brought up the Report of the Select Committee on Clause 34 (re-committed) of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Bill.

Report and evidence to be printed; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 24th March.

brought up the First Report of the Select Committee on Pensions.

House to go into Committee on the report on 24th March.

brought up the Third Report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, as follows—

Shall we have an opportunity of considering this report?

The report is now on the Table; if the hon. member wishes to move a day for its consideration, he can do so.

We cannot discuss it now, and I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

(for the Minister of Native Affairs) laid upon the Table—

Papers referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

laid upon the Table—

May I, with leave of the House, make a personal statement with regard to a discussion which took place here last night? In the first place, Mr. Speaker has handed me a letter addressed to him by the Administrator of the Cape Province. This letter, I understand, Mr. Speaker cannot deal with, as it is a letter from an outsider, relating to matters which took place in this House, but Mr. Speaker has handed me the letter, and I desire now to read it to the House. It is dated 20th March, and is as follows—

Mr. Speaker, ek veronderstel, dat ek later in orde sal wees, wanneer die debat op die Wetsontwerp aan die orde kom, om die verdaging daarvan voor te stel, ten einde die verklaring van die edelagbare die Minister te bespreek.

Gewoonlik word ’n verklaring nie besproke nie, maar ek geloof nie, dat ek die edele lid kan verhinder, as hy dit wil bespreek nie, nadat die Orde van die Dag gelees is.

Ek wens voor te stel die verdaging van die debat, ten einde gelegenheid te hê om die belangryke verklaring, deur die edelagbare die Minister afgeleg, te bespreek. Ek veronderstel, dat die Huis eers hieroor sal moet beslis, voordat ek n’ woord oor die saak seg. Ek stel voor—

Ek sekondeer.

Die edele lid is in orde.

Ek denk ons is almaal bly oor die verklaring van die edelagbare die Minister, die ons gehoor het en die uiteensetting van sy posisie omtrent wat hier gisteraand en vorige dage plaasgevind het. Bly insoverre die verklaring een is, welke die afkeurenswaardige sy van die diskussie en van die gedrag van die edelagbare die Minister, soas voor die Huis geleg, verminder en in ’n beter daglig stel. Ek hoop, dat ek niets meer seg as wat iedereen hier in die Huis voel, wanneer ek verklaar, dat geeneen van ons kan te veel doen om te sorg, dat die karakter van die Huis altoos so hoog molik sal staan en dat die peil waarop dit sal en gaat staan in die toekoms, in die eerste plaas afhanklik is van die gedrag van die Ministers en dat dit om die rede is, dat ek, toe die Minister opstaan, bly gevoel het dat hy hier ’n verklaring gaat doen oor die gebeurtenisse, omdat ek ook meen, dat dit soas ek gisteraand geseg het, die afskuwelike van die gebeurtenisse sal wegneem en die gevoele, wat daar aan weerskante bestaan sal wegneem en ons laat voel, dat die Ministers is te enige tyd hoogstaande genoeg, dat ons hulle woord kan aanneem en dat as hulle in die toekoms ’n verklaring afleg, dat ons dit kan geloof en daarop handel. Ek wil vanmiddag die edelagbare die Minister insoverre gelukwens, dat hy altans blyk gegee het van te besef dat hy tog wat sy moed betref, gehandel het soas hy nie behoort gehandel te hê nie, hoewel hy tegelykertyd met verstandsargumente trag te vergoelik en uit te veeg, wat sy gevoel hem seg dat verkeerd was. Maar die edelagbare die Minister het nie alleenlik ’n verklaring gemaak nie, hy het feitelik die pleidooi van gisteraand voortgeset om die Huis te toon, dat hy nie gefouteer het. Dit kan ek voorlopig nie aanneem nie. In die derde plaas het hy daartoe oorgegaan en hom verstout om ons ’n kapittel voor te lees. Indien die Huis ooit in minagting gebreng is, dan is dit nog nooit in so sterke mate geskied as deur die rede van die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies nie. Ek wens Hou terug te kom na die gebeurtenis wat hier voorgeval het en aan die Huis te vra of wat die edelagbare die Minister gesê het alleen tot versagting strek van sy dade, dan of dit hom, soos hy sê, verskoon. Wat hier voorgeval het is—ek moet dit herhaal—dat in die loop van die diskussie oor ’n baie belangrike Wetsontwerp en wat meer is oor ’n Wetsontwerp wat aanleiding gegee het tot ’n diskussie wat heel wat gevoel geopper het, het ek aan die edelagbare die Minister die vraag gestel—dit was op die middag na die Buitegewone Staatskoerant op die 14de deser verskyn het—het ek die edelagbare die Minister gevra of hy invloed gebruik het om die publiekasie van die Staatskoerant te laat oorstaan tot die 14de van hierdie maand, tot na die twede lesing. Dit is ’n duidelike en ’n heldere vraag, waar omtrent geen misverstand kon gewees het nie, en op ewe duidelike wyse het die edelagbare die Minister geantwoord dat hy niks daarmee te doen gehad het nie.

Dit het ek nie gesê nie, dat ek niks daarmee te doen gehad het nie.

Die edelagbare die Minister het gesê: “I did not”, i.a.w. die edelagbare die Minister het nie sy invloed gebruik nie. Dit was sy antwoord op my vraag, Ek hoop nie dat ek ’n verkeerde afleiding maak van die woorde: “I did not” op die vraag of die edelagbare die Minister invloed gebruik het. Wel, nou vraag ek aan die Huis of dit ’n juiste, dan of dit ’n onjuiste, ’n ware of ’n onware antwoord was op die vraag wat ek hom gestel het-. Hier het die edelagbare die Minister gister opgestaan—

Ek wil die edele lid net vra of hy van plan is om die verklaring van die edelagbare die Minister aan te neem?

Ek neem nog nooit die hele verklaring aan nie. Ek kan die hele verklaring nie aanneem nie. Onder die verklaring is verklaringe—want dis nie een verklaring nie, maar ’n reeks van verklaringe—is verklaringe wat ek nie kan aanneem nie.

Is die edele lid bereid om die verklaring van die edelagbare die Minister aan te neem met betrekking tot die punt, dat die edelagbare die Minister gesê het, dat hy, toe hy die antwoord aan die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) gegee het, in sy gemoed oortuig was, dat hy nie die Administrateur geinfluenseer het nie cm sy taksasievoorstelle agteruit te hou nie?

Of hy in sy gemoed daarvan oortuig was?

In sy gemoed is hy oortuig, dat hy nie die intensie gehad het om die Administrateur te influenseer nie.

Die kwessie is nie, wat in die edelagbare die Minister se gemoed is nie, maar die kwessie is wat hy gedoen het. Ek kan nie gaan by wat in sy gemoed is nie, as hy ’n andere ding doen nie.

Hoe kan ons as lede ons posiesie handhaaf teenoor elkunder, as ons nie ’n, verklaring aanneem van wat ’n edele lid bedoel het nie? Die edelagbare die Minister staan op en gee aan die Huis te kenne ten voile wat in sy gemoed was en wat hy bedoel het. Nou het dit altoos die praktyk gewees dat so’n verklaring aangeneem word. Alle edele lede meet dit aanneem.

Mooi, en ek is totaal gereed om dit aan te neem en ek het verwag, dat die edelagbare die Minister die houding sou aangeneem het. Maar het hy die aangeneem? Het hy gesê, ek het iets gedoen, maar iets anders gemeen? Dit spyt my. Het die edelagbare die Minister dit gister gedoen? Dan sou die hele Huis die verklaring kan aangeneem het en ek sou die eerste gewees het om die aan te neem. Dit sou wees in die belang van die Huis en van die edelagbare die Minister self, om die houding aan te neem. Maar het hy dit gesê? As die edelagbare die Minister dit nou nog wil sê, dan is ek nog gaarne bereid om dit aan te neem. Maar die edelagbare die Minister wil dit nie doen nie. Soos hy sê, in sy gemoed voel hy, dat hy dit behoor te doen, hy het dit in sy verklaring, aangehaal, maar toe ek gedink het, dat dit nou sou kom, toe begin die edelagbare die Minister te argumenteer en sê, dat niks wat hy gedoen het verkeerd is en dat ons die sondaars is. Ekerken volmondig, dat as daar een ding is wat ons behoor te doen en ek weet nie, dat ons dit ooit nie gedoen het nie, dan is ’t dit, dat as ’n andere edele lid of ’n edelagbare lid van die Regering sê: “ek het dit of dat nie bedoel nie,” dan onderwerp ek my met gereedheid aan die verklaring. Dis in die belang van die waardigheid van die Huis, en die waardigheid van die bestaan—sou ek byna sê—van Parlementêre gebruike en in die belang van die gesag van die Huis. Anders kan ons nie aangaan nie. Maar dat is wat die edelagbare die Minister nie gedoen het nie. Die edelagbare die Minister gaan heen en hy sê: “I did not”; “ek het nie.” En ek vra die Huis eenvoudiglik, het die edelagbare die Minister dit gedoen, het hy ’n juiste of ’n onjuiste verklaring afgelê? Ek hoef nie daaroor te praat nie, wat die edelagbare die Minister feitelik het wil sê. Gisteraand en nou verder is die bewys gelewer daarvan, want hy sê, dat die Administrateur na hom toe gekom het en ek sê, dat die brief wat hy hier vanmiddag voorgelees het bring ons nie verder as die edelagbare die Minister ons gister geneem het nie, namelik dat die Administrateur by hom gewees het en dat hy gesê het, dat dit beter sou wees om die saak te laat oorstaan. Maar nou sê die edelagbare die Minister, dat dit nie die rede was van die salarisse van onderwysers, maar omdat as die Staatskoerant gepubliseer sou geword het, dat dan die beraadslaging hier in die Huis tot die oneindige sou uitgerek gewees het. Dit is dit. Ek het hom nooit gevra naar die rede waarom, maar eenvoudiglik of hy invloed uitgeoefen het. In die brief hier voorgelees van die Administrateur word gesê: “the Minister did not use any pressure.” Daarna het ek nooit gevra nie. Ek het gevra of hy sy invloed gebruik het. Ek wil sê, dat die edelagbare die Minister baie onversigtig gewees het. En laat ek dit sê, dat van tyd tot tyd hier gekla is oor die onbehoorlike wyse waarop die edelagbare die Minister voortdurend besig is om lede van hierdie kant van die Huis afjak te maak. Hy beskou die lede nie as lede, wat geregtig is om vrae te stel of om informasie te kry nie. En gisteraand bet hy ook weer die posiesie ingeneem, ons moet dit nie uit die oog verlies nie. Hy het die houding aangeneem van te sê:“Ek het die edele lid wel gesê, ‘Ek het nie’”, maar hy het nie die reg gehad om die vraag te stel nie, m.a.w. dat hy die reg het om: “wanneer een edele lid ’n vraag stel en ek verwaardig hom met ’n antwoord, dan het ek ook die reg om hom te belieg.” Dit is die posiesie feitelik, ons moet die tot die uiterste neem. “Dit kom daar nie op aan nie, of dit waarheid is nie, of ’n ernstige leue, maar die edele lid het die aan homself te danke, want hy het die vraag gestel.” Ek vraag die Huis, of ons ons plig kan doen, as die edelagbare die Minister die houding aanneem wat hy aangeneem het? Is dit nie bereken om tereg kwaie gevoelens te sit aan hierdie kant van die Huis, om hierdie kant van die Huis te beledig nie? Dis ook nie die eerste keer nie, dat ons groot rede tot ontevredenheid het nie. Ek kan goed verstaan, dat daar mense is vir wie die gesag, die prestiege of wat dit is van die Huis van minder betekenis is en ek kan ook goed verstaan wanneer edele lede met die onkunde van parlementêre gebruike, soos die edele lid vir Bethal (Lt.-Kol. H. S. Grobler) vanmiddag, hom volkome ongevoelig betoon vir parlementêre gebruike. Maar ek is nie hier om tot die edele lede te praat nie. Daar is nog genoeg fatsoenlike edele lede, dat is politiek fatsoenlik, dat ek nog ’n paar woorde tot die Huis durf te praat. Ek kom nou aan ’n andere punt. Die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies klaag hier oor, dat hy gister beskuldig is geword van die Huis misleid te hê. Nou wens ek dit daadlik onder die aandag van die Huis te bring, dat toe ek gisteraand die telegram voorgelees het, het ek my goed daarvoor gehoed om die edelagbare die Minister direk te beskuldig daarvan. Wat ek gesê het, is, dat as die telegram juis is en die edelagbare die Minister het daar deel aangeneem, soos die Administrateur te kenne gee, dan lig daarin opgeslote die volgende—ek het drie punte genoem en ek sal die presies weer so gee, as ek die gisteraand gegee het. Die eerste was, dat die edelagbare die Minister saamgespan het, om te bewerkstellig dat informasies van publieke aard wat vermoedelik gewigtig sou gewerk het by die beraadslaging in die Huis, onthou geword het aan die Huis. Dit is die eerste en die bly staan. Deur die brief van Sir Frederic de Waal blyk dit duidelik, dat dit geskied is. Die twede punt is, dat dit gedoen is deur die edelagbare die Minister met die opsettelike doel, om hierdie Huis te influenseer, so nie te mislei nie. Te influenseer, so nie te mislei nie. Ek het hom nie beskuldig, dat hy werkelik mislei het nie, maar wel gevoel dat—en hy kom daar nie van weg nie—dat die edelagbare die Minister die Huis geinfluenseer het. In hoeverre sy doel was om te mislei, het ek daar gelaat. Die edelagbare die Minister het hier vanmiddag gesê, dat hy aan Sir Frederic de Waal dit gesê het, dat hy maar liefs nie moes publiseer nie, of soiets.

