mense van die sirkel kom help doodmaak. Ek sal bly wees as die edelagbare die Minister hierop in wil gaan. En ek kan die edelagbare die Minister die versekering gee dat as hy die Wet verwys na ’n Selekt Komitee, dan kry hy die beste raad van praktiese manne wat ondervinding gehad het en ons is almal besield om op die mees doeltreffende wyse die sprinkaanplaag te bestry. Ek dra die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou geen kwaad hart toe nie en ek hoop, dat die edele Minister my goed verstaan. Ek is besield om op die bes moontlike wyse die nasionale plaag te bestry.

I hope the right hon. Minister will receive the support of all sides of this House in connection with the Bill which he has introduced. There is not the slightest doubt that in connection with the destruction of locusts we ought all to put our backs into an endeavour to destroy the flier as well as the voetganger. It is no use trying to get rid of the voetganger unless we kill the flyer too, as they breed out in the arid portions of the Union and come in in enormous swarms. Various parts of the Union have had repeated visits from flyers. Both in the Western Transvaal and the Free State, the farmers have suffered to an enormous extent. They have already had thousands of swarms, and swarms continue to come in. There are some farmers who sit still and watch that destruction, and will not come to the assistance of other farmers. Now I think that any farmer who will not turn out to destroy locusts is a poor specimen. That is my opinion of him. Unless he will turn out when his neighbours are in trouble with this awful pest, he is not the farmer whom we ought to consider in this House. I feel that the Minister has made a step in the right direction in asking us to pass Clause 4. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) support the Minister in this matter, and I am quite sure that when the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) gives it further consideration he will withdraw his opposition, because after all we must deal with the flier as well as the voetganger. If we are going to legislate with a thought to the man who will not help in the destruction of pests and diseases we are not going to get very far with constructive agricultural legislation in this House.

Wanneer edele lede in die Huis praat, dan sê hulle so dikwels dat daar boere is wat nie die sprinkane wil doodmaak nie en dan lyk dit of iemand, wat nie met hulle wil saamstem nie, ook dieselfde sienswyse het. Wat my betref en andere wat saam met my stem, kan ek sê, dat hulle absoluut verkeerd is. Toe die sprinkane daar was het elkeen sy uiterste bes gedoen om sprinkane dood te maak. Die edele lid vir Turffontein (Maj. Hunt) sê; “we must put our backs into it,” Mr. Speaker, “we can put our backs into it, and we can put our fronts into it.” Maar dit is een onmogelike saak. Ek wet nie of hy al ooit persoonlike ondervinding gehad het nie. As dit nie die geval is nie, het hy nie die reg om daaroor te praat. Dis gemaklik genoeg om so ’n dingetjie dood te maak soos ek ookal die ander dag gesê het, maar dis onmoontlik om alle sprinkane dood te maak. Jy kan net so goed probeer om al die klein sterretjies aan die hemel in ’n sak te stop.

Vertel ’n bietjie van die vergadering wat die edele lid op Colesberg gehad het.

Dit lyk vir my of die edele lid vir Turffontein (Maj. Hunt) nog geen praktiese ervaring gehad het nie, want dan sou hy weet hoe onmoontlik dit is om sprinkane uit te roei. Ons het ’n vergadering gehad, dis waar, en my raad aan die mense was om hulle bes te doen en hulle onder die omstandighede nie teen die Wet te versit nie. Ek het gesê, doet julle bes en maak dood soveel as julle kan, maar ek het gesê die Wet is onuitvoerbaar en die opienie van die magistraat was, dat die boere hulle uiterste gedoen het, maar dat ons nie meer kan verwag dan dat hulle hul tuine en hulle lande bebou en ek kan die versekering gee dat baie mense het die nie eens kon behouw nie. Ek het die ander dag een van my kiesers hier by my gehad, wat verwag het om 1,200 sak graan te kry en toe het die voetgangers gekom. Hy verseker my, dat hulle op die plaas vir 36 uur aanmekaar sonder slaap gewerk het om sprinkane dood te maak, maar in die end het hulle in die koring getrek en hy het 200 sakke gekry in plaas van 1,200. Dit het niks gehelp nie dat hy die 36 uur nie geslaap het nie en iedereen wat ’n bietjie ervaring gehad het met die uitroeiïng van sprinkane weet dat ons die onmoontlike eis in die Wet. Ek het die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou gevra, wat hy bedoel met “verskyn” en vandag kom die woord weer voor in sy amendement. Is die bedoeling ook sprinkane wat van andere plase op die boer se plase kom, of word bedoel die sprinkane wat uitbroei op die boer se plaas? Nou word hier voortdurend vertel hoe in die Transvaal en die Bo-Vrystaat gewerk word om sprinkane te vernietig. Die omstandighede is daar heeltemaal anders as in die Karroo b.v. Die gronde is daar kleiner en daar is baie kafferkrale op die plase, sodat daar altyd voldoende arbeidskragte is vir die uitroei. Maar in die Karroo is die gronde baie uitgestrek, jy het min mense op die plase. Daar is geen kafferkrale, want daar is geen mielies vir die kaffers nie en andere voer is te kosbaar, sodat maar net die mense aangehou word wat hoogsnoodsakelik is. Jy het skaapwagters en ander kaffers wat sekere noodsakelike werk doen. Hulle voornaamste werk op die plase is in die oggend and laat in die middag, juist die tyd wanneer voetgangers uitgeroei moet word. Die omstandighede in die Vrystaat en die Transvaal is gans anders as in die Karroo. Ons moet b.v. water oor lange distansies haal met ’n tenk op ’n bokwa of ’n ander manier. In die Bo-Vrystaat en Transvaal is water taamlik voldoende. As die kwessie daar van so ’n grote nasionale belang is, dan moet ook die laaste boer gedwing word direk of indirek om te help. As dit dan so ’n nasionale kwessie is, waarom dan die hele las gelê op ’n paar boere wat die ongeluk het om sprinkane op hulle plase te kry. Die edelagbare die Minister maak ’n amendement wat sê, dat iedere besitter van grond grensend aan grond waarop swerme sprinkane is, verplig sal wees om “na sy beste vermoë” die te vernietig sodra die aanwesigheid daarvan ter syner kennis is gebring. Non, wat beteken dit? Die woorde “na die beste van sy vermoë” sal vir iemand wat onwillig is altyd ’n ekskuus kan wees. Hy sal kan sê, dis onmoontlik vir my om te kom. Wat is die definiesie daarvan “na sy beste vermoë.” Nee, ek glo heirdie amendement bring die edelagbare die Minister niks verder nie. Waar die uitroei van sprinkane as ’n nasionale kwessie beskou word, daar moet die ook as sulks behandel word en daar moet nie van sekere boere gevra word om die onmoontlike te doen nie. Ek sê dis ’n onmoontlikheid as sprinkane op jou plaas kom, om almal dood te maak, om nie eens te spreek van jou buurman s’n nie.