Dit het ek nie gesê nie.

Nee, nie presies die woorde nie, maar wat hy gesê het kom hier op neer, dat hy dit gesê het met die doel om te voorkom, dat die diskussie in die Huis uitgerek sou word. Maar is dit nie eienaardig nie, dat net daarna, die edelagbare die Minister weer oorgaan en sê: “Sover was ek daarvan af om Sir Frederic de Waal van dit in verband te bring met hierdie wetsontwerpie, dat ek nie eens verwag het die diskussie oor hierdie wetsontwerpie. Ek het gedink, dat so’n klein ou dingetjie sou gemaklik deurgaan.” As dit so is, waarom het hy dan probeer om ’n lange diskussie te verhoed. As hy Sir Frederic de Waal ontmoet, sê hy, hy verwag ’n lange diskussie, maar as hy hier kom, sê hy, dat hy nie ’n lange diskussie verwag het nie, dat hy eientlik nie veel notisie geneem het nie van die Wetsontwerp. Ek wys maar net op die inkonsekwensie in die verklaringe van die edelagbare die Minister. Niemand kan ontken, dat ’n les daarin opgeslote lig nie. Maar nou nog ’n ander saak: of die edelagbare Minister ’n aandeel gehad het aan die wegstuur van die telegram. Volgens die Administrateur laat blyk, moet ek seg na die brief van die Administrateur aan ’n lid van die uitvoerende komitee van die Prowinsiale Raad, dat die Regering daarom versoek het. Die edelagbare die Minister verklaar, dat dit nie so is nie, maar gelyk ek gisteraand geseg het, kan niemand ontken, dat dit daaruit voortvloei nie en toe ek die derde implikasie maak, dat toe die edelagbare die Minister aan my seg: “I did not” het hy die waarheid nie gespreek nie. Dit het ek reeds voor die Huis geleg en ek vraag nogeens of hy dit gedaan het of nie. Wat betref die Regering en die bewering, dat ek hulle hier op ’n minder behoorlike manier te lyf gaan, moet ek onskuldig pleit. As die edelagbare die Minister te klaag het is dit oor eige onversigtigheid en eige gedrag. Hy het ontegenseggelik soiets, deur wat hy gedaan het en geseg, nie slegs hom aan blootgestel nie, maar ons in die posisie geplaas volstrek so te moet handel as wat ons gedaan het. As die edelagbare die Minister wil opstaan en verklaar, dat hy in die haast sy antwoord gegee het, sal ons aan my kant dit nie net verstaan nie, maar dadelik gereed wees tot afmaak van die saak, want dit sou ’n erkennig wees, dat dit is wat ons moet wraak.

Ek kan dit nie doen nie, want dit sou nie waar wees nie.

Presies, maar wat sou nie waar wees nie?

Dat ek inderhaast so gepraat het.

Dus die edelagbare die Minister wil seg, dat hy geen ekskuus van enige aard uitgespreek het nie. Dan voel ek, dat ek reg gedaan het gisteraand en dat dit die plig is van die Huis om die Minister te laat voel op die beste wyse, dat hy iets onbehoorliks gedaan het, wat ’n Minister nie betaam nie. Om dan hier te kom verklaar, dat hy niks onbehoorliks gedaan het nie, het ’n ongunstige indruk gemaak op die goeie gesindheid van die Huis. As hy verklaar had, dat hy hom wou verdedig, sou ons dit nie toegelaat het nie. Dit is nie die eerste keer, dat die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies misbruik maak van die voorregte van die Huis nie en ons moes reeds protesteer teen ’n ander wat ’n verklaring wou doen en as met die praktyk voortgegaan word, moet dit duidelik wees, dat dit in die toekoms geweiger sal word, ’n Verklaring is tog geen voorsetting van ’n debat nie en as Ministers dit doen, dan maak hulle misbruik van die privileges van die Huis. Na wat die edelagbare die Minister soewe geseg het, wil ek liewer oor die saak niks verder seg nie.

Die toespraak van die agbare die leier van die Opposisie, waarna ons so juis geluister het, was vir my ’n treurige ekshibiesie en toe ek luister na die wyse waarop die edele lid aangaat teen die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies, het die vraag by my opgekom, wie staat vandag op sy verhoor, die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) of die Minister van Finansies. Daar bestaan ’n reël, nie slegs in die Parlement nie, maar in die algemeen onder “gentlemen” oor die hele wereld en wat dus geld in alle beskaafde geselskappe, dat waar iemand ’n persoonlike eksplikasie maak, dit aangeneem word. Maar die Regering is blykbaar volgens die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) daarvan uitgeslote en sy verantwoordelike posisie geld vir hom nie. Dit is nie die eerste keer, dat die kwessie van die geloofwaardigheid van lede opgebring word nie. Verlede jaar werd daar ’n aanval van die grofste aard gemaak op die geloofwaardigheid van die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog). Wat is toe gedaan? Is daar van hierdie kant van die Huis gebruik van gemaak om hom met modder te gooi, hom swart te smeer? Wat is toe gedaan om die edele lid in die gelegenheid te stel, ek sal nie sê om sy naam skoon te maak nie, maar om dieselwe skoon te hou, voor die wereld? Daar is van hierdie kant op voorstel van my ’n Selekt Komitee benoem.

Ja, op my aanvraag. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het gesê: “Vraag ’n Selekt Komitee aan; U sal dit kry.”

Dadelik is deur die Regering alles gedaan om die edele lid die kans te gee om sy naam skoon te hou—vandag word die klag van ongeloofwaardigheid gemaak teen ’n lid van die Regering en wat is die houding van die edele lid? Laat my sê, dat dit lyk of die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) swanger gaan aan ’n bittere persoonlike gevoel teen die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies, weens die persoonlike optrede soms van dese teenoor lede van die anderkant van tyd tot tyd, ’n persoonlike gevoel van animus. Daar gaan ek nou nie op in nie. Maar wat die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) gesê het is feitelik ’n direkte beskuldiging van ongeloofwaardigheid. Ek ken die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies reeds ’n halwe menseleeftyd en ek kan verklaar, dat ek baie manne in die publieke lewe geleer ken het en moet sê, dat die Minister van Finansies die laaste man is uit my jarelange ondervinding en intieme omgang met hom, wat ligtelik iets ongeloofwaardigs sou sê. Hy mag sy foute hê, is weleens opvliegend en kan sy teenstanders gedug te lyf gaan, maar hy sal nie ligtelik met die waarheid omspring nie. Die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) weet dit; hy weet dit so goed as ek, dat die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies nie ligtelik met die waarheid sal omspring nie en dit pas hom des te minder om in sy houding te volhard, na die eksplikasie van die Minister van Finansies en te volhard in die beskuldiging, wat hy maak. Die laste van die publieke lewe is swaar genoeg, byna ondraaglik. Ons is in die Huis en nie slegs in die Regering nie, neem ek aan, net met één doel en dit is om onse beste kragte en talente te gee aan die diens van land en volk. Dit word onmolik om die las te dra en die volk te dien, as dit gedaan word in ’n gees van bitterheid teenoor elkaar. Dit is vir my byna onmolik iets te doen, as ek sou moet denk, dat die mense aan die anderkant leunaars of bedriegers is en nie waardig om mee om te gaan nie. Dergelike optrede as van die edele lid maak nie net alle persoonlike omgang haas onmolik nie, maar ook die publieke lewe. Dit spyt my om op te merk—ek sê dit nie ligtelik nie, want ek maak nie graag beskuldigings nie— dat meer en meer die neiging aan die anderkant sig vertoon om ligvaardiglik te praat oor die karakter en eer van die lede aan hierdie sy van die Huis. Die soort beskuldigings is al geuit sowel deur die edelagbare leier van die Opposisie as deur die edele lid vir Stamford Hill (de hr. Creswell). Dit word te lig, te maklik gemaak oor valsheid en ongeloofwaardigheid, en soas ek geseg het, dit maak die publieke lewe ondraaglik. Ek sou ’n beroep wil doen op alle lede, al sou dit miskien weggegooi wees op die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), en al wil hy ons nie meet met die maat, waarmee ons hom gemeet het in die verlede nie, ons werk word onmolik, as dit nie gedaan kan word in ’n gees van wedersyds vertroue en respek nie. Die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies het sy bes gedaan om die posisie duidelik te maak; hy is met die voile waarheid voor die dag gekom en nie hy alleen nie, maar ook die Administrateur van die Kaapprovinsie het al die feite blootgelê en wil dit aan die Huis oorlaat om te oordeel. Die Minister gaat verder en verklaar, dat as die edele lid nie tevrede is nie, dan is hy bereid dat daar ’n Selekt Komitee aangestel word om die saak goed uit te pluis. Ek denk, dat onder die omstandighede sal ons handel in ooreenstemming met die waardigheid van die Huis en van die goeie persoonlike gevoel die moet bestaan, wanneer ons die verklaring van die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies aanneem, dat hy volkome te goeder trou gehandel het Ek glo nie, dat die toespraak van die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) vanmiddag sal bydra tot die waardigheid van die Huis en tot die waardige verhouding van die lede van die Huis onderling nie.

I cannot allow the words of the right hon. the Prime Minister to pass without comment from me. Let me say this, that I quite agree with the right hon. the Prime Minister, that it is a custom in every civilized country when a person who is accused, rightly or wrongly accused, makes an explanation, to accept that explanation. The right hon. the Prime Minister accuses us on this side of the House of a certain spirit of bitterness—I claim on my side as against the right hon. the Prime Minister’s accusation, that that feeling is well-founded; founded on a number of incidents, to which this incident comes as a climax. I was not present, but my hon. friend here has given me a precis of the explanation of the right hon. the Minister of Finance, and it amounts to this, that communications took place, and that the explanation that he exerted no influence was one of those rapidly-said things which, I think, if he had given it more deliberation, he would certainly have seen that we on this side of the House, could not take as an answer being in any way consistent with the telegram which was sent by the Administrator. The Administrator himself says that the telegram was a mistake. It certainly shows the lack of accuracy on the part of the Government and its servants, which leads by very slow degrees to convey the impression to those who are opposed to them in politics, that they have to search very scrupulously through their remarks to get the truth. Now may I say this from the bottom of my heart, and I am speaking, I think, on this question which has arisen, of the state into which we have got of importing too much of our personal feelings, let me say it with the utmost candour, that I heartily agree with the right hon. the Prime Minister, as to the duty of all of us to try and see if we cannot get out of this wrangling dog-fight into something more—

Let the hon. member speak for himself.

I hope hon. members will have patience with me. I know the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) and other hon. members feel exactly as I do, and I am not saying this in any spirit of recrimination. The right hon. the Prime Minister has accused us of always taking up a personal and bitter attitude.

Too frequently, I said; too often.

In no spirit of recrimination; may I assure the right hon. the Prime Minister that we on our side, the minority, have, as we think, ample grounds; I want to say that… nothing justifies one in a derogation from public duty. We are, however, human, and we have from that side of the House, and from Ministers especially, got from their answers to us, from their attitude, from the way in which they will seize anything and use it in the most, to us, unfair manner, we have got the feeling that there is nothing but a really strong protest which will enable them to see what their courses are leading to in the spirits of those whom they are opposing. My hon. friend reminds me of the injunction, “before taking the mote out of your brother’s eye, take the beam out of your own.” I have already admitted, most candidly and fairly, my own sense of the difficulty of which I am fully aware I all too frequently give way in giving out that feeling of real irritation and annoyance which should not take place so much in our discussions. And having done so I think I am entitled to explain to the House and to Ministers what it is we are complaining of. The right hon. the Prime Minister himself is one of the greatest sinners. He twists our words. During the last session—

The hon. member is dealing with a particular point, which must be germane to this Bill. The question is to adjourn the debate and discuss the statement made by the Minister last night in reference to the telegram of the Administrator. That is something germane to the Bill before the House.

May I not have the same latitude as the right hon. the Prime Minister, who is allowed to lecture us upon our evil spirit, and trying to exorcise the devil who he thinks occupies this side of the House?

The hon. member is going too far now!

The right hon. the Prime Minister spoke of this matter, and I have spent many an hour in the last few weeks, and many an hour last night, thinking over this same subject, and I want to tell the right hon. the Prime Minister that when one makes a statement here he, himself, is only too ready to turn it into an allegation against someone’s honour. Here, in this House, he accused me of having maligned and besmirched the reputation of the South African Army. These accusations sink deep. If those accusations were made by me against the right hon. the Prime Minister, he would feel deeply and rightly that I was not playing the game by him. Then, when asking a question, I am answered by the hon. the Minister of Lands, with what seemed to me the sort of prevarication that I would have expected from a schoolboy of ten. That is why I protested. But the right hon. the Prime Minister, the leader of this House, even then uses his position as leader to counsel the House to turn my motion into a farce. Those are not dignified ways of conducting the business of this House. The leader of this House is not only the Prime Minister, but the leader of the House. Then we come to the hon. the Minister of Lands, who was asked a number of questions and gave us a long history. I should have preferred to see those things probed to the bottom. Almost every time we ask questions of certain Ministers there is an evasion, there is, to us at all events, something which conveys itself as a lack of candour, which has the obvious effect of breeding suspicion. Then when we come to an incident like this, we are actually beginning to see into other people’s minds, we do not know anything except the force of the words which are uttered, and we come to an incident which I myself, in speaking on the matter when it was introduced into this House, said, was one of those coincidences which dogged the footsteps of the Government. My hon. friend here, putting the same construction on it, inferred that the Government had some influence on the taxation proposals of the Administrator, and the hon. the Minister of the Interior indignantly challenged him, and declared that my hon. friend was making unworthy insinuations. Then, in reply to a categorical question by the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) the right hon. the Minister of Finance said he used no influence. On top of that comes this telegram, which we have had produced in this House, a telegram sent a week before the right hon. the Minister gave that answer to the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog). We have a telegram produced from the Administrator, almost as dignified in office as any Minister of the Crown, saying that the publication was withheld at the request of the “Government” until the second reading had passed, which he bow, I understand, alters to “the Minister of Finance.” Are any intelligent men, when these things come as a climax upon a long series of questions meeting with evasive replies, what appears at least to be evasive, are any body of sensible men to come to any other conclusion than that evasion and cynical disregard of candour reaches a climax in that answer given by the right hon. the Minister to the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) in regard to that telegram? The right hon. the Minister of Finance comes before us with an explanation. I am the readiest man in the world to accept an explanation when I possibly can. I do not want to wound any man’s honour, but would rather have had the right hon. the Minister of Finance admit, that in the heat of the moment he had made a mistake, that he had not remembered the actual conversation that he had had with the Administrator. It is one of the things which happen to us all, and no bones would have been broken; but I understand that the right hon. the Minister did not discuss these scales, and that he had not in his mind the scales of salary, and did not ask the Administrator not to publish them. Am I correct?

That is not my explanation at all.

I am very sorry. The right hon. the Minister did not want to publish those taxation proposals.

That is not right either.

If the hon. member does not know he should sit down.

That is the whole incident as it appears to me, and the moral is that if Ministers will be more candid with this House, that we, sitting in opposition to the Prime Minister, also have a heavy burden on our shoulders in the public interest. If we can expect a greater measure of candour from Ministers, I would rather a Minister say he was not prepared to answer than give an answer that was not candid, but evasive.. If they will give that candour I can promise on behalf of my hon. friends that a better spirit will prevail in this House in which we should look upon ourselves as joint partners in the welfare of this country, separated, it may be, by deep grounds of conviction, but trying to recognize in those in opposition to us, the same real regard for the public interest which we also hold, and which we believe actuates ourselves.

Ek wens die mosie terug te trek.

Motion, with leave, withdrawn.

I have been waiting patiently to hear some of the champions of education from Natal say something with regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell). Why, if there is one thing more than another that Natal prides itself upon, it is on retaining the control of its education, and also on the manner in which it has conducted education since Union. The province has done this not because of any assistance given to Natal by the Government, but in spite of it. Why, children are sent from all quarters of the Free State and the Transvaal, to take advantage of the exceptional educational facilities provided in Natal. [Laughter.] Yes, hon. members here may laugh, but it is a fact, an undisputed fact, that hundreds of children come from the Free State into Natal to be educated year after year. There is no question about that, and principally to be educated in the English language by the teachers of Natal, who have maintained a standard of education acknowledged to be the best in South Africa. Now we have an attempt on the part of the Government to reduce the salaries of the teachers, to a level out of all keeping with their ability. On the other hand, we have members from Natal, who in Natal pretend to uphold the standard of education there, but in the House of Assembly in Cape Town refuse to say anything by way of support for an amendment which is to exempt the Natal Province from the provisions of. Clause 2 of this Bill. [An Hon. Member: “What about the Transvaal?”] I am talking about Natal at the present moment, and the arguments which can be used in Natal’s favour are not altogether applicable so far as the Transvaal is concerned. That is my opinion. Natal would never have agreed to go into Union, had the people not been assured that they would have control of their educational system. It is true that some 14,800 people voted, when a referendum was taken in 1909 in Natal, as to whether they should accept or reject the proposals to bring about Union in this country. It is also true that 3,700 odd voted against. I would like to know what the result of a referendum would be to-day on that very same question.

They would all vote for it.

The Government, year after year, in their Financial Relations Bills, handicap the Province of Natal, and a referendum taken to-day as to whether Natal should continue in the Union of South Africa would be very interesting. There is no reason to treat lightly the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell). I understand that in one province of the Union, exemption is to be asked for in another Bill, shortly to be brought before this House, and there are prospects of it being granted. I consider it a reasonable request, in view of Natal’s educational methods, that Natal should be exempted from the provisions of Clause 2.

I did not intend speaking on this, but after the challenge which has been thrown down by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan), I think I might say a few words on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell). Let me say at once, that I cannot agree with the amendment put forward by the hon. member, for I have yet to learn that under the existing circumstances this country is passing through, that the teachers of Natal will welcome this. I do not think for a moment that the teachers, having the interest of education in their country at heart, and knowing the stress and strain through which this country is going through at the present time, would elect to stand apart and be specially favoured in regard to salaries.

They have already said so.

Who said so? I understand that the Executive Committee and the Administrator of Natal have agreed to the provisions of this Bill.

Yes, they have.

And I understand that the Provincial Council has agreed to them

That is not true.

I understand that the Executive Committee and the Administrator nave agreed to them, and under the conditions I think it would be only right of the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) to withdraw this amendment of his. It has been said in this House very often, that Natal and the Free State have had special advantages in regard to the subsidies which come from the Union. In 1913 I had the honour of being on the Executive Committee of the Natal Provincial Council, and this House treated Natal quite fairly, we might almost say liberally, in allowances. I certainly consider, as a representative from Natal, and also as one who may claim to have just as much regard for seeing the youth of this country properly educated, and say I cannot agree with the remarks which have come from that corner of the House, as far as Natal is concerned Therefore I propose to vote against the amendment.

Ekwil net graag ’n paar woorde seg in verband met Klousule 2. Ek het ’n telegram ontvang, van Koedoesfontein van die tak van onderwysers daar, wat lui as volg—

Ek voel saam dat ek ’n misdaad sou begaan, as ek nie ten sterkste ook sou protesteer teen die skale van vermindering wat in die Wetsontwerp voorgestel word. As daar een amptenaar is, wie se salaris beskerm moet word, dan is dit die onderwysers. Ek weet dat die onderwys in die Transvaal baie goed is, omdat die salarisse wat daar betaal word die beste kragte na die Transvaal trek. Namens die onderwysers wil ek protesteer en ook as protes my stem uitbring teen Klousule 2.

The hon. member for Durban (Greyville) Mr. Boydell), and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan), have made eloquent appeals to members of Natal, to support the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell). Well, I am going to oblige the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell).

Hear, hear.

Yes, the hon. member says “Hear, hear,” but I am going to do exactly what we wants me to do and that is to vote against his amendment. It is the last thing he wants members on this side to do, when he asks them to support his amendment, as he would not then be able to go back to Durban and pose as the champion of the poor down-trodden teacher, and point to the other Durban members who did not support him. Like every other member, I sincerely regret that it is necessary to decrease salaries, but the teachers of the country are not the only people who are having their incomes reduced; we all feel the depression all over the country, and I would refer the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) to the statistics relating to the average incomes, and he will see that the average income of the people in Natal has been seriously reduced, yet, at the same time, the teachers have not had their incomes reduced. I agree with the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Moor) that the teachers themselves would resent what is proposed by the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell). I think they would not wish to be placed on different terms to the members of the other provinces. I think they would consider it very unfair, and an injustice, that Natal should be specially treated in this respect.

I take this opportunity of alluding to a matter which I brought up last year. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that a certain complaint was made as to the methods adopted by certain factories who are producing articles upon which a very high protective duty is placed, amounting almost to a monopoly, and these producers insist upon those who bought from them not selling any of the articles under a certain price. I brought this up in the House, and the right hon. the Prime Minister expressed himself—

Matches?

Yes, and the right hon. the Prime Minister said that in the Bill which was to be introduced he would insert a clause, such as that which existed in the Moratorium Act, which would enable us to deal with these illegitimate attempts. He introduced the Bill, and this is one of the occasions on which the right hon. the Prime Minister—

Ran away.

I intended it the other way. The measure was passed, and under the Board of Trades Bill there was inserted a clause to meet this point of view, and my difference with the right hon. the Prime Minister was that this only gave power to enquire—there was no compelling operative clause. I want to show the House how it works. There is the case of Biccard and Ensor. I hold no brief for them. I maintain, and I think one is justified in maintaining, if you protect by your duties and thus give a monopoly to certain producers, you are clearly entitled to say that these producers are to sell to one man on the same terms, and at the same price as to another, and once having parted with the goods, and the cash paid over the counter, there should be no restraint on the purchaser’s freedom to do as he likes with the goods he has purchased. On May 2nd, 1923, the Prime Minister said to me: “I think the hon. member is right, and it is the feeling of the Government too, that if we are embarking to any marked degree on the legislation of the protective character, we should protect the community generally also.” He thought I was right that we should protect the community generally. The Bill was passed, and at once this firm attempted to avail themselves of the protection the Act was designed to provide. On June 20th a report was made by Biccard and Ensor on the matter of the Lion Match Company and Nugget Polish Company. On June 26th they received a reply from the secretary, stating that the Board were on the eve of departure to the Southern and Eastern Provinces, and said they would be back about the 20th of July. On July 19th the firm wrote further to say that as they were due, would they please get on without further delay. On July 26th the secretary wrote to say matters of importance necessitated the Board’s departure again to Natal and the Free State. On August 30th the secretary wrote co say they would give the firm a hearing on September 3rd, and a member of the firm attended. The Chairman, Professor Fremantle, Senator Malan, and the Secretary were present. The firm’s representative answered all questions, and the Chairman said the Board was breaking up because he and Mr. Malan were going to England with the Prime Minister, to attend the Economic Conference—immediately upon their return in December they would have a full Board hearing. On January 21st, 1924, the firm wrote the Board and urged them strongly to get on with the business. On January 28th one of the members of the firm called and asked the Secretary how it was they had heard nothing, and he said the Board was very busy, but he would soon reply. On January 30th the Secretary was rung up for a reply. On February 1st the Secretary replied in a most evasive fashion and asked for certain information. On February 4th the firm replied in detail, and gave all the information. On February 14th a member of the firm called upon the Secretary to ask for a reply to theirs of the 4th and was told they were busy. He asked to see Sir Howard, but this was impossible; he was too busy with the Prime Minister. The representative of the firm then asked if he could speak to Mr. Fremantle. He was told: “Certainly, but he was out and would be back later.” He called again and Mr. Fremantle was still away. The firm wrote again that afternoon and still there was no reply. Finally, on February 19th—eight months after—the Board rang up and made an appointment for Monday, 25th February; this appointment was kept, and the full Board was present, including the secretary and assistant. The matter was fully discussed for an hour, and upon leaving two of the Match Company’s directors and secretary, together with the Chairman of the Merchants’ Association were heard. That is the protection afforded by this Bill. After repeated applications, a period of eight months elapsed and the firm had not got the information they required. I will read the words of the Act upon which they have to report—

I think one has a reasonable complaint that the machinery for which the Government is responsible, and the provision which the Prime Minister inserted to meet precisely this kind of of case, is extremely ineffective, when nine months pass by and a company is unable to get its case any further. If a certain article is protected one is given a monopoly. I, John Smith, or anybody else, should be allowed to buy that article, and when we have bought it it becomes our property and the producers have no right to say what price I shall have to sell it at. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) smiles, but I have that opinion, and I hold that opinion. Now there is another matter in connection with this Board of Trade; I should like the Minister to be careful in answering this question—I hope he will have that candour of which we have had so much mention. He tells us that in the whole of these nine months which have elapsed—he said so yesterday in reply to me—that only two reports or recommendations have been made to the Government. It is most extraordinary. I called the attention of the right hon. the Prime Minister to the fact that this enactment says that we shall have the information laid on the Table within a certain time. The Act says—

Now I understand that among these matters which the Minister suggested were enquired into some time ago, there was the question in regard to dumping, the cement question. I want the Minister to enquire precisely when the recommendation was made by the Board. With new machinery I quite appreciate the right hon. the Minister forgetting the exact clauses in the Act, but it is important that we should know. And secondly, on the question of the general work of the Board, is it really a fact that in all these nine months there has been no report, no recommendation, except those two. I see from this correspondence, that Sir Howard Gorges and Senator Malan were going to England. I do not know whether Senator Malan went.