Dit spyt my dat ek ook ’n paar woorde hier moet sê. Dit kom my voor dat ons nou die optimiste en die pessimiste gehoor het. Ek wil my stem voeg by die pessimiste. Ek dink toe twee jaar gelede die edelagbare die Minister gekom het met sy sprinkaanwetjie het ek hom gesê, dat dit nie veel beteken nie, minder dan veel en ek dink ek het ook daarteen gestem. Ek het nog die dag gesê, dat dit een van die wetjies is wat die edelagbare die Minister laat klaar maak het en ek glo die Minister handel vandag op advies van sy sprinkaan-adviseurs. Die edelagbare Minister praat met die adviseur of praat ’n bietjie met sy Departement en dan kom hy hier met die klaargekookte wetjie voor die Huis. En die gevolg is so ’n groot aantal amendemente as daar werklik nou is. Ek het gesê, dat daardie Wet nie deur die edelagbare die Minister opgestel is en dat die Wet nie saamgestel is met die oog op die praktiese wereld daar buite nie. Ek stem ooreen met wat die edele lid vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw) gesê het, maar ek gaan nou ’n bietjie verder en ek sê, as hy die Wet laat staan soos die nou is, dan beteken hy niks nie en as hy die woorde daaruit haal, dan wee die arme boer, want dit sou tog te sot wees, dat omdat daar sprinkane is op die veld van jou buurman, jy verplig sal wees om te help of jy kan of nie, dat jy moet weggaan van jou eie besigheid wat net so dringend is, b.v. wanneer jy besig is met jou skape. Wanneer jy die nie dip nie, is jy strafbaar, maar wanneer jy nie gaan sprinkane uit roei nie, dan kom die sprinkaanbeampte en straf jou ook. Ek haal dit aan om aan te toon, dat as die Minister dit goed oorweeg het “he would have left it well alone.” En as ons dit nie skrap nie, dan gaat die edelagbare die Minister baie moeilikhede kry, of laat my sê, baie stank en geen dank nie. Nou net hog die. Ek het laaste jaar toe die sprinkhaanwet hier terloops voor die Huis gekom het daarop gewys, dat dit nie aangaan vir die Regering en die Staat om ’n deel van die bevolking te gaan verplig om te werk en te swoeg en geld uit te gee vir ’n ander deel van die bevolking, wat feitlik die geval is onder jou sprinkaanwet. Die Wet is feitlik van toepassing vir die westelike dele van die Unie ten gunste van die oostelike dele. Ons kan onmoontlik so ’n onreg doen en so ’n las lê op sekere boere, sonder voorsiening te maak dat die andere boere hulle sal help direk of indirek.

I suppose this hearty greeting which I am getting is because of my superior knowledge of locusts. But I do not intend occupying the time of the House on that. I want to draw the attention of the House to what I regard as a defect in the Bill. It is in regard to the words referred to by the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Louw), viz., “to the best of his ability.” If you put these words in, it will be necessary to insert those same words in the summons, and the onus will lie on the Crown to prove that a person did not act “to the best of his ability.” These words should be left out, and the onus should be thrown on the person prosecuted to prove that he had done his best.

Maar nou het ons dit, dat die politiek van die Minister is, dat die uitgaaf te groot is, soas hy keer op keer verklaar het en die ritgawe, aan landbou verbonde, moet deur die boer bekostig word, tot wie se voordeel dit uitgegee word. [Een Edele Lid: “Die Regering moet maar honderd duisende betaal.”j Hulle het hulle bes gedaan voordat die Minister daar was en sal ’t altoos doen. Miskien is ek verkeerd, maar waar ek op wil neerkom, is dat ek nie kans sien, dat onder so’n politiek die boer op wie ook die sware pligte, en dit onder strafbedreiging sal nakom nie. Ek kan nie sien, hoe die mense direkt in ’n ander deel van die land verplig kan word om te help sprinkhane uitroei nie. Hulle kan nie daartoe gedwonge word nie en die enigste weg sou wees belasting—laat dan die persoon, wat dit uitroei, daar iets aan verdien. Die edelagbare die Minister sal die een of ander politiek moet volg en dit kom my voor of ons weer te doen het met die politiek wat elke dag te duideliker blyk d.w.s. ons sal elke dag soiets doen en aan alles effentjies krap en daardeur die indruk verwek by die volk: ons doen ’n boel, maar ons sal nie een ding doen, waardeur stemme verlore sou kan gaan nie. Ek wil die edelagbare die Minister dit sê: hy moet sy moed in altwee sy hande neem, indien hy iets wil doen as staatsman. Maar as hy net wil stemme vang, wel die eleksie lyk tamelik gou te sal kom, dan is hy nie die man, wat die reg besit om nog na die Parlement te kom met wetsvoorstelle nie en te verwag, dat ons hom behulpsaam sal wees in die kleine praktyke van oëverblindery nie. Dit raai ek hom ten sterkste af en die Eerste Minister nie minder as die ander nie. Ek wil he dat die edelagbare die Minister moet kies; wil hy nie oëverblindery nie, dan moet hy duidelik verklaar: ek gee cp en kan nie verder gaan nie of: ek het ’n politiek, waarin ek geloof en wat ek voor die Huis breng en dan breng hy sy Sprinkhaanwet voor—laat die uitwerking wees wat dit wil. Laat dit ’n Wet wees, wat ’n gunstige uitwerking sal he vir die hele volk, en nie net eenvoudig van enkele indiwidue nie en weer aan die ander kant tot las van enkele indiwidue. Ek wil nie verder op die saak ingaan nie, maar kan die versekering gee, dat as die Wetsontwerp in Komitee voorgebreng word, sal die edelagbare die Minister meer hoor van Artiekel 4, waarmee my vriend nie veel op het nie. My vriend, die edele lid van Vredefort (de hr. J. H. Munnik) is een van die optimiste, maar ek is bevreesd, dat as ons sy optimisme algemeen gaan toepas in die Vrystaat, dit in verband met hierdie aangeleentheid ’n uitroeiende uitwerking sal he. Daarom moet ons toesien, dat die volk gevrywaar word teen onbillike behandeling deur wetgewing als andersins.

Ek stem saam met wat deur my edele leier geseg is, want hierdie Wetsontwerp is ook weer lapwerk in meer as een opsig. Neem byvoorbeeld die klausules van die Wetsontwerp in verband met die beginsel, wat hier neergelê word, het die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou verklaar, dat hier dikwels plante en produkte, van plante wat met bakterie en dies meer besmet is, ingevoer word, en hy wil die mag besit om dit te verhoed. Hy vraag die mag, as die produk van die plant reeds in die land is. Dan eers sal die Goewerneurgeneraal ’n proklamasie uitvaardig om die invoer te belet dus as die kwaad kant en klaar gedaan is. Die proklamasie sal dan van geen praktiese nut wees nie. Die Minister het gepraat van een geval van invoer van die produkt van besemsaad, hy sê dit was vol boor insekte en met vrindelikheid het hulle toe die saak reggemaak. Hoe gaan hierdie amendement hom in een dergelike geval help, as vrindelikheid nie help nie. Hy sê die bestaande Wet help hom nie en nou wil hy dus die mag he om na die Goewerneur-generaal te gaan om die produkt wat so besmet is, onder die Wet te bring. Dat die produkt besmet is kan eers na dit hier aangekom is aan hom bekend word, die invoerder kan dit opeis, terwyl die Minister nog eers na die Goeverneur-generaal moet gaan om een proklamasie te vra. Ons weet, iedereen weet dat dit baia tyd neem. Stel, dat daar produkte van katoensaad ingevoer word, wat met swamme besmet is, dan val dit tog me onder die wetsdefiniesie nie, totdat een proklamasie uitgevaardig is. Is nie die beginsel helemaal verkeerd nie? Moet nie liewer die Wet sodanig verander word nie, dat as ’n besmette plant ingevoer word, die Landboudepartement die reg sal besit om dit aan te hou en te vernietig? Maar in hierdie Wet het die edelagbare die Minister die kar voor die perd gespan; die hele ding is verkeerd en ek is seker, dat behoorlike oorweging nooit aan die kwessie regel is nie. Ek wil net vraag of Klousule 4 voor die adviserende Sprinkhaankommissie was en is hulle advies gevolg en indien daar ’n ander rapport ingekom is, wat aanbeveel, dat ’n ander weg ingeslaan sal word, sal dit in ernstige oorweging geneem word? Sal die Minister dus ons meedeel of daar enige andere aanbevelinge ingekom het? Die Huis het die reg om te verwag dat die Minister ons sal sê wat die andere aanbevelinge is, indien enige. Of het die Minister net hierdie klousule onder hulle aandag gebring en hulle daaroor advies gevra?