Yes.

Well, didn’t this Economic Conference suggest anything? Were no recommendations made in regard to economic matters? If the Minister prefers not to answer, if he has nothing to say, let him say so; but if the Government send the Chairman of the Board to an economic conference, I submit there must have been some consultation with the Government.

With regard to the question of reports by the Board, I made some enquiries after the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) raised the question in the House the other day, and I am informed that the two reports which I have mentioned were received, the one was due to be laid on the Table tomorrow, which is the last day under the Act. That is the report on the cement. The other one is due, if the full thirty days are to elapse, to be laid on the Table a little later. The hon. member is quite right in saying that for a great part of the recess the chairman, and one of the members of the Board, were over seas in connection with the Economic Conference, and I believe one other member of the Board was away on leave also, so that the board carried on during that time. The hon. member has asked me a question with regard to economic policy. The technical adviser of the Government, Dr. Caldecott, presented a memorandum to me on the question of economic policy. That memorandum was referred by me to a departmental committee of which Dr. Caldecott was the chairman. They enquired into the matter and brought up the recommendation, or a report.

Who did the committee consist of?

I do not remember the names right off. The Government Mining Engineer was one, and Dr. Caldecott was another. Anyhow it was a departmental committee. When they brought up their report it was not unanimous, so I referred the matter to that committee, and joined with them the members of the Board, but of course they could not go into the matter fully until the chairman and the other member who were overseas, had returned. They only returned towards the middle of December, so it was only in the beginning of this year that they had an opportunity to meet. They have met, and have reported to the Government. But, of course, this is not a report of the Board, it was a report of the departmental committee, to which the members of the Board were joined.

All the members?

Yes. As a matter of fact there was one departmental committee to which the memorandum of Dr. Caldecott was referred. Then afterwards, so as not to get a conflict later on between the departmental committee and the Board of Trade, I thought it was the wisest policy to put the two together and I said: “You bring out the report on this memorandum of Dr. Caldecott.” That has been presented to me, but I do not regard that as a report of the Board, but it is under the consideration of the Government at the present moment, and I have taken steps to have the report translated, with a view to laying it on the Table of the House as soon as the Government have had an opportunity of considering it.

What about the other matter?

Which other matter?

The matches.

Well, I do not know much about that. What I did gather last year, but whether that is still the position I do not know, and I am speaking from the information which I remember of last year, when this matter was gone into. Whether the Board actually reported or not I do not know, but the information given to me, from which I am speaking now without further enquiry is this, that the firm which the hon. member quoted is a firm of broker contractors, and they supply retail merchants all over the country with all sorts of goods. Part of their business scheme is to supply matches, at a much lower rate than the ordinary wholesale merchant can sell to the retailer, as an inducement to do other business. This is a sort of bonus. Matches are given as a bonus on other business. I am not saying that that is so, but that is the information which is running in my mind. If it is so, then it is quite understandable that there is reasonable objection on the part of retailers, who say: “You can supply matches as a bonus on other articles, which enables you to undersell us, who do not do business in this way. And it is not fair that you should do that sort of business. You can afford to give the matches away, but we cannot.” There are objectionable features to that class of business, if it is so. I do not know what the idea of the Board is, but I shall make enquiries. I am rather interested. If the statement is as it is read by the hon. member, it is rather curious that they could not enquire into this matter more fully. But I shall make enquiries into the whole matter.

I am not at all satisfied with the Minister’s statement. Here you have a Board of Trade set up by Act of Parliament; it is a body for which the House has voted money. The right hon. the Minister has spoken of a departmental committee of his own; but the fact is that the Minister has tacked the Board on to a departmental committee, and then he says that the joint report is not a report of the Board of Trade. I submit that under the Act, if the right hon. the Minister takes all the members of the Board of Trade and says: “Now my departmental committee has been unsuccessful, we want you to sit together and make a report”; then I say, I emphatically hold that that report comes under the operation of this Clause 2 of the Act. Surely it is ludicrous to say, that if the whole Board submit a report, and one or two other signatures are added, that therefore it does not come under the Act, it makes the whole of this Clause inoperative. You might do that with every single report and every single recommendation of the Board, and I hope that the right hon. the Minister will lay this on the Table as early as possible. Now I want to know this, about this other matter of the matches; is the consumer not to be considered? If one looks at the position—are there not other companies also holding something like a monopoly in tobacco and such things? If selling such things at a cheaper rate is a crime, then I can show the right hon. the Minister a shop in Parliament Street, where if he buys a certain cigarette, he is given matches for nothing. There is no difficulty in that. I say that it is not right that you should allow any firm of producers to whom by protective duty you give a practical monopoly to stand in the way of a dealer in any way like that. And if the firm says that it is an injury to them, surely the public have to be considered. The public have to pay more on account of the protection, the very high protection given to this industry. I disagree entirely with the Government and the right hon. the Minister. I say when the right hon. the Prime Minister, the head of the Government in this House, expressed himself as he did, and specially inserted this section into the Act, I say, then the people had a right to expect redress, or at least inquiry, as a result of the establishment of the Board of Trade. I hold that the report of the Board should be laid on the Table at the earliest possible moment. There is another matter which I wish to raise. It is the extraordinary position which we understand exists in the mandated territory of the South-West Protectorate, particularly in regard to an agreement which has been printed and circulated, between the Government and the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company. This agreement gives apparently a monopoly in that territory to this company. It gives the right to erect a cold storage and refrigerating works at Walvis Bay, and on that ground, as I understood the right hon. the Prime Minister’s reply, on the ground that one of these clauses refers to the refrigerating works in Walvis Bay, but it does not relate therefore to the more extended right on the Protectorate, I cannot understand how the Prime Minister can read this contract in that way. I will read one clause—

If this is not a concession to the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company, well, words lose their meaning—not in Walvis Bay but in South-West Africa! There are other portions I can read, for it speaks of—

Is that not a concession? Here we have passed this Act of 1919, in Act 49, in sub-section (2) of Section 4—

I do submit and I cannot understand the right hon. the Prime Minister taking the view that this comes under the head that “no trading or other concessions shall be granted without the authority of Parliament.” Might I say it is germane to the discussion we had this afternoon, when the right hon. the Prime Minister took up the attitude he did, that because the principal cold storage works would be erected in the territory of Walvis Bay, that therefore this Act did not apply, surely to plead that Walvis Bay was only joined administratively under the South-West Protectorate, under another Act. It is one of those things that to us ordinary plain men, seems like taking advantage of a mere legal quibble. To excuse giving a monopoly concession to the Imperial Cold Storage, or persons who have certainly great influence with the Government. I say it is a quibble. I say the intention of this Act was to prevent precisely that sort of thing, of the granting of concessions, which leads inevitably to men who are friends of the Government having advantage over other citizens. I have seen business letters, in which many persons said they would use what influence they had with the Government, to do this thing or the other. The Government may not know these things, but they are very dangerous and bad for the country.

The time of the hon. member has expired.

May I just finish? On this point I maintain that that document, taken as a whole, is a concession within the territory of South-West Africa, that the right hon. the Prime Minister has got no right to get out of it by simply alluding to the Walvis Bay Cold Storage, and that in general, the granting of this concession without coming to Parliament for authority, is a contempt of Parliament.

Let me say in reference to what has just fallen from the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) that there are two questions. There is the question of fact—the question of this concession—and there is the question of law. Let me take these two separately. With regard to the question of the grant of this concession—the question of fact—the Committee knows what the state of affairs was, and is, in South-West Africa. It is a ranching country where people have almost nothing else to look forward to than the growth of meat and its export from that country, and as the export to the Union is not a staple market, and it has not given any prospect of development in the future—rather the contrary —it was necessary to find for that territory another outlet. The Administrator, recognizing this, and under great pressure of public opinion, advertised for the construction of cold storage works in that territory. He advertised, and as the result of the tender that he asked for he got this one tender from the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company. It is not because the Administrator or the Government are in love with the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company, or because the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company has any particular influence with the Government, or that members of the Government have got this concession, or whatever you may call it, this contract, but it is because when tenders were invited in the public press, only one answer was got, only one tender, and that was the tender of the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company. We have a similar case in Rhodesia. Hon. members will remember what happened in Rhodesia within the last six months, where you had a somewhat similar case. At a farmers’ meeting the producers there also clamoured for a market. The Union market is dwindling, and has shrunk to such narrow dimensions at present that it was necessary to look to some other outlet for the meat produced in that country. The Government of Rhodesia, not out of love for the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company, but driven by necessity and seeing no other solution whatever, has had to give a similar concession to the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company. The hon. member may say that the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company has friends in the Rhodesian Government too, but it is very curious that in Rhodesia, just as in South-West Africa, there was nobody else who wanted to do this business, and the Committee must bear in mind that this is a very difficult business, a very risky business. I am told that if you go to South America to-day, you can buy for a song any number of cold storage works erected at enormous cost, and I can well understand that this House will see the same state of affairs in South Africa. The hon. member may go to Durban, or to Delagoa Bay, or, in the Union, to Bethlehem, East London, or Klerksdorp, and he will find cold storage works locked up and the capital invested in them, I will not say lost, but certainly in grave jeopardy to-day. In those circumstances it is very difficult for young countries like South-West Africa and Rhodesia, to get anybody prepared to put hundreds of thousands of pounds into the cold storage business in them. That is how the contract was made—in the open—and the question now arises as to the legality. That is a technical question which I am not, perhaps, quite competent to go into, because Ī must frankly admit I have never studied the technical side of the question. I was, as a member of the Government, principartly responsible for affairs in South-West Africa, and I knew about the inception of this agreement, and I sanctioned the steps which were taken, but, of course, the actual steps which were taken in making an agreement of this kind are subject to the action of the Government lawyers, who framed this agreement and who have to convince themselves that the agreement is intra vires. The case they put up, and I assume it is the correct view, is that we have here to-day an agreement which applies principally to Walvis Bay. Walvis Bay does not fall under that Act which the hon. member has read. Walvis Bay is a part of the Cape Province, and under the old Cape laws, the Government is the legislative and contractive authority for it. The lawyers are of opinion that the subsidiary clauses, which apply with respect to the South-West territory, and therefore would fall within the provisions of that Act 39 of 1919, are not in conflict with the provision which the hon. member has read. That is the technical view. I express no opinion, but when I stand here and speak, I do not speak as a lawyer; I have not gone into the legal question, but the lawyers say we are all right, and I dare say that must be the general view. I am sure the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company are not going to jeopardise hundreds of thousands of pounds on a contract which they are advised is not good in law. They are not going to risk their money, and the Crown lawyers, in a similar way, say it is all right; that these provisions are not in conflict with the provisions of the Act to which the hon. member has referred. It may look like quibbling, but after all it is a technical question, and the hon. member knows that he and I, and the ordinary common or garden member of this House, in our capacity as members of this House, have scarcely a legal opinion. A legal opinion means that you have thoroughly gone into a case, that you have studied the facts, the documents, and the law. I do not purport, with that candour which the hon. member demands from me, to having given the subject that close attention. I have to be guided by the lawyers as to what has happened.

I am not satisfied with the right hon. the Prime Minister’s reply. I am very glad that the right hon. the Prime Minister has drawn a distinction between J. C. Smuts the lawyer, and the statesman. He says that the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company would hot enter into expenditure involving some hundreds of thousands of pounds, unless they were satisfied it was all right. But that is not the point. It seems to me that where there is any doubt, the Government should have taken notice of what was the intention of Parliament in this Act, and far rather to have given Parliament the benefit of the doubt, than the Government to do something off its own bat, and avoid the criticism of Parliament. All the right hon. the Prime Minister’s remarks seems to me, to be beside the point. What is the relevance of saying that this company is friendly with Rhodesia? Well, it is in the interests of such companies to be friendly with every Government. Section 4, sub-section (2), of the Treaty of Peace in South-West Africa Mandate Act, 1919, says—

If the Government desires to play the game by Parliament, they would recognize what any honest or any common plain man would recognize as to what this document means. All those arguments which the right hon. the Prime Minister has urged, may be excellent in commending this contract to Parliament, but as a reason for not submitting it to Parliament, I say those arguments are entirely out of place. I hope before this clause is passed that the attitude of the Government in this matter will be said to have been a violation of this Act, it has certainly been a violation of the spirit of it.

Ek weet nie of ek die vraag aan die edelagbare die Eerste Minister moet vra nie, of aan die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou, maar terwyl die edelagbare die Eerste Minister op hierdie vraag geantwoord het met betrekking tot Walvis Baai wil ek graag van hom weet besonderhede met betrekking tot die koelkamers wat opgerig sal word in Messina langs die Limpopo. Al wat ek daaromtrent weet, is wat ek in die koerante gelees het, maar dit lyk vir my ’n wonderlike ding dat die koelkamers word opgerig in Messina. Ek kan nie sien hoe dit kan wees vir die Transvaal se beeste nie, vir die uitgebreide beestboerdery wat ons het by Rustenburg, Pietersburg, ens.

Ons het baie meer beeste as julle.

Die edelagbare die Minister sê dat hulle baie meer beeste het as ons, maar ek dink hy praat buitekant sy boek. Teenoor die beeste wat in die Zoutpansberg se distrik is, het ons al die beeste in Rustenburg, Pietersburg, Marico en Pretoria, en die is almal ver af van Messina. Dit lyk vir my nie moontlik om ons beeste na die fabriek in Messina te bring nie. Ek wil graag weet waarom die plek uitgesoek is? Dit sal tog baie beter gewees het as dit in Pietersburg of Potgietersrust sou gewees het. Dit lyk vir my ’n onmoontlike posiesie, om van ons distrikte die beeste helemaal te stuur naar Messina, dig aan die grens van Rhodesië. Dit lyk vir my dat die plan is om beeste van Rhodesië daar te kry en ek kan nie sien wat vir nut ons daarvan gaan hê nie. Nou is daar nog ’n andere kwessie. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister sal weet dat daar ’n deputasie van Johannesburg hier gewees het om te praat oor die slaghuis, die abattoir van Johannesburg. Daar is koelkamers ingerig teen baie hoë koste en nou bestaan die gevaar dat die koelkamers van Johannesburg minder gebruik sal word deurdat die fabriek ingerig word in Messina. Ek kan nie ’n bepaalde opvatting daaroor gee nie, maar ek stel net die vraag omdat ek dit graag wil weet. Waarom word die fabriek en die koelkamers opgerig by die grens van Rhodesië? Selfs die edelagbare die Minister van Verdediging sal erken dat die meeste beeste onderkant Zoutpansberg is. As dit nou nog was die midde van die Zoutpansberg distrik, maar die fabriek word opgerig heeltemaal aan die grens van Rhodesië. Dit kan ek nie klein kry nie. Ek wil dus graag weet waarom die fabriek in Messina opgerig word, verder watter konsessies die Regering gemaak het aan die maatskappy, wat betref die grond wat beskikbaar gesteld is en wat die posiesie sal wees met betrekking tot die abattoirs in Johannesburg.

Ek wil net vir die edele lid ’n antwoord gee, want dit lyk vir my, dat ek hom ’n bietjie uit ’n droom moet help. Kyk, daardie argument, dat die uithoek van die land nie die regte plek is nie, is heeltemaal verkeerd. Ek verstaan die “canning factory” sal ’n baie groot aantal beeste moet hê en die beeste sal moet aangeja word, want die sal nie die sware spoorwegtariewe kan verdra nie. Ek dink hulle sal glad geen spoorweg vrag kan dra nie. Sover my informasie gaan, sal daarom die beeste moet aangevoer word. Toe die Liebig Maatskappy hier gekom het, het ek die onderhandelinge gevolg en ek weet miskien net soveel daarvan af as enige andereen. En ek het een van die sterkste daarvoor gewees, dat die fabriek sou kom in die noorde, want daar gaan die beesboerdery die beste vooruit.

Die Liebig Maatskappy is tog in Rhodesië?

Ja, die “ranches” is in Rhodesië. Ek is baie sterk daarvoor, dat as daar ’n “canning factory” opgerig moet word, dan moet die in die Unie wees en ek het alles gedoen en sal ook verder alles doen om sulke fabrieke in die Unie te hê. Maar in my opienie is Zoutpansberg meer of min die middelpunt van die beesboerdery, wat veral van groot betekenis is van Zoutpansberg tot na Leydsdorp, Pietersburg se kant, Waterberg, en die noordelike deel van Rustenburg; ja ek dink die hele Rustenburg sal daarheen gaan. Maar jy sal gou moet klaar maak, my edele vriend sal daarmee moet reken, dat die prys wat hy gaan kry vir die beeste is baie laag want die beeste wat daar verbruik sal word, is die beeste wat hy van tyd tot tyd uit moet sit, wat hy nie kan opwerk tot “prime” of goeie slagbeeste nie. Soos ek verstaan, sal die fabriek, om die bedryf lonend te maak, elke dag ’n groot aantal beeste moet verbruik, omtrent 200, en ons sal sien, dat in die dele daardie klas beeste baie gou weggeslag sal wees en dan sul hulle beeste van Rhodesië betrek. Hulle kan vandag tog ook maklik aan die ander kant van die rivier gaan en dan die beeste van Rhodesië slag. Daarom dink ek moet ons bly wees dat die fabriek in die Unie word opgerig. Nou sê my vriend, die edele lid vir Rustenburg (de hr. P. G. W. Grobler) waarom nie op Pietersburg? Doodeenvoudig omdat in die onmiddelike nabyheid van Pietersburg daar nie sooveel beeste is. Ek gaan verder en sê dat die maatskappy groot gronde moet hê waarop die vee kan wei. Hulle sal tot 30,000 morge weiveld moet hê. As verteenwoordiger van Zoutpansberg het ek sterk daarvoor gewees dat die fabriek in daardie distrikt moet wees en als dit nie dieper in kan wees, nou dan liever in Messina als oorkant die rivier. Die grond sal ons teen ’n redelike huur moet gee vir die beeste en as daar Goewernementsgrond beskikbaar is vir die oprigting van die fabriek, dan sal ons die cok aan hulle teen ’n redelike prys moet afstaan, en as hulle ’n spoorweg sylyn wil hê onder die gewone daarvoor bepaalde kondisies, dan sal hulle die ook moet hê. Die maatskappy wil op geen ander plek as Messina die fabriek oprig nie en ons kan nie anders dan tevrede wees. Dis van groot belang vir die boere dat die beeste van mindere waarde ’n mark sal vind. Ek het onlangs met mense gepraat wat betrokke is by die beesboerdery in Argentinië en hulle het gesê dat die beesboerdery in Argentinië baie gehelp gewees het deur die oprigting van soodanige “canning factories. En hulle seg, dat wat hulle baie help is dat die minderwaardige soort beeste weggeslag word, sodat daar plek op onse markte kom vir die goeie soort beeste. Ek hoop dat die vriende me sal aandring nie, net omdat dit nie op Rustenburg is, wat die fabriek sal opgerig word nie, want ek reken, dat al die noordelike distiikte daarby sal profiteer. Dit kom daar me op aan wie dit kry nie, solank as daar net in ons land en binnen bereik van die noordelike distrikte, wat die baie minderwaardige beeste het, gebreng word. Verstaan, dat die plek vir ses maande gegee is aan die maatskappy, maar as daar twee, drie of meer dit wil waag is hulle welkom. Dit is in die belang van die boerdery in die algemeen, dat die sogenaamde “cullings,” die minderwaardige beeste deur die fabriek verwerk word.

Ek is bly oor die uitleg van die edelagbare die Minister van Verdediging, maar net jammer, dat hy meer opgetree het as die voorspraak van Zoutpansberg en nie van Transvaal me, wat tog sy plig sou wees. Dit is net jammer, dat daar nie met die distrikte raad gehou is nie, want dan kon hulle saammaak en dit so inrig dat almaal eweseer bevoordeel word deur die ligging van die fabriek.

Ons kan hulle nie beveel waar hulle die fabriek moet opset nie; hulle soek self die plek uit, want hulle moet bereken waar dit hulle die beste sal betaal.

Net duskant op die Limpopo rivier se wal, sou dit me Rhodesië meer bevoordeel as ons nie?

Die Regering is bereid om so veel kroongrond te gee as wat hulle nodig het vir kampe, waar hulle die vee eers slagbaar laat word, me tebowe gaande 50,000 morge grond teen n redelike huur.

Ek is ook bly oor die fabriek wat sal kom op Messina, maar waar ons sekerheid van wil hê is wat gaat die Regering aan die Maatskappy toeseg en gee, want ons vrees dat hulle al die beeste uit Rhodesië sal kry en nie uit die Unie. Volgens die teenwoordige regulasies wat non uitgegee is, die maak spesiaal voorsiening dat beeste van minder as 800 pond gewig uit Rhodesië ook bewerk kan word vir die fabriek. Die edelagbare die Minister van Verdediging sal met my instem, dat ons liewer die beeste van Zoutpansberg, en van die Unie in die algemeen moet kry en dat solank as wat die Unie genoeg beeste kan lewer, daar nie van buite die grense behoort ingevoer te word me. Rhodesië sal bevoordeel word, as die fabriek op Messina kom en dus nie voorsiening maak dat beeste van minder dan 800 pond gewig van Rhodesië mag kom en ek reken, dat dit beter sou gewees het as die fabriek op Pietersburg sou gewees het, dan sou daar minder gevaar van invoer van Rhodesië bestaan het. Ek stem met die Minister in dat mens kan hulle nie verplig waar hulle die besigheid moet opsit nie want dan bestaat die gevaar dat hulle oor die rivier gaan in Rhodesië. Maar daar kan hulle nie dieselfde gunstige voorwaarde gee as in die Unie omdat hulle nie daar die spoorweg verbinding, ens., het. Ek hoop die Regering sal goeie terme gee om al die Unie se minderwaardige beeste daar geslag te kry. Voorsorg moet geneem word dat virnaamlik uit die Unie beeste gekoop word, daar ons die weiveld moet verskaf, die spoorwee en die markte, en ons moet sorg dat ons me alleen op die Unie se koste ’n fabriek daar stel in die voordeel van Rhodesië.

Ek is baie bly om te verneem dat in die afdeling Zoutpansberg so ’n fabriek sal opgerig word. Ek het ook belange daar, maar pleit nie spesiaal daarvoor nie. Die edele lid vir Rustenburg (de hr. P. G. W. Grobler) moet sy gedagte laat gaan want daardie mense in Zoutpansberg is Voortrekkers en hulle kry baie swaar.

In Rustenburg is ook voortrekkers.

Dit sal ’n segen wees as daardie fabriek opgerig word, maar hulle sal nie uitkom met net wat hulle uit die land kry nie, en dit is verkeerd van lede om te wil bepaal dat die mense uit Rhodesië geen dier mag invoer nie en die gedagte dat mense in ander dele van Suid Afrika nie mag bevoordeeld word nie, is verkeerd. Laat ons die mense toelaat om hier te handel en die kleingeestigheid laat vaar. As hulle net oor die rivier wil gaan, sal hulle merk wat in Rhodesië gely moet word en daaraan denk dat die Unie nie alleen moet leef nie. Ons het gesien dat ons in die verlede beeste moes invoer uit Rhodesië om ons eie mense voedsel te kan verstrek en te help om weer hulle boerdery voort te sit. Dit is ’n groot hulp vir daardie distrikte, wat nog tamelik woes is en, gelyk ek reeds geseg bet, ek pleit nie vir die belange wat ek daar het nie. Daar is honderde arme mense wat swaar kry in daardie land, wat geteister word deur siektes soas malaria en dit is tyd, dat daardie dele oop gemaak word en dat daardie arme mense gehelp word.

Daar is niks op teen nie.

Maar die edele lid vra waarom dit nie op Rustenburg opgesit word nie of in Waterberg. Ek sou bly wees as op elkeen van die plekke ’n fabriek opgerig word; ja, ek sou bly wees as op Johannesburg een kon ontstaan. Daar was sprake van eenmaal, maar die munisipaliteit wou dit nie toestaan nie of aan help nie, en sodoende het hul die werkman benadeel, die daaraan werk sou kon gekry het. As die edele lid nadenk sal hy sien dat daar groot voordele aan verbonde is as die fabriek in Zoutpansberg kom, want daar is nog nie ’n spoor nie, wat deurkom van Rhodesië en dit is te wense dat dit daar gaat kom. Die edelagbare die Minister het verklaar dat die mense ’n ontsettend grote aantal beeste moet hê; daar is sprake van 200 beeste per dag, en denk die edele lid vir Rustenburg (de hr. P. G. W. Grobler) dat in sy omgewing 200 beeste per dag kan verkry word? Hulle het die nie en die keus van die plek, waar die fabriek opgerig sal word, moet hulle laat in die hande van die mense, wat gewillig is om dit op te sit. Die kleingeestigheid moet nou ophou. Waar kry ons kapitaal, as elk een wat geld in die land wil steek, altoos teengewerk word, omdat dit dese of gene bevoordeel? Ek kan nie verstaan waar edele lede die land wil heenlei nie; die land moet vooruitgaan.