Ek sou graag, dat die edelagbare die Minister ’n duidelik uitleg gee van die toestand en die wetgewing. Die publiek in my kiesafdeling het met alle krag die plaag bestry, maar dit is nietemin ’n feit, dat ondanks die bestryding uit voile mag, die plaag met sulke oorweldigende krag steeds uit die Kalaharie aankom, en daar word dit nie bestry nie. Nou wil ek graag ’n duidelike uitleg van die edelagbare die Minister he hoe die bestryding in die toekomssal plaasvind in die Kalaharie, wat die eintlike broeines van die sprinkane is. Nog ’n punt waarop ek die aandag wens te vestig is dat sommige lede het beswaar geopper teen die klousule, wat elkeen verplig om die plaag te gaan bestry, terwyl vele godsdienstige beswaar het. Daar moet versigtig tewerk gegaan word en ’n ander plan gemaak word ter bestryding en nie die een man verplig ora die ander seplaas te gaan help skoonmaak nie. Daar is ander mense, wat godsdienstige besware het, daar hulle redeneer, dat dit ’n plaag is wat van Hoërhand gestuur word as straf. Ek reken, dat die volk langsamerhand opgevoed moet word vir die bestryding, veral die mense met gewetensbeswaar, wat reken, dat dit nie iets toevallig is nie, maar wat spesiaal gestuur is as straf en dat toe dit die eerste keer verskyn, blykens die oudtestamentiese verhaal, is dit nie uitgeroei nie, dog Fareö het gesê Moses moet bid, dat God die plaag wegneem.

Dit is die Ou Testament, wat sê die gesonde verstand?

Miskien oordryf die mense dit, maar julle kan met hulle praat, maar hulle wys jou terug op die Woord en hoe daar toe nie ’n plan gemaak is tot uitroeimg nie, maar Moses het gebid. Nou kom ons en sê aan die volk, dat hulle en ons moet met geweld en gif die straf bestryDit is duidelik, dat julle stadig moet aangaan en die volk geleidelik opvoed. Ek het probeer dit duidelik te maak, sommige verstaan die ding, maar andere nie en verklaar dat dit juis weëns die bestryding is, dat die plaag al erger word. Ons moet nie dadelik sê, jy moet gaan help om jou buurman se plaas skoon te maak nie. Ek kan inmiddels die versekering gee, dat in my kiesafdeling die mense gelyk was en al wat met moeilikheid uitgeroei kon word, is vernietig. Die mense het bymekaar gekom en ’n lyn vasgestel, volgens diewelke elke groep sou te werk gaan en as al die distrikte so gemaak had sou daar geen moeilikheid gewees het nie. Ek stem met die klousule en as dit mogelik is, maar daar kom gevalle voor, dat ’n man nie in die vermoë is om op te tree en te help, omdat hy geen volk het nie en die kinders is in die skool. En dan sou so ’n man alles moet verlaat en by sy buurman gaan sprinkhane doodmaak. As egter die artiekel so bly sal elke man wat in die vermoge is om te help sal help. Ek vertrou, dat die edelagbare die Minister nie te hard sal optree nie; want ’n volk laat hom lei maar nie dryf nie. Die edelagbare die Minister moet duidelik verklaar, hoe sal die bestryding in die Kalaharieplaasvind, want dan weet ons, daar is hoop.

Ek stem saam met wat die edele lid vir Ventersdorp (Lt.-Kol. B. I. J. van Heerden) verklaar het. Iemand sê hy praat onsin, maar dit is die voile waarheid wat hy sê. Die toestand van die volk in my afdeling en die van my edele vriend is dieselfde, err hulle voel en weet dat dit swaar is om gedryf te word om ’n plaag te bestry, wat die Heer gestuur het vir die volk—gedryf word deur die Wet om die sprinkhane uit te roei. Ek wou net sê, dat sekere vriende lag hier, maar vir ’n volk wat so gesind is, kan die Regering, die Minister en my vriend dankbaar wees. Hulle wil, dat erken sal word, dat die plaag deur die Allerhoogste, die Bestuurder van Hemel en Aarde gestuur is, en dat die volk en die Regering hulle moet verootmoedig en gaat dan en bestry die plaag. Dan sal dit nie nodig wees om elke maand ’n wetgeving in te voer nie. Wat betref die Wet is dit onnodig om daar soveel tyd aan te bestee; die Minister kan die Wet deurset en dit sal net meer vervolging afgee onder die volk en dit is wat ek die meeste afkeur. Die edelagbare die Minister moet erken, dat die plaag baie erg was en dat het erger sou gewees het, had die volk dit nie so bestry nie, sodat ons dankbaar moet wees vir die opoffering. Daar was niemand, wat teen die Wet opstaan nie, maar teen die regulasies by die uitvoering van die Wet. Hulle wil nie dat daar belasting voor kom nie en nou wil die edelagbare die Minister nog verder gaan, en die woord sprinkhaan tot ’n dure plig maak. Die ou Wet het nie belet, dat ’n mens jou buurman kan gaan help, maar nou word bepaal, dat alle bure moet gaan help en sodoende die kans gegee vir vervolging van die een deur die ander. Wie gee kennis? Die ambtenaar gee kennis, maar dit doet hulle reeds. Dit blyk dat die sukses bewerkstellig word deur die volk en as almaal doen soas in my kiesafdeling, dan kan die Wet stukkend geskeur word. As die Regering maar net sorg vir die gif en spuite, dan sal die boer sorg vir die doodmaak. Maar soas die Wet daar tans staat, dat daar gedreig word en vervolging ingestel, vir so’n wet kan ek nie stem nie en ek voel, dat as die edelagbare die Minister die Wet sou terugtrek, en dit laat bly seas dit vroeër was, dan sal dit baie beter werk. Die sprinkhaan wil ek bestry, maar ek wil nie daartoe gedryf word nie, want vir my is dit ook swaar om ons eige volksgenote te vervolg. Die plaag is iets wat die Koning der koninge gestuur het vir die hele volk, en ek vertrou, dat die edelagbare die Minister die Wet sal terugtrek. Sekere lede wil dit strenger maak, maar die volk sal weiger.