Ek wil die saak net effentjies uitlê en sou nie graag sien, dat daar ’n warm debat oor ontstaan nie. Laat ons die posiesie verstaan soas dit is. Die Komitee weet dat op die konferensie van beesboere wat onlangs op Pretoria gehou is, het hulle ’n besluit gepasseer ten gunste van die fabriek. Ek praat van die groot dinge wat moet gedaan word en wat die Regering kan doen om die industrie te bevorder. Een besluit was dat die Regering stappe moet neem vir die oprigting van ’n canning” of soas hul dit ook noem “boiling down” fabriek, Om rede die konferensie oortuig was dat dit in ons almal se belang is, beeste waarvoor hier geen mark is nie tot blikvleis te verwerk. Dit is wat ons gewoonlik noem die kafferbees. En dit is wat die mark doodmaak. Daarom het die Regering begin om stappe te neem vir die oprigting van ’n fabriek. Daar is applikante vir sulke fabrieke en ons wil ’n begin maak om daardie soort beeste op te maak en ons wil die fabriek in die Unie laat oprig en laat dit aan die mense self oor om die Veste plek te kies. Daar was sprake van Kimberley, maar dit is nie vir die Regering om die voor te skryf nie; hulle moet self die veld deurkyk. Wat die Regering sê sal duur kos en dit kan nie molik wees nie. Hulle moet ’n getal van tussen die 70,000 en 100.000 beeste bewerk en moet daarom ’n plek kies waar hulle so ’n aantal redelikerwyse kan verwag. Die grote twyfel is of hulle genoeg beeste van al die areas sal kry om die fabriek aan die gang te hou. Die Regering hou sig onsydig. Dit is ons daar nie om te doen waar die fabriek kom nie, maar wil net hê, dat dit in die Unie sal wees, en ons is bereid om die goedkoop beeste van die omliggende dele die geleentheid te gee om die Unie binne te kom. Sommige skyn bevrees te wees dat by so ’n fabriek die noordelike dele bevoordeel sal word as dit op Messina kom, en dat voorkeur gegee sal word aan Rhodesië of Brits Bechuanaland. Maar daar is geen rede om aan enigeen voorkeur te gee nie; hulle wil net beeste in oorvloed hê, want die fabriek kan slegs dan betaal as hulle baie beeste kry. Dit kom vir my daar nie op aan waar die fabriek opgerig word nie, maar is net gretig dat hy moet opgesit word, want as ons vyfde klas beeste weggeneem word van onse mark, dan word dit beter vir goeie beeste, onverskillig of dit nou Johannesburg is of ’n ander plek. Die Legering is tevrede en wil dit soveel molik aanmoedig op alle molike wyse. Daar is applikasies gewees en die Regering het gesê hy sal hulle help met ’n rusplaas, waar die beeste eers kan rus; waar genoeg kroongrond is, sal ons dit gee Welke kontrak ook al gesluit word, die sal onderworpe wees aan die goedkeuring van die Parlement. Daar is al soveel klagte gehoor en daar bestaan soveel verdenking, maar enige kontrak wat gesluit word, sal eers aan die Parlement vir goedkeuring voorgelê word. Maar ek sou me graag sien dat ons nou oor ondergeskikte punte beraadslaag nie; die saak is nog me in orde me, die vraag is nou net of ons die fabriek sal kry.

Ek wil nou me oor die saak praat nie; ek is baie tevrede oor die uitleg van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister en van die edelagbare die Minister van Verdediging, vir die moeite wat hy gedaan het om die fabriek daar te kry. Ek staan eigenlik net op om die edele lid vir Johannesburg (Noord) (de hr. Geldenhuys) daarop te wys, dat ek nooit vir Rustenburg gepleit het as standplaas van die fabriek nie. Maar as daardie edele lid opstaan, kan hy nooit vergeet dat hy ouderling ook is nie en moet dan telkens vir ons ’n preek lewer en dan beskuldig hy ons van dinge, wat me so is nie. As jy horn hoor, dat ek teen ’n fabriek is, maar ek het dit nooit gedoen nie, net somin as wat ek gepleit het dat die fabriek op Rustenburg moet kom. Ek is tevrede solank as dit kom op ’n plek, wat vir Rustenburg goed bereikbaar is. Ek gee die versekering, dat ek na die gegewe verklarings tevrede is en bly dat ek die saak ter sprake gebreng het.

Daar is ’n paar punte wat ek onder aandag van die edelagbare die van Lande wil bring in verband met nedersettmgsgronde. Daar is drie klasse nedersettingsplase: bewerkte, half bewerkte en onbewerkte. Die man wat n’ bewerkte plaas kry vir horn is dit molik om die end van die jaar n inkoms te hê en rente te betaal; die een wat die half bewerkte plase kry, kan feitelik ook so ’n kleine inkomstetje kry, maar die man wat die onbewerkte stuk grond kry, kan geen inkome he die end van die jaar nie, behalwe die een wat miskien met vee boer en altemit in ’n enkele geval een wat saai. Maar in die geval van onbewerkte grond moet in die westelike dele vrugtebome geplant word, en ’n ondernemende jonge man wil horn wel daar vestig maar dit is onmolik om rente op te bring onderwyl hy borne plant wat na ses of sewe jaar ’n inkomste kan oplewer en intussen moet hy miskien nog huise bou en ander verbeterings aanbring. Daar is maatskappye wat rondgaan en die grond opkoop, die laat beplant en bewerk, wat hulle uiterlik op £30 te staan kom en dan verkoop hul dit vir £100 Die mense kan daarop bestaan, maar op ’n onbewerkte plaas waar hulle van drie tot ses iaar moet wag voor dat die bome wins oplewer en intussen nog huise moet bou, dan kan hul nie bestaan me; hulle draai nek om. Waarom kan die Regering me help deur die koste te draag nie, want dit sal vir die setlaar self goedkoper uitkom en die Regering sal sy geld alles terugkry, sodra die vrugtebome draag of die plaas op ’n ander manier rendeer. As dit betaalbaar gemaak kan word, wanneer die man £100 per morge betaal, moet dit ook die geval word as hy dit vir £20, £30 kry. Dan wou ek graag die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou vraag in verband met die brandsiekte daar op die grens van Basutoland. Verlede jaar is daaroor onderhandel en ’n aangestelde Selekt Komitee het aanbeveel, dat daar ’n grensheining opgerig sou word van Regeringswege; dit staat nou nog net op papier. Dit is ook van belang in verband met diefstal in daardie streke, en ek verstaan dat die beheer oor die brandsiekte daar toevertrou is aan die Basuto owerheid, en ek wou weet of onse Regering daar ook seggenskap en vertegenwoordiging op het. 150 myl van my distrikt grens aan Basutoland, en nou hoor ek, dat die hoof-brandsiekte-inspekteur daar verplaas is na glad ’n ander plek. Ons distrikt is buitendien skoon, maar daar word telkens weer brandsiekte ingevoer met skape wat oor die grens kom, en net sodra ’n man met die plaatselike omstandighede goed op die hoogte is, dan word hy verplaas. Al ons dippery sal niks help op die duur nie, as maar telkens die brandsiekte ingevoer word. Basutoland moet skoongemaak word, om die grensdistrikte te kan skoon hou.

Ek sou baie bly wees, as daar ’n fabriek in die land tot stand kom, en ek denk dat as hy in die noorde kom, dit die beste kans vir die Unie is. Daar is die grond ook nog goedkoop en daar is plase uitgegee, waar op grote skaal met beeste geboer word, en ek sal bly wees, as die mense daar die kans kry om hulleself op te werk. Ons werk ook op die manier die Johannesburgse mark hier duskant vir ons los.

I want to correct some impression that the Prime Minister had with regard to this application for the railway line to Messina. The Prime Minister seems under the impression that this factory is going to serve the whole of the northern portion of the Transvaal, because it is bound to take the scrub cattle and absorb them. There is one factor which precludes that entirely. The whole of the northern Transvaal has been put in quarantine, and one cannot take a single animal from that part to another. The only cattle that can go to Messina are those that come out of Rhodesia and the ranches in that district. I want to make it quite clear that we welcome the presence of any canning or extract factory, because it is highly necessary that such should be put up, but we want to have a clear understanding whether there is going to be any State support for any factory that we on the Transvaal side shall have a clear quid pro quo for putting up that factory. The history is this: Liebig’s have a large ranch on the other side of Messina, and are now making an application to build a canning factory in the Transvaal, because on the Limpopo they have a plentiful water supply, and they are in juxta-position to a railway line which passes them and puts them in touch with the market. That is the reason. It is not for love of the Transvaal, because this line is not going to serve Liebeg’s, but is going to tap other sources of supply. I have it on the authority of the manager of Liebeg’s when I was up three years ago, and he told me they were very anxious to put up this canning factory, and they wanted to get assistance from the Rhodesian or the Union Government that they would build a railway from Messina to West Nicholson, and if they did so they would build the factory. But they could get no assurance, and we want some sort of assurance that the Government will give this assurance. It is a question of our not being able to compete with the conditions which prevail there as far as the conditions of the factory will be concerned, and I trust that the Prime Minister before he agrees to that agreement will see that we have ample opportunity of discussing it, and I want them to explain clearly as far as we are concerned, that we will give every assistance to anyone putting up a factory like that, because we recognize that they will absorb the cattle and reduce them over an area of 200 miles, and so help the meat industry of South Africa. If it is a question of our being called upon for any expenditure, we must then find a geographical centre for putting up that factory in the Transvaal, which will be to our advantage and not to the advantage of Rhodesia.

Ek begryp die invoer uit Rhodesië nie presies nie en verstaan nie met welke gesag die edele lid vir Johannesburg (Noord) (de hr. Geldenhuys) praat nie, maar as hy met gesag praat, dan praat die konferensie van beesboere seker met meer gesag. Hulle praat nie net van wat aan die man gebreng moet word nie, maar wat moet bestaan. Die edele lid beskuldig ons voortdurend van kleingeestigheid, waar dit glad nie te pas kom nie. Die edelagbare die Minister het gepraat van die konferensie van beesboere op Pretoria, maar dit is sy invloed gewees, dat hulle nie ’n besluit geneem het ten gunste van ’n embargo op beeste van buitekant die Unie nie. Daar bestaan geen twytel, dat ons nie kan kompeteer met Rhodesië nie en tensy daar spoedig ’n embargo geleg word op beeste daarvandaan, gaat die Unie se beesboer ten onder. Die kongres praat vir die algemene belang van die Unie en waarom beskuldig die edele lid vir Johannesburg (Noord) (de hr. Geldenhuys) ons van kleingeestigheid; hy kan praat oor aandeie.

Ek wil nie die invoer, sodat die vleis van die arm man duur word nie.

Hy is onverskillig wat van die boer word, solank as die kos maar net goedkoop bly vir die verbruiker; dis ’n soort van bolsjewisme. Ons is weer onverskillig waar die fabriek opgerig word, solank as ons kan vermy, dat die mense ten onder gaan. My vernaamste punt is egter die voortdurende invoer van brandsiekte vee uit Suidwes-Afrika en verlede jaar was daar ’n Selekt Komittee aangestel om in te gaan in die saak van die verspreiding van brandsiekte; hulle vernaamste aanbevelings is geignoreer en die betref die saak van die brandsiekte-inspekteurs in Suidwes. Voor die Selekt Komitee is getuigenis gegee van so’n ernstige aard, die van konfiskasie van ingevoerde brandsiekte vee, en hulle was van oordeel, dat as daar een of twee troppe gekonfiskeer worde, dan sal die invoer stop. Al die moeilikheid is veroorsaak deur die afskaffing van die brandsiekte-inspekteurs en die aanstelling van die poliesie in hulle plek. Hier kom die poliesie en met ’n pennestreek is hulle aangestel en hier het ons die rapport van die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou.

Van welke jaar?

1923, die Budget jaar 1923. Van Suidwes-Afrika is daar omirent honderd “consignments” van totaal 73,000 skape en daarvan had 13,000 brandsiekte, ’n persentasie van 18 persent. Wat is die waarde van ’n Selekt Komitee as hulle aanbevelinge aan die Regering maak en ons het daarteenoor hierdie feite? Maar hier kom die vee dwars deur die land na Maitland. Die besmette vee kom in dieselfde kraal as die skoon vee, drink van dieselfde water en die brandsiekte versprei hom. Die persentasie is 8.57 op Maitland. Dit is wat ek baie ernstig onder die aandag van die edelagbare die Minister wil bring. Wat help dit of ons in die land ons beste doen om die brandsiekte te bestry as die op die manier ingevoer word in die land?

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: is the hon. member in order to discuss a Select Committee’s report, which you will find on the Order Paper, No. VII, of which I have given notice?

I am of opinion that, provided it is relevant to the Bill before the House, the hon. member can discuss it.

Foei tog, die arme lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers). Ek het gedink, dat hy my nou sou ondersteun. Hy was een van die lede van die Selekt Komitee, maar skyn nou weer van plan om stofwolke op te woel. Die toestand is baie ernstig en ek wil hê dat die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou nie die maatreëls neem; die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou moet die getuigenisse nagaan wat deur die Selekt Komitee gegee is. As die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou nie die maatreëls neem nie, dan moet ons voorbereid wees dat ons die Unie ook moet deproklameer. Daar moet verhinder word dat voortdurend brandsiekte vee in die land inkom.