Ek denk ook, dat die edelagbare die Minister die artiekel maar kan terugtrek, want dit breng die Regering self in moeilikheid. Die land maak die meeste plekke tog maar soas in Rustenbrug, waar iedereen sy plig doen. Maar waar die regeringsplase uitgegee is, wat nog nie beset is nie, wie moet daardie sprinkhane doodmaak? As ek daar ’n plaas had, sou ek dadelik vir die Regering wat dan die aangrensende eigenaar is sê, kan maak dood die sprinkhane. As die edelagbare die Minister kon verklaar dat die boer onwillig is om te help, kon mens dit dadelik verstaan, dat sulke nuwe regulasies ingevoer word, maar ek weet van geen boer, wat onwillig was nie. In my distrikt het hulle hulle uiterste best gedaan. Wat in sommige gevalle hulle teleurgestel het, was dat daar nie op tyd gif en spuite verkry kon word nie. Maar sodra die te kry was, het hulle met krag die saak aangepak. Dus dit is onnodig om die boer nog verder te dwing. Die grootste moeilikheid is, dat die grootste gevaar kom van die westelike kant, en ons inwoners van Westelik Transvaal moet maar keer en die grootste deel doodmaak. Dit is ’n verbasende las, wat op ons geleg word en die oostelike dele kom vry, omdat die westelike doodgemaak het. Hulle kan dit nie help nie, maar so is dit. Aan my is geskryf van verskillende kante van die Unie en ek wonder of nie in gelyke sin aan die edelagbare die Minister ook geskryf is nie, dat namelik sodra die sprinkhane begint uit te broei, die Verdedigingsmag gebruik sal word om dit uit te roei, en daarvoor ekstra betaal word. Ek weet nie of dit ’n oplossing sal wees nie, maar die platteland se militaire sal almaal gewillig wees om te help, en die gewone bewoners sal dan ook die sprinkhane aanpak en in hulle deel uitroei. Die Regering sal dan meteen ’n leger hê wat die sprinkhane uitroei, hoef nie ander mense op te roep of te soek om te huur nie. Die Verdedigingsmag bestaat merendeels uit jong mense en hulle sal bepaald gewillig wees om die werk te doen. Ek weet nie of nie miskien die bestuur van die Landbouvereniging dit ook gedaan het nie. Die artiekel soas die hier staat, kan gerus gelaat val wordt want dit zeg ’n onnodige las op die mense.

Wat betref Betsjoeanaland sal hierdie Wet ruinerend blyk te wees. Wat gaat die Regering doen met die mense aan die Kalaharie sê grens en aan die blokke regeringsgrond; wie sal daar verantwoordelik gehou word vir die sprinkhane wat daar uitbroei? Hoe met die mense aan naturellegebiede en met Betsjoeanaland, wat die vergaderplaas is van die groot swerms? Wat gaat die Regering doen? Ons weiger beslis. Ek sit b.v. aan ’n lokasie; gaat die Regering my verantwoordelik hou vir die swerms, wat daar uitbroei? As die Parlement die Wet so aanneem, dan gaan die boere aan die westelike kant na ondergang. Ons ly gebrek van groot tot klein en dit is nie te danke aan die sprinkhane nie, maar daaraan, dat die boer niks anders kon doen nie as uitroei en sprinkhane doodmaak. Baie het na die diamantdelwerye toe gegaan in Lichtenburg in die hoop om iets te maak, maar toe hulle sonder sukses moes terugkeer, het hulle skuld gemaak op die grond en hulle moet dit betaal. Nou word ’n man nie net verantwoordelik gemaak vir sy eige plaas nie maar ook vir die sprinkhane, wat van die regeringsgrond of uit die Kalaharie kom. Ons kan nie die een deel van die volk opoffer aan die ander nie en dit is die Regering sê roeping om te kyk na beide dele van die volk en die wette moet gelyk draag op die hele volk. Ek het geseg ons daar aan die westekant word net aangehou soas jakhalsdraad-heinings gebou word om die vee uit die lande te hou, om die sprinkhaanswerms, wat uit die Kalaharie kom weg te keer vir die orige dele van die Unie en tog word getrag om nog meer laste te leg op daardie reeds swaar geteisterde volk. Is dit reg dat die Minister daardie deel wil doodmaak asof hy sonder hulle kan klaarkom? Ons hoor van die arme volk, maar hulle word nie gereken nie of rekening gehou met hulle behoeftes nie. Dit is daar anders as in Vrystaat en Transvaal, die plase leg ver uitmekaar en daar leg nog blokke regeringsplase tussenin of kafferlokasies, terwyl ander dele leg vlak teen die grens van die Kalaharie. Nou wil die edelagbare die Minister hierdie Wet daar toepas; wat word van ons? Daardie mense is voortrekkers; hulle het daar gekom met kaal voete, hulle leef swaar en aan hulle is die beskawing daar te danke. As ons die Wet aanneem, dan word hulle opgeoffer aan die rest. Die edelagbare die Minister weet seker, dat die oorsprong van die sprinkhaan Betsjoeanaland is en dat hulle by die miljoene en miljoene daar uitbroei. Het hy ooit persoonlik kom kyk? Drie honderdduisend pond sal gespandeer moet word vir die uitroeiïng. Ek verklaar op autoriteit, dat ons nie waarde gekry het vir die geld, wat in die verlede uitgegee is nie. Ek weet van mense, wat gestuur is om met poeier te spuit, maar as die wind waai, kan hulle die poeier nie hanteer nie en moet dan stil lê en wag.

Die administrasie van die Wet is nie onder bespreking nie.

As dit nodig word om die wet toe te pas, sal dit erger gaan en voordat die edelagbare die Minister tot die toepassing oorgaat, moet hy eers die Wetsontwerp na ’n Selekt Komitee laat gaan om uit te vind hoe dit sal werk en voordat daardie deel van die volk opgeoffer word aan die rest.

In my kiesafdeling het die boere ook die uiterste gedaan om die sprinkhane uit te roei, maar daar het hulle ook gemoet beswaar om sprinkhane uit te roei, maar hulle sal in die toekoms dit ook weer doen. Ek kry briewe van iemand die gehelp het met die uitroei van sprinkhane dat daar beeste van hem dood is aan die gif, maar die beeste het afgedwaal, het op die vergiftigde sprinkhane afgekom, daarvan gevreet en is dood. Die man het ’n landbanklening aangegaan om daardie beeste te koop en wat moet nou van hom word; hy het sy trekvee verloor. Ek het die briewe gesien en wil graag weet of daar geen stappe gedaan kan word om mense in dergelike gevalle, wat vir die algemeen hulle goed verloor het, tegemoet te kom nie, anders word die vir hom onmolik om die boerdery voort te set. Ek wil net die geval onder die aandag van die Regering breng om te hoor of daar geen kans bestaat om verligting te skenk nie.

The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hentzog) this evening told us that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture was indulging in the lugubrious little pastime of making out eye-wash to delude the electors, and I agree with him. But the hon. the Minister has evidently gone a little further. To look at the anxious expression on the face of the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Louw) made one wonder how the hon. member reconciled his statements to-night with the resolutions sent to the Minister from the electors of Colesberg. I do not recollect the exact wording, but it is something to the effect that the meeting regretted the retrograde steps taken at the previous meeting, and they undertook to take every step in their power to fight the locust plague, and they hoped the Government would take every step possible to see if it was not possible to destroy locusts by better means than poisoning. This resolution was taken in the absence of the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Louw). I have not yet got the previous resolution but it will be here shortly. I think the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Louw) sent that resolution to the Minister. It contained a pious expression of horror from the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Louw) for destroying locusts, and it said that he had conscientious scruples.

It is absolutely false.

And he wired this resolution about his pious objection and his conscientious scruples to the Minister, and yet he comes and tells us now that he has fallen into line with the Minister and that he agrees that this is the only method for the destruction of locusts. Now this facing both ways is not helping any one, and certainly not the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Louw), and I can only tell the hon. member that these resolutions will cut ice with nobody.

If the hon. member is doublefaced he should not blame other people.

This little Bill has had a more extended discussion than I had expected, and in the course of the discussion there was very little attention paid to the principal part of the Bill, that is, the part of the Bill dealing with the amendment of the Act whereby provision is made for dead portions of plants, which might bring very serious diseases to this country, to be brought under the Act of 1911. I am sorry the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Smit) is not here, because I understand he is of the legal profession and he has evidently not read the Act of 1911, because he would have found, if he had read it, that this simple amendment fits in very consecutively. In the definition of “plant” in the Act of 1911, in which provision is made to supervise, etc., the importation of plants, “plants” shall mean any tree, shrub or vegetation or fruit, cuttings and bark thereof—and shall include any live plants, and to this I have added “and any dead portion of any product of a plant which by proclamation has been included in the definition.” I do not think that one wants to be a lawyer to understand that the old definition has simply been extended. It was very necessary to extend these provisions and, I think, everyone agrees with that. There is no need for me to go into that matter any further. Now as to the other matters which has been-raised, I agree with the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy).

Once in a lifetime.

Well, the hon. member knows the old saying that there is more joy in Heaven over one sinner who repenteth, etc. I think the hon. member will agree with me that I cannot go as far as he desires. Personally, I would like to do so. I would like to see everybody in this country compelled to turn out in the case of a national calamity such as the visitation of locusts during the last year or two, but it is impossible—with the views people hold to-day. The reason why this amendment was put into the Bill was the fact that gentlemen, possessing a good deal of knowledge of this subject, who have been giving their services to try and fight this pest, brought the matter forward in the report which they sent to the Department. My hon. friend knows, and the hon. member for Turffontein (Maj. Hunt) knows, we were anxious to add “flying locusts” as well as “hoppers.” With my knowledge of the House I thought that if I attempted to put in flying locusts I would have found a very, very difficult position indeed. The hon. member for Yon Brandis (Mr. Nathan) asked why I have put into the Act “to the best of his ability.” I may tell my hon. friend that I agree that you can walk through it in a court of law. I know that, but I also know that a large number of farmers in this country if they know they must do a certain thing are constrained to comply with it, but if you put in a clause that they must destroy, that is the owner of an adjoining farm must under every circumstance assist in destroying swarms on an adjoining farm, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for them to do it. Take the case of the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer). I know these things as well as he does. I know the boundaries of many of those farms in Bechuanaland. I have invested money in some of those farms in Bechuanaland myself, and I know the difficulties of bringing it into operation in places like that. It is quite possible that you would get a neighbour who would be of great assistance, but who could not always come forward although desirous of helping. I do not say this clause is going to do very much good. The Committee will have an opportunity of voting on it. It is not the main clause of the Bill. The main clause of the Bill, which I want to get through as quickly as possible, is that relating to the introduction of insect pests into this country in the future, and we should, whenever a case is brought to our notice, be able to apply the Act. I hope the House will take the second reading of the Bill, and when the Bill is in Committee I am prepared for further discussion as to whether this little clause about locusts should be introduced or not All I say is this, and I say it after giving the House the fullest information, that although we have spent a great deal of money, had we not embarked upon this campaign, what would have been the position of the mealie grower of this country? It is too dreadful to contemplate. Their position would have been practically that of ruination, and although we have not destroyed all the locusts, and we cannot destroy them all, we have destroyed such large numbers of swarms, that were it not for the drought I make bold to say, that in many districts visited by the locusts the farmers will still reap a 50 per cent. crop, and if there had been no provision for dealing with the locusts they would never have reaped anything at all. The farmers of this country with few exceptions have done extremely well in connection with the destruction of locusts, and we have had from them very admirable services. I think it was the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) who spoke about the advisability of having “circles.” I do not think there is any use in making provision for “circles” in an Act of Parliament unless you have the cooperation of the people, but we have had places where “circles” have been formed, and those areas have done better than others, but it is not necessary to have legislation in that direction. I hope the House will take the second reading, and if there is a strong consensus of opinion against my little locust clause—I am anxious to get the other clauses (that is, the prevention of insect pests entering this country), through as soon as possible because every day is a danger—I am prepared to take the vote of the House on it.

I should like an explanation from the Minister in regard to swarms of locusts. Does it mean hatched or coming from a neighbour’s farm? What is the position here?

I have been consulting my legal colleague. It means any locust which happens to be on any property, whether they are hatched there or come to the property. A swarm means all the locusts which happen to be on that particular farm.

Motion for the second reading put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

moved—

Ek wil graag voorstel dat die Wetsontwerp verwys sal word na ’n Selekt Komitee. Ek het so oor die saak gevoel, dat ek ’n mosie opgestel het en die aan die edelagbare die Minister gegee en gevra het, of hy nie die aan kan neem nie. Hy het gesê hy kan dit nie doen nie. Nou is dieselfde kwessie al op papier gesit deur die edele lid vir Hoopstad (de hr. Conroy), en ek is oortuig daarvan, dat as die edelagbare die Minister aan ons gehoor wil gee, dan sal daar andere middele gevind word, wat nie so drasties is nie. Die edelagbare die Minister kan nie verwag nie dat ’n paar mense sal moet werk doen, wat in die belang van andere is.

Die agbare lid kan nie op die meriete ingaan nie.

Ek wil maar net aantoon waarom dit wenslik is om ’n Selekt Komitee aan te stel. As ek nie in orde is, sê my dan Mr. Speaker. Sprinkane is een van die kosbaarste voedingsmiddels. Laat die Regering die boer in besit van gif stel, maar neem dit in die Wet dat daar beloning sal wees vir die manse wat sprinkane vang.

Dit kan alles in Komitee behandel word.

Daarom stel ek voor, dat die Wet na ’n Gekose Komitee gewys word, en dat die ’n rapport sal moet doen omtrent metodes gebesig deur die Goewerment in verband met vernietiging van sprinkane en verdere stappe wat in die toekoms geneem moet word om die bestryding van die sprinkaanplaag so doeltreffend moontlik te maak.

I think the proper steps for the hon. member to take would be to move formally that the matter be referred to Select Committee.

Ik stel voor—

seconded.