Ek is bly dat die edelagbare die Minister van Mynwese hier is. ’n Paar weke gelede het ek aan die edelagbare die Minister van Mynwese die vraag gestel of gedurende die reses van die Parlement die Raad van Handel en Nywerheid op Oudtshoorn gewees het om ondersoek intestel na die uitwerking van die tabakbelasting. Die edelagbare die Minister het daarop ontkennend geantwoord. Nou het ons vandag hier ’n onaangename gebeurtenis gehad, waar ook ’n vraag deur ’n edelagbare Minister ontkennend beantwoord was en waar geblyk het dat die antwoord nie heeltemaal waar is nie. Ek wil nie die edelagbare die Minister beskuldig dat hy opsettelik die ontkennende antwoord gegee het nie. Ek wil ’n verklaring hê van die werkelike posiesie, want ek verneem dat die Raad van Handel en Nywerheid wil degelik op Oudtshoorn was om ondersoek intestel na die uitwerking van die tabakbelasting. Ek was in kennis gestel gewees dat hulle na Oudtshoorn kom, maar ongelukkig was ek toe siek en verhinder om die vergadering by te woon wat die Kamer van Koophandel belê het. ’n Paar dae gelede was ek in Oudtshoorn en die sekretaris van die Kamer van Koophandel het my kom sien en my ’n verslag gegee van die diskussie met die Raad van Handel en Nywerheid. Dis ’n ernstige saak vir ons distrik. Ons het al ’n mosie voor die Huis gehad om die opheffing van die tabakbelasting te kry, of hulp in verband met die tabakbelasting. En nou is die toestand van sake so, dat die Raad daar gewees het en hulle het blykbaar nog nie bymekaar gekom om verslag te lewer nie. Ek wil dat die Raad ’n verslag uitbring sodat die Regering nog ’n antwoord kan gee vóór die Begroting aankom. As my informasie korrek is dan het daar nog geen bespreking plaas gevind nie, en is daar nog geen verslag uitgebring deur die Raad van Handel en Nywerheid nie. As hulle aangestel was om ’n saak te ondersoek en hulle doen die ondersoek, hoekom het hulle nog nooit weer bymekaar gekom om die saak te bespreek en verslag uit te bring nie? My informasie gaan nog verder, dat die voorsitter van die Raad van Handel en Nywerheid, Sir Howard Gorges, so druk besig is met skikkinge te maak met die oog op die koms van die Prins van Wallis, dat hy nie tyd het om met andere lede die saak te bespreek nie. Miskien is dit vir horn nie so baie gewigtig nie, maar vir ons boere is dit wel. As hulle in Oudtshoorn gewees het, dan sou ek graag sien dat hulle nog nou ’n rapport sal uitbring en dit voor die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies lê, sodat hy hulle rapport in oorweging kan neem. As hy die saak ondersoek dan het ek geen twyfel, dat die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies die noodsakelikheid sal sien vir ’n tegemoetkoming wat betref die tabakbelasting. Ek hoop dat dit gaan gebeur en dat ons nie die saak sal laat bly waar dit nou is nie.

Ek wil net graag ’n bietjie onder die aandag van die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou bring die menigte van beeste wat inkom van die Protektoraat in Bechuanaland. Laaste jaar het ons aangeneem die gedeeltelike embargo, maar ons weet dat die grens tussen Bechuanaland en die Protektoraat, die is slegs die droge Molopo Rivier, en daar is vrye uiten invoer deur die droge rivier. Wat help die beperking wat daar geset word? As die edelagbare die Minister nie heen gaan en die polisiemag op die grens set nie, dan kan hy geen beperking van die invoer kry nie. Daar word baie gepraat oor die invoer van Rhodesië. Maar wat ons so belemmer is die invoer vanuit die Protektoraat. Daardie beeste word geproduseer deur naturelle. Die kan dit baie goedkoop doen en hulle het vrye invoer vanuit die Protektoraat in Bechuanaland en daardeur word ons boere totaal verdring. Ons voel, dat as die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou nie die punt sy aandag skenk en daar veranderinge gemaak word nie, dan is dit hooploos klaar met die boere van Bechuanaland. Ons beesboere daar kan nie stand hou onder die omstandighede nie. Die Kaffers daar aan die anderkant het die een helft van hulle grond oor die rivier en die ander helft diskant die rivier. Al die vee suip gesamelik in dieselfde gate en die maatreëls van die Regering help hoegenaamd niks nie om die invoer te belet nie. Ons word hier vertel, of aan die wereld word vertel, dat daar inspekteurs word aangestel om na die gewig van beeste te kyk, maar die beperking is van glad geen waarde nie. Ieder voer vry beeste in soos hy wil en ons voel as daar nie ’n verandering kom nie, dan moet ons maar ons boerdery laat staan en trek, ek weet nie waarheen nie. Die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou wil ons miskien vertel waarheen. Dan is daar ’n ander punt wat ek onder die aandag wil bring en dit is die uitwerking van die brandsiektewet op die boere van Kuruman. Die Vryburg se mark is vir hulle gesluit, en dit is hulle naaste mark. Die fout is dat die twee afdelinge nie tegelykertyd onder beskerming gebring is nie. Eers nadat die een afdeling ’n sekere status bereik het, is Kuruman ook onder beskerming gebring. Die gevolg is dat Kuruman hooploos afgesluit is van sy mark om skape na toe te bring. Die boere daar moet die skape eers twee maal dip vóór die ingebring kan word. Ek het onlangs persoonlik aan ’n inspekteur die vraag gestel wanneer die mense daar weer vry in die mark kan kom. Hy sê, nie die eerste twee jaar nie. En wat is die oorsaak van die toestand? Die slegte administrasie van die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou sê brandsiektepolitiek. Hy gaat die boere daar ruineer. Dis ’n verkeerde posiesie dat die ene distrik onbeskerm is en die andere distrik waar die mark is half beskerm is. Waarom nie tegelykertyd die distrikte half beskerm verklaar nie? Ek beskou, die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou behoor sy ernstige aandag aan die sakies te skenk. Ons het dit nodig, meer nodig as enige andere plek in die Unie, dat die edelagbare die Minister sy aandag aan ons skenk, om te voorkom, dat ons tot armblankes gemaak word.

Daar is hier vandaag heel wat gesê oor die vleiskwessie van Suid-Afrika en ek sê dat dit ’n saak van baie ingrypende aard is. As ons teruggaan na wat twee jaar gelede in die Huis plaas gevind het, toe die “Meat Exchange”, deur die groot kapitalistiese maatskappy gedreig was om ingeslok te word, toe was die hele Huis op horings, en na die tyd het die kapitalistiese maatskappy ook andere inrigtings oorgeneem, o.a. die groot boereinrigting, die Boere Ko-operatieve Vleis Industrieën in Natal, en nog ’n andere inrigting hier in die Kaap. Al die het in hande gekom van die groot kapitalistiese maatskappy. Die posiesie op die oënblik is dat ons alles wil doen om maar beeste aan die mark te kan kry, maar ek vrees dat ons dinge sal doen wat ons in die toekoms sal laat huil. Onlangs het daar mense van ’n sekere dorpie in die Transvaal vir my kom sien en gevra wat ek dink om ’n tak van die kapitalistiese maatskappy in die dorp in die Transvaal opterig om vleis daar in te maak. My antwoord was, dat hoewel daar groot gevaar bestaan wat die toekoms betref, dat ek tog dink dat die plan ondersteuif moet word. Maar langs die weg sal ons nie onse markpryse reg kry nie. Waarom is die pryse vandag nie op ’n behoorlike voet nie? Dis nie omdat die verbruiker nie genoeg betaal nie. Hy betaal deur sy nek. En die arme produsent maak niks van sy vee nie. Wat verkeerd is, is die middelman, wat staan tussen die verbruiker en die produsent. Hier haak dit. En die middelman kry hoe langer hoe meer die belange in die hand. Kan men verwag as die trustmaatskappy die hele handel van vleis in die hand het, dat hulle sal omkyk na die produsent en die verbruiker? En dan het die maatskappy miskien nog honderd duisende van morge van grond waar hulle self beeste produseer. Ek wil my stem hier laat hoor, ek het dit altyd gedoen, omdat dit verkeerd gaan. Die boer sit diep in die nood, maar ek wil eerlik sê, dat ek dink die stigting van fabrieke deur trustmaatskappye behoor aangemoedig te word, maar ek doen dit tog met ’n pynlike gevoel vir die toekoms. Ek sal enig iets steun, wat mag kom om teen die maatskappy te gaan, soos laaste jaar toe ’n oorweging geneem werd om ’n “canning factory” op te set in Durban. Dit sal kompetiesie veroorsaak het, en ek het die plan ondersteun. Ek het gesien, daar is nou werkelik iets vir die produsent, maar as jy alles laat gaan in een groot kanaal, dan vrees ek vir die toekoms van Suid-Afrika. Ek sien die toekoms vir die beesboerdery met ’n baie bange hart tegemoet. Jy kan die vleisverbruiker nie swaarder laat betaal nie. Dis ook nie die bedoeling van die produsent nie. Maar die middelman moet weg. Maar wat ons vandag sien is dat die boer van Suid-Afrika sy beeste nie op die mark kan bring nie tegen ’n prys wat die produktie koste kan regvaardig nie.

Wat omtrent die invoer van beeste uit Rhodesië? Is die edele lid daarvoor?

Ek is nooit skaam om te sê wat ek dink nie. Ek dink ons moet toelaat dat ’n degelike ding in Suidafrika ingevoer kan word, maar as jy die “compound” beeste invoer, dan is dit ’n groot gevaar vir Suidafrika. Dit is verkeerd. Daarom is die maatreël geneem, om die soort van beeste uit te hou.

Dink die edele lid dat die maatreël goed is?

Ek kan nie daaroor oordeel nie, maar ek dink dat as die vrye invoer daar in Bechuanaland bestaan bly, dat dan die maatreël nie doeltreffend is nie. Dit sou ’n verligting wees as die mindere klas van beeste nie ingebring word nie. Nou wat die brandsiekte betref, is daar van tyd tot tyd klagte dat die wet op brandsiekte nie goed werk nie en dat baie skape van buite die Unie en Suid-west Afrika ingevoer word wat brandsiekte het. Daar moet maatreël geneem word om dit te voorkom. Ek dink nie die polisie is die regte persone om die werk te doen nie.

Ek wens nog iets te sê. Ek het geen kans gehad sover om te praat oor slagbeeste nie. In my kiesafdeling is daar baie beeste, ek dink dit is een van die grootste beesboer distrikte, en baie van hulle, of liewers aimai, kan onmoontlik bestaan van die beesboerdery nie, omdat die koste baie hoog is, en hulle geen pryse vir die vee kan kry nie. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het voorgestel, dat die beeste wat uit Rhodesië hierheen kom minstens 800 lewende gewig moet hê. Ek het hier net ’n prentjie met ’n tweejaar agmaande ou bees, wat 1,850 pond weeg.

Is dit ’n Suidafrikaanse bees?

Nee, dis nie ’n Suidafrikaanse bees nie, maar daar is baie soorte van beeste in Rhodesië en so ’n bees van 800 pond is maar ’n klein bees. Ek het ondervinding daarvan, ek het ook baie beeste geslag, ek het ook slagter gewees.

Het die edele lid die soort beeste van die prentjie geslag?

Ek het baie van die beeste uit Rhodesië geslag en ek weet dat ’n bees van 800 pond lewendig gewig, beteken 450 pond afgeslag en die bepaling dat geen beeste onder 800 pond mag ingevoer word nie, beteken absoluut niks vir de Unie nie. Die invoer van beeste uit Rhodesië is bale onbillik vir ons, wat belasting moet betaal in die Unie. Jy betaal belasting vanaf die kalf tot die bees groot is en daardie mense wat geen belasting betaal vind ope marke in die Unie. Ek dink dit is baie onbillik en ek hoop dat die Regering ’n ander weg sal inslaan om die beesboer te beskerm, om die beesboerdery in die Unie te help, virnaamlik in die Transvaal waar ons ’n oorvloed van beeste het, Daar is geen marke vir die beeste en die mense moet belasting betaal. Ek wil graag hê dat die edelagbare die Minister ’n ander weg sal inslaan om die invoer te beperk, of liewers heeltemal stop te set, tot ons weer herstel is hier in die Unie, want geld is baie skaars en die mense kry niks vir hulle beeste nie.