Ek sal bly wees as die edelagbare die Minister vir Landbou die amendement van die edele lid vir Colesberg (de hr. Louw) sal aanneem. Ek het in my vroeëre toespraak ookal aangehaal om die Wetsontwerp na die twede lesing te verwys na ’n Selekt Komitee, en kan die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou die versekering gee dat dit die enigste manier is om die wet so na moontlik volmaak te kry, om so doeltreffend moontlik die sprinkane te bestry. Ek dink die edelagbare die Minister besef dat hy die hartelike samewerking van die boer nodig het, en dat hy moet let op wat die boere sê wat praktiese ondervinding gehad het.

I am quite prepared to leave the locust question to be voted upon in Committee. I am extremely anxious, as a matter of urgency, to get on with the first part. It has been brought to my attention that there is a possibility of disease being introduced into our cotton by importations, and I want to do everything possible to stop that. If this goes to a Select Committee, it might, under ordinary circumstances, be advantageous, but the hon. member will realize that the people most useful, and who can give the most useful information before a Select Committee, are people who are at present on the veld trying to deal with the locust invasion, and if we were to bring them back to appear before a Select Committee it would be the worst day’s work we could possibly do. They are doing good work, splendid work, and are splendidly organized and making great efforts to deal with the locusts at this particular time. They are doing work of such a character that the position next season, so I understand, will be vastly different to what it is this season. I do not think there are any people in this country with the practical experience that these men have gained, and I do not think a Select Committee could get from anyone such information as they can give. The hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Louw), who proposed the motion that the matter be sent to a Select Committee, and the hon. member who seconded, have done so for different reasons. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) is sincerely anxious that everything should be done—even compulsion—while the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Louw) trembles at the idea of compulsion. There were two meetings recently held in Colesberg, where there appeared to be differences of opinion, and the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Louw) tells me there were only twenty-two present at the last meeting. These were the twenty-two wise men. Sodom and Gomorrah would have been saved if there had been five wise men. I would appeal to the hon. members not to press the amendment, and at a later date they might, if they so desire, elect a small committee to amuse themselves by enquiring into the locust question.

Amendment put and negatived.

Original motion put and agreed to.

moved—

He said: The reason I move this amendment is on account of the fact that there is a general impression amongst railway men that there has been a great tendency to govern by regulation. The average railway man can never find out when a new regulation may be brought in. In the evidence given in Par. 1617-1620 of page 240, witnesses have dealt with this point, and it was said that the power of the general manager could be delegated down to the office-boy by regulation. If the Minister would agree to submit any new regulations, proposed to be introduced, to a conciliation board, I would withdraw the amendment, but in the absence of any such promise I will have to press my amendment.

I move—

I quite agree with the amendment, but the definition of regulations goes still further. It is really extraordinary that the Minister should have such wide powers, and I move that after the word “act” in line 30, the remaining words be deleted.

I do not see how it is possible for a big concern like this to go without regulations. All regulations must be within the law itself, and further must be laid upon the Table of this House and can be objected to if desired. To take away the word “regulation,” as my hon. friend wants, makes things unworkable. You leave the powers in the hands of the Administration, but it is far better to state what is required under regulations. You cannot carry on the duties of the Railway Department unless you depute these powers. Has everything to go to the general manager for his approval? You lay down in the regulations what may be deputed to the assistant general managers or heads of staffs. Furthermore, in objecting to the amendment by the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander), I may say that this has not been the only Act passed relative to railway matters; there is the Railway Board Act and other Acts passed from time to time which also give power to make regulations. We have had to make regulations under the amending Act, and it is to cover the regulations under this Act that this amended definition is required.

The Minister rather suggests that the amendment is unnecessary, for he says that the general manager should not be responsible for everything he did.

I find it difficult to follow the Minister’s objection to my amendment. He says there are a number of other Acts, but my amendment will not make them invalid. What I do object to is that there should be a vague reference to other Acts which we do not know of. This Act should make valid only the regulations which are made in this Act. I am sorry but I cannot withdraw my amendment.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Snow put and negatived.

Question: That all the words after “This Act”, in line 30, to the end of the Clause, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause, put; and the Committee divided:

Ayes—51.

Ballantine, F.

Bates, F. T.

Bezuidenhout, W. W. J. J.

Blackwell, L.

Brown, D. M.

Buchanan, W. P.

Cilliers, P. S.

Claassen, G. M.

Close, R. W.

Coetzee, J. P.

Dreyer, T. F. J.

Duncan, P.

Fitchat, H.

Fourie, J. C.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

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.

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.

Saunders, E. G. A.

Scholtz, P. E.

Senhton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Stuart, W. H.

Van Aardt, F. J.

Van Eeden, J. W.

Van Heerden, B. I. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Venter, J. A.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Bisset, M.; De Jager, A. L.

Noes—36.

Alexander, M.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

Forsyth, R.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Jansen, E. G.

Le Roux, P. W.

Le Roux, S. P.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Smit, J. S.

Snow, W. J.

Stewart, J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: De Waal, J. H. H.; Wilcocks, C. T. M.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

moved—

I have moved in this new clause to cover the whole scope of the Bill so far as the members of the Cape fixed establishment are concerned. Hon. members, especially the Cape members, are quite aware of what is called the fixed establishment of the Civil Service, which has always been looked upon as having rights to be safeguarded, and according to the old Red Book, which used to be looked upon as the Bible of the Cape Civil Service down here, the fact is emphasized that when a person is placed upon fixed establishment of the Civil Service, it matters not whether as general manager of railways or as a shunter, he ranks quite equal as a civil servant, that is to say, that once they have complied with the Civil Service regulations they came on to the fixed establishment, and ranked equally with the General Manager of Railways. With the advent of the C.S.A.R. the tendency of recent years has been to regard the Cape fixed establishment as something to be got rid of, something inconveniently in the way of making more severe the conditions of service on the railways, and cases have been fought in the Courts on several occasions in this connection, and I remember in 1911 and 1912, when the original Railway Service Bill was before the House, I had the privilege of giving evidence on behalf of the artisans of that union and representatives of the fixed establishment, came before the Committee and asked that they should be exempted from the operation of the Service Act. I believe that the original draft of the Railway Service Bill had included them in the scope of the Act, and I know that I sat in the gallery and heard the late Mr. Sauer say that he would take opinion about inserting a clause in the Service Act exempting members of the fixed establishment from its operation. If it were necessary to do that then, I say, now that attempts to bring the fixed establishment members under the Railway Service Act is an attempt to take away some of their rights and privileges. Although some members of the fixed establishment admit that under certain conditions they would receive some benefits from being brought under the Act, the great majority of the members of the fixed establishment prefer to be kept under the original Act of 1895. It seems that at that time that Act was passed, there was a great tendency of railwaymen to migrate to the North, and in order to stop that migration the Cape Government came along and made the service down here more liberal. They were prepared to give them better security of tenure, and some guarantees for the future in order to retain their services down here. This was looked upon by the men, that if they behaved themselves, they would become permanent members of the staff, and they regard that procedure as of so much importance that any attempt made to bring them under the scope of the 1912 Act implied that whatever right they possessed, was in danger of infringement. That is the reason why I moved this amendment. In Clause 2, for instance, the clause which follows Clause 1, I move mine in as a new Clause 2. The fixed establishment officials know perfectly well that later on, if you bring the members of the fixed establishment under the disciplinary laws of the Service Act, then Clause 2 has a very strong significance.

There is a feeling on the part of the railwaymen in general, I think, that some of their rights have been taken away. I have had communications from the railwaymen in my constituency to that effect. On looking through the Bill and the evidence, I am not able to see that their rights are being interfered with. One can go more into detail when we come to the clauses; for instance, in Clause 2 they make reference to the rights of the fixed establishment being taken away. There is undoubtedly a suspicion that they have not been dealt with fairly, but looking through the evidence one cannot see that. I think the Minister on this point might make a statement, especially in regard to the Cape Fixed Establishment, and let us know whether the rights are being interfered with.

This is not a question on which the Minister can give a decisive answer. It will be for a court of law to interpret what the rules mean, not for the Minister, as however bona fide he may be he cannot authoritatively interpret the laws. Having repealed section 3 of the old Act why should it not be made clear in the Bill what the legal position of these men is. A few words in the section would make it absolutely clear, and this is the intention of the mover of the new clause. What objection is there to making it clear that the present clause does not apply to men mentioned in section 83. It is possible to interpret the section that these men for the first time are brought in under the provisions of new laws, and it would be more equitable and better for the Minister to make that perfectly clear, i.e., That their rights safeguarded in the Act of 1912 are not being interfered with.

I should like the Minister to make some statement to satisfy people on this point.

I am going to do.

It seems to me that people will say that new section 2 is a reshuffle of old section 2, and that will give rise to some suspicion.

Let me say at once that it is not the intention of the Department, nor does this Bill in any shape or form interfere with the rights of the pre-Union servants. So far as the pre-Union men are concerned, the only difference this Bill makes is that it somewhat alters the disciplinary regulations. In the opinion of a large number of the staff themselves, especially the better educated part of the staff, clerks, salaried staff and so forth, they accept this gladly. What is the position? If a man gets into a scrape or commits an offence under this Act, an official is sent down to enquire into it. The man is present, is allowed to call witnesses and so forth, and then the decision is given. If it is against him he may then appeal to an Appeal Board, that is to say a board is formed by an officer of the Department, together with another man of equal rank and of the same class of work as the man himself. There they try the case, and at the same time the man is allowed to be present, allowed to call and examine witnesses. And we go a step further than in the past, we allow him to have a friend to assist him. From that he always has an appeal to the General Manager and to the Railway Board. That is the position for the men not on the Cape establishment. Now what is the position with the men on the old Cape fixed estibment. They cannot go to the appeal board at all. There is an officer sent down to inquire into the case, and if the man is condemned he has an appeal to the General Manager. I lay great stress from my experience on the appeal board because, as I say, we try to be as fair as we can. There is an officer appointed who has nothing to do with the case, and there is a man of the man’s own stamp who can understand the position of the offender. Generally, when I have to look through the case I very carefully look through what the appeal board has to say. Now, under this new Bill, the Cape fixed establishment man will get the right to go to an appeal board, which he has not got to-day. It is an increased privilege as a matter of fact. And then for minor offences we can deal with those offences in a much more expeditious manner than has been the case so far. A man may have come late in the morning, and he has a long document sent to him, and a written charge has to be put to him, and he has to make a written reply, but under this Bill his officer may call him, and give him a good talking to, and say “You must be smarter and up to time in reporting for duty.” These are the particular, the principal, differences. We do not want to continue one set of the staff under one set of disciplinary regulations and another set under another set of disciplinary regulations. We want to bring them all under one, under an improved set of disciplinary regulations. So far as I am aware there is no right in any sense taken away from the staff. There is no wish to do that, nor is the Bill drawn with that object. So on the whole this Committee may be perfectly satisfied that there is no right taken away from the fixed establishment men belonging to pre-Union times.

Ek wil ook graag ’n beroep op die Eerste Minister doen om die amendement van die edele lid vir Soutrivier (de hr. Snow) aan te neem. Die edelagbare die Minister sal na alle waarskynlikheid sê, da dit me sy voorneme is nie om die regte wat persone het wat gewaarborg is onder artiekel 83 van die Wet van 1912, weg te neem nie. As dit so is, dan wil ek aan die hand gee dat dit die beste is om op hierdie stadium dit duidelik te sê, en die posiesie vas te lê in die vorm van die amendement van die edele lid vir Soutrivier (de hr. Snow). Dan word alle moontlike twyfel, wat daar mag bestaan, weggeneem. Ek kan die edeleagbare die Minister die versekering gee, dat as daar een punt is in die Wetsontwerp waaromtrent in die hele land besonder sterk gevoel word, deur die Spoorweg manne dan is dit oor die gevestigde regte van amptenare. Nou weet ek dat die edelagbare die Minister sal sê, dat onder die ou akte hulle nie soveel regte het nie as onder die nuwe Wet, dog die amptenare self wat daarby betrokke is, wens hulle regte te behou onder die Wet van 1912. Hulle is tevrede onder die bepalinge van die Wet en hulle wil nie onder nuwe Wet kom nie. Daarom wil ek daarop aandring dat die amendement aangeneem word. Dan bestaat daar geen twyfel, dan weet hulle wat hul regte is en dan word uit die weg geruim wat vandag ’n rede is vir agitasie en moeilikheid onder die personeel. Ek hoop daarom dat die edelagbare die Minister die saak goed sal oorweeg voor hy antwoord gee en dat hy die amendement sal aanneem wat die passeer van die geamendeerde Wet baie sal bespoedig.

I want to question the hon. the Minister for Railways and Harbours. Under the old Cape Fixed Establishment no man could be dismissed without the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament for inefficiency. To-day there is a cry being brought into the shops, and it is developing, that if they want to get rid of a man he is charged with inefficiency. This charge of inefficiency is giving a good deal of trouble amongst the men. They contend that the judges of inefficiency are biassed, and do not give the men a fair test. If this is repealed then it brings the Cape Fixed under this clause, whereby a man can be dismissed for inefficiency without the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament. This is what I am told, and I believe this is correct. It cannot apply to the clerical staff, but the artizans of the Cape Fixed want to be assured that this it not the case. In many cases discharge for inefficiency even after inquiry has not given satisfaction to the men, and I want to ask the Minister of Railways and Harbours that if they come under the disciplinary powers of this Bill, can they be discharged for inefficiency, can they be discharged without the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament, because it is rather a strange coincidence to find that a man is inefficient after 20 or 30 years’ service.

It will not apply to these men.

I mean the whole of the men under the Cape Fixed.

They will be exactly in the same position, and let me say further about this inefficiency, I do not know any during the last two years, at least not more than half a dozen men, who have been discharged for inefficiency. It is a very difficult thing indeed to prove. My hon. friend can rest assured that this would not apply.

What is the objection to accepting this amendment?

Because we want to bring all the staff under one set of regulations, and I think these regulations are essentially fair. Here a man goes before tribunals if there is any doubt about it, you cannot do a fairer thing than that.

I would like to offer an explanation of the amendment by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow), on page 257. He proposes to enact a condition precedent to certain clauses, viz., to Clause 2 which deals with appointment and discharge; Clause 5 with inefficiency; Clause 10 with discipline, and Clause 11 procedure on misconduct. All these things are being dealt with by this amendment. I think it would be more convenient to deal with them when we come to the clause affected, and the Committee will understand what we are dealing with. I agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South West) (Sir William Macintosh) that the Cape civil servants are protected under Clause 2 of the Bill. In Clause 5 of the Bill sub-section (3), the Cape civil servants are specifically protected. With regard to disciplinary proceedings for misconduct there seems to me to be no necessity to deal with the old civil servants, who number about 4,000 in the Railway service, differently from the 32,000 other white railway servants, who come under the Consolidating Railway Service Act of 1912.

There is some difficulty in following the reply of the Minister when asked whether a man on the fixed establishment could be got rid of he said “no.” Under section 16, in the interests of efficiency or economy, the Minister may give him certain financial benefits by adding some years to his service and got rid of him without coming to Parliament. The Minister says that is not so. That is why in this discussion we are anxious to put in a clause that the rights these men have at present should not be taken away from them.

May I point out that this particular matter is in force at the present moment. Clause 15 lays it down definitely.

I am afraid it all depends whether he is dealt with under Section 34 or 35 of Act 32 of 1895. Under Section 34 a certain number of years can be added to his service, and the Minister can get rid of him without coming to Parliament. In Section 35 he has no years added to his service, but the Minister has to come to Parliament to get rid of him. In the one case he gets a financial benefit, and can be got rid of without his case coming to Parliament, in the other case he gets no financial benefit, and cannot be got rid of without his case coming to Parliament. You can, under this Bill, get rid of these Cape Fixed Establishment men without coming to Parliament. You can by virtue of Clause 16 dismiss them under section 34 of Act 32 of 1895, without coming to Parliament. These men value the protection given of not being liable to be dismissed without their cases coming to Parliament. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) moves an amendment which, if the Minister is correct in what he says, he should accept because it makes what the Minister says clearer still.

The point is this, the members of the Cape Fixed Establishment Service do not wish to be brought in under the Railway Service Act of 1912. They have never recognized that Act, and they wish to be exempted from it. They wish to remain under Act 32 of 1895, whatever may be wrong with that, they prefer to remain with the old rather than with the new. They prefer to remain with the friend they know, rather than go to the friend that they do not know. For the purposes of the Administration an attempt is being made to bring them under the Act of 1912. They have not come to the Administration and asked to be brought under that Act, because they prefer to remain under the old Act of 1895. The Cape Fixed Establishment Service Association have taken up a very strong line in this matter, and they want to remain under the Act of 1895. The Minister said here to-night that he wanted them all brought under one set of disciplinary regulations. I gave evidence before the Select Committee on the Railway Service Bill in 1912 on the same point, and subsequently the late Mr. Sauer, speaking from those benches, said it could not be done. He said “We would like it to be done, but the legal advisers say that it cannot be done”. Now the Minister is attempting to do something which his predecessor in office found he could not do in 1912, and that is why the members of the fixed establishment want to remain under the Act of 1895.

The position, as it appeals to me is this. These Cape fixed establishment men, ’way back in 1896, when they could have accepted situations in various parts of the Union at enhanced wages, stayed here because of the fixity of tenure. They were offered bigger wages to go along north, but these old rights, which were secured to them by Act of Parliament, kept them here. They were led to believe that this Act could not be tampered with, that it was something sacred, and that is why these men remained and did not go North. A large number of these men would have gone North where they were offered far bigger pay, but they looked upon this fixity of tenure and all that kind of think as something of real value, and they elected to stay here. Now the Minister says “Yes, we are not going to interfere with the pensions,” but these 4,000 odd men have it at the back of their heads that the Minister of Railways would do anything to get rid of them to-morrow.

They are wrong.

Well, that is the opinion of these men.

They are wrong, that is all.

Well, these men are of opinion that the Minister of Railways, if he had the power, would dismiss the 4,000 of them. They think that he would take the first opportunity of getting rid of the whole lot of them. He is supposed to regard them as a stumbling-block. The Minister knows quite well that if he wants to get rid of a large number of men, and he has to get the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament, it will be a very difficult thing. And that is the men’s protection. They know that the Minister would find it very difficult to get rid of them unless the concurrence of Parliament was got, and the Minister knows that it is very inconvenient to discuss this matter on the floor of the House. Still he wants to get this stumbling block out of the way under the disciplinary clause, and if this amendment is not carried the Minister can then deal with these men. The men do not want this, and where you have 4,000 men protected by an Act of Parliament, you are not going to take away their rights very easily. How often have not we heard the rafters of this House ring about the rights of the people, the rights of the wine farmers? Here we have these men, they have their rights and they are determined to fight for them. They have right on their side. In 1896, 1897 and 1898 there was a rush of men to Johannesburg, and the fixity of tenure and the inducement held out to these men so as to retain them here at 10s. per day. They were nearly all married men, and they said “We are going to move, we have this job and we are going to stick to it, seeing that we are given security.” Now the Minister says “All right, we will add a few years to your pension rights, and then you can go on pension.” What about their pay? Is the pension equal to their pay? The other day I heard of a case of a man who had had 28 years’ service. He was a skilled labourer, and he is getting the princely pension of £3 per month. A great number of these men are getting very small pensions compared with their pay. Now the Minister is a business man, and he knows that if he breaks a contract he has to give something for it. That is the position which these men take up. They say “If you put us off at the age of 50, we want compensation for the break of our contract.” That is what they want to do, and what they are anxious to do—to carry out their part of the bargain, that is to remain in work until they reach the age limit, and surely there is nothing unreasonable in that. And it is up to the Government to carry out their part of the contract and not interfere with the rights of the Cape fixed men. It is no use for the hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon) arguing that the more educated clerks do not want this. He knows quite well this was argued out in Select Committee last year. We had evidence from various parts of the country, and they were all dead against their rights being interfered with. Every man of them, and I hope and trust that the House is going to support the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) in his amendment, because it is a good amendment which is going to protect the rights of the Cape fixed men and others so placed. I know quite well it is rather a strange thing to stand up in this House and argue for the rights of workers. I know it is not a popular thing, but these men have got rights, and it is our duty to stand up for them. The Prime Minister and others who take a broad view, I trust, have decided to support this amendment, because they must see that these men have got rights. What the men want if you are going to put these men off is the wages they would be earning until they were 60 years of age. Are you prepared to pay these men the full sum they would get up to the age of 60? I do not believe one of them would grumble if you did, but if you are going to give them the miserable pensions they are getting to-day then there is going to be trouble. The hon. the Minister made light of inefficiency. I can tell the hon. the Minister something that is happening not four miles from here, and there is just the possibility of a very big row through this thing. A young lad just finished his apprenticeship is dismissed for inefficiency because they want to get rid of him, and the men who know this lad and have worked alongside of him demand that a fair test should be made, and that the lad should be given a chance and under proper supervision to see whether he is inefficient or not. The lad is prepared to abide by the result of a fair test.

I think the hon. member is going rather far from the question at present.

I just want to show how this inefficiency can be abused. This is the argument of the Cape fixed men. They will come under this inefficiency clause and they dread it very much indeed, and I think the hon. member would dread it himself if he were put out of the Chair without a proper test. They do not mind being discharged after a proper test, and I think the Minister of Railways would be well advised for the perfect harmony of the railway workshops if he would accept the clause of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow).

Business interrupted by the Deputy-Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed.

Progress reported; House to resume in Committee on 5th March.