Ek sou graag ’n paar woorde van inligting gee aan die edele lid vir Pretoria Distrikt (Zuid) (Gen. Muller) want hy verkeer duidelik nog onder ’n verkeerde indruk van die posiesie. Die beperking van 800 het uitgegaan van daardie konferensie waarvan ek spreek, van die verteenwoordigers. Die boer verteenwoordigers self het na die Regering gekom en gesê dat hulle tevrede sal wees as so ’n standaard neergeleg sal word, namelik dat de beeste wat ingevoer word minstens 800 pond lewendig gewig moet hou, en dat die dooie gewig van beeste wat inkom 50 persent moet wees. Ek wil nie dat die publiek daar buite onder ’n verkeerde indruk kom van die uitwerking van die maatreël nie. Die voorstel is nie uitgegaan van die Regering nie maar van die boere self. Ek het navraag gedoen by die boere in daardie dele om vir my eie satisfaksie uit te vind wat die uitwerking gaat wees, en die vraag wat ek gestel het is wat die uitwerking gaat wees met betrekking tot die Protektorate, of die gewone kafferbeeste wat ons ken in Bechuanaland en Rhodesië, die klein beeste met die paar groot horings, of die uitgehou gaat word. En die antwoord van al die boere wat ek geraadpleeg het was: “Ja, die beeste gaat uitgehou word.” Ek wil vir die edele lid van Bechuanaland (dé hr. Raubenheimer) daarop wys, dat die beeste uitgehou word, en dit is wat die grootste gevaar was vir die mark van Johannesburg. Wat nou gaat inkom is die ordentlike beeste, wat ’n beetjie verbeter is, aangeteel is van betere bulle.

Hoe gaan die beeste uitgehou word?

Dit is die moe likheid en ek het dit altyd gevoel. Die edele lid weet, wat ek laaste jaar al gesê het oor die moeilikheid om die embargo, die invoer van die beeste, te verhinder. Dit lyk vir my onmoontlik. Ek weet nie hoe men die 1,000 of nog meer myle langs die Molopo gaan bewaak nie. Dit lyk vir my onmoontlik om dit deur die poliesie gedoen te kry. Ek weet werklik nie hoe jy die regulasies moet uitvoer, wat die Landbou Departement gaan doen. Die stappe wat geneem is, gaan baie help. Laat die goeie beeste inkom, maar die duisende en tienduisende beeste wat van Bechuanaland afgekom het, laaste jaar meen ek, was dit iets tussen die 20,000 en 30,000 beeste en byna almal was van die klein kafferbeeste met die groot horings wat vir “compound” doeleindes bestem was.

Maar hoe gaat ons dit keer?

Kyk, hulle gaat almal in na Johannesburg van seker punte met die trein. Die administrasies van die lande gaan saamwerk met ons. Wat ons nou gekry het deur die ooreenkoms met die Administrasie van Bechuanaland en al die ander lande is, dat hulle gaat saamwerk om die invoer van die beeste stop te set. Ek dink wat gedoen kon word, is deur die Regering gedoen. Jy sal ’n maatreël van absolute embargo ingevoer kon hê, maar in my opienie sou dit ’n dooie letter gewees het, as jy nie die saamwerking van die Regerings sou gehad het nie, want dit sou onmoontlik gewees het om die invoer oor die 1,000 myl lange onbeskermde grens te verhinder.

Ek wil net graag ’n antwoord gee op die vraag van die edele lid vir Oudtshoorn (de hr. S. P. le Roux). So ver ek weet is daar geen instruksies gegee aan die Raad van Handel en Nywerheid om ’n ondersoek te doen na die uitwerking van die tabaksbelasting nie. As dit gedoen sou wees dan sou dit wees op las van die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies. Ek verstaan dat hy nie die instruksies gegee het nie, en ek ook nie. Dit verhinder egter nie dat as die Raad in Oudtshoorn kom, en ek weet dat hulle in die westelike dele was, dat die dan kan genader word deur die Kamer van Koophandel en dat daar ’n diskussie plaasvind in verband met enige moeilikheid wat hulle het met betrekking tot die tabaksbelasting. Of hulle sodanige diskussie gehad het, weet ek nie, maar ek sal ’n ondersoek instel.

Ek het verstaan, dat wel deeglik van die kant van ’n edelagbare Minister opdrag gegee is aan die Raad om naar Oudtshoorn te gaan om die saak te ondersoek. Ek meen selfs, dat dit die edelagbare die Minister van Onderwijs was.

Ek mag miskien ’n antwoord gee in verband met wat die edele lid vir Oudtshoorn (de hr. S. P. le Roux) gesê het. Ek is verbaas oor wat hy gesê het. Ek dink hy refereer na die visite van die heer Spilhaus, want ek het vir horn gesê om na Oudtshoorn te gaan en dat ek graag ’n mark wil hê vir die minder goeie soort tabak, die tweede klas tabak.

Nee, dis heel iets anders. Die raad was in Oudtshoorn. Ek is baie bly dat die edelagbare die Minister sê dat hy niks daarvan af weet nie. Dit het my baie gegrief dat hy my die antwoord gegee het dat die Kommissie daar nie gewees het nie. Ek wil graag dat die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies so gou moontlik ’n ondersoek sal laat instel en dat die rapport nog op die Tafel sal kom voor die Begroting aankom.

Laat ons stem.

As die edelagbare die Minister my die belofte wil gee om die saak te ondersoek, en dadelik ’n rapport te laat uitbring, dan is ek graag daartoe bereid.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.13 p.m.

Toe die Huis verdaag het, het ek die edelagbare die Minister van Mynwese inligtinge gevra in verband met die besoek van die Raad van Handel en Nywerheid op Oudtshoorn en die edelagbare die Minister van Mynwese het my gevra om die saak te laat oorstaan en gesê, dat hy ’n ondersoek sal instel. Nou wil ek net graag die belofte kry, dat as die edelagbare die Minister uitvind dat die Raad wel op Oudtshoorn was op ondersoek, of hy dan die Raad wil vra onmiddellik verslag uit te bring en die verslag nog vóór die Begroting op die Tafel te lê.

Dit spyt my dat ek nie verder kan gaan as ek gegaan het. Ek het gesê, dat sover ek weet die Raad geen opdrag had om ’n ondersoek in te stel nie. Dit kan natuurlik wees, dat hulle in Oudtshoorn gewees het. Ek weet dat hulle in die Oostelike Provinsie gewees het en die Kamer van Koophandel kan met hulle beraadslaag hê, maar ek sal ’n ondersoek instel, en as hulle ’n rapport het, dan sal dit natuurlik op die Tafel gelê word.

Daarom vra ek, dat daadlik die rapport sal uitgebring word, sodat dit nog vóór die Begroting op die Tafel gelê sal word. Ons het dit nodig.

The right hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries this afternoon stated that he had a report drawn up by the economic experts of this country, and that he was considering this report, and was going to consider the advisability of laying it upon the Table of this House. I think that he would only be doing his duty if he laid this report on the Table before we deal with the Budget. I also think that he should lay the report of the Board of Trade also on the Table, because it will be utterly impossible for the members of this House to discuss taxation proposals unless we have the information which the right hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries states he has at his disposal. We have been waiting a long time for these reports, and I think that we should have the fullest information. We had, last session, statements not only by the right hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries, but by the right hon. the Minister of Finance with regard to dumping clauses, and also the question of cement being dumped in this country. We have had a great deal of flag-wagging at different periods, and also had statements made about trying to bring about a closer union with Great Britain. I find that we have had a dumping clause against English cement, but against Swedish and German cement we have had no dumping clause whatsoever. Certainly, in August last, we had issued by Proclamation a dumping clause to be applied to the freight or, in other words, if 17s. 6d. per ton was not paid for the freight, then they charged the difference between the freight charged and the 17s. 6d. But, on the other hand, we have the English cement, the home cost regulated and agreed upon at 8s. 6½d. per cask, and we have had a dumping clause used when there has been any difference between that price and the price free on board. We have had the same applied practically to the Belgian cement, but I want the information given to this House as to why the Government did not enforce the dumping clause on all countries concerned. We know full well that rumours have been circulated in this country that certain financial interests had a great deal of money invested in the importation of cement from Germany. We know full well that, owing to the deflation of the currency, cement can be imported from Germany to the disadvantage of Britain, yet we have the hon. gentlemen wearing Union Jack waistcoats, and on the other hand, deliberately insulting British sentiment, and the British nation, by putting a dumping clause against their product, and exempting German and Swedish cement. I believe in the British sentiment, but I believe that we must play the game and deal with facts. I would like to quote again to this House what happened. In regard to English cement, the home cost is 8s. 6½d. per cask, and you have a dumping clause inserted if there is any difference between that price and the price on board. In Belgium, the price is 8s. per cask, but what do we find in regard to Swedish and German cement, no instance of a dumping clause being inserted, where the home cost price has been higher than the price on board. It is true you have dumping for all freight, but not in regard to the cost of the commodity. If we analyse the matter a little further we find that the price of Swedish cement was 10s. 6d. per cask, we find there is no dumping clause inserted at all, and we have on information—I cannot prove it, but merchants have stated to me—that the price free on board has been as low as 6s. 8d.. but there has been no dumping clause inserted. As I mentioned, there was a freight dumping clause inserted in August last. What I would like this Government to do is, to have the British Consul’s certificate, on even the 17s. 6d. freight paid. How do we know what has been paid, when we know full well that different Governments are assisting the shipowners to ship the goods that are produced in their countries? In other words, we have State aided shipping companies running at a loss. We are entitled to this information, and I believe no Budget statement should be put before this House until we have experts’ opinions on these and other matters. This country has spent a tremendous amount of money on commissions and boards of experts; what I want to know is, what has this House got before it, as a result of this enormous expenditure? The right hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries stated this afternoon that he had taken economic experts, and he had harmonized them with the Board of Trade, and they were jointly considering these matters. Well, they have been considering these matters for such a long period that I think it is about time that we had some results. I hope the right hon. the Minister will lay all the particulars regarding these matters before the House, to let us know where we are, and let us have less sentiment and more facts.

Ek was eientlik nie van plain om aan die debat deel te neem nie, maar daar is vanmiddag ’n punt aangeraak deur die edele lid vir Cradock (de hr. I. P. van Heerden) wat ’n baie gewigtige punt is en dat is die invoer van skape uit Suidwes-Afrika, dat is besmette skape. Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou sal ’n bietjie ag gee op wat ek sê. Die persentasie van hulle is groot. Wat help dit nou as ons ons beste doen om die brandsiekte uit te roei, wanneer die besmette skape van Suidwes-Afrika ingevoer word? Ons sal so die brandsiekte nooit uitgeroei kry nie, maar baie onkoste het. ’n Andere punt is die Erasmus de Wet saak. Soos ek verstaan, het daar laatste jaar ’n Selekt Komitee benoem gewees om die saak behoorlik te behandel, maar hulle het nie tyd genoeg daarvoor gehad nie. Ek verstaan, dat die edele lid vir Cradock (de hr. I. P. van Heerden) aan die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou gevra het wat gedoen gaat word in verband met die saak. En die edelagbare die Minister sou gesê het, dat niks verder in die saak gedoen gaan word nie en dat daar geen under Selekt Komitee verder in die saak sal ingaan. Ek moet die handelwyse afkeur. Die saak van Erasmus de Wet is van buitegewone aard. Die man het 18 maal gedip in drie jaar tyd en is geruineer geword. En ons wil weet op wie die blaam kom, op die Goevernement of op Erasmus de Wet. Die edelagbare die Minister weier om ’n Komitee aan te stel om die saak verder te ondersoek. Dan sal ons genoodsaak wees om die blaam op die Departement van Landbou te werp. As die edelagbare die Minister se Departement goed gehandel het, laat ons dit dan weet, maar as die hr. Erasmus de Wet onskuldig is, laat ons dit dan ook weet. Ek wil hê, die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou moet ’n Selekt Komitee aanstel om die saak deeglik te ondersoek. As die edelagbare die Minister sukses wil hê met die Brandsiektewet, dan moet hy die saamwerking hê van die boere en dan moet hy nie weier om die ondersoek in te stel nie. Daarom hoop ek dat ’n Selekt Komitee aangestel sal word.

I have not the slightest doubt that a great deal of dissatisfaction exists in the mandated territory of South-West Africa and the Union, in regard to the agreement entered into between the Administration of South-West Africa and the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Co., on October 22nd, 1923, and ratified by the Union Government on November 4th last. I have been seeking information in regard to that agreement from time to time, and I wish to express my appreciation of the manner in which the right hon. the Prime Minister has given me straightforward answers to straightforward questions. Only on a few questions have I not been able to get the information which, I think, as a member of this House, I am entitled to. I will deal with that later. That agreement distinctly hands over to the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company, the sole rights to export livestock, for three years, to overseas markets, and the sole right to export frozen or chilled meat, dead meat, for a period of 15 years, to overseas markets from the mandated territory, and further gives the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company the right to use all the facilities which are given to it, in the shape of sidings, free sites, and now, we are astounded to hear, free foundations at a cost of £10,000. That is all placed at their disposal to ship both meat and cattle to the markets of the Union. The Administrator, of course, is the authority to give permits, but, in view of what we have seen so far, I do not think any member of this House would anticipate any difficulty being placed in the way of the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company getting such permits. I asked the right hon. the Prime Minister on 22nd February, how it was that this agreement was not placed before Parliament, before ratification. Even our mail contract was placed before Parliament for ratification!, and that is not a monopoly; it may be getting on to that road, but we still see plenty of ships coming into our harbours. But this is a monopoly, and I will read the law just now, which, T think, should have brought it before Parliament for ratification. This is what the Prime Minister said in reply to my question—

May I ask at this stage what would be a trading concession according to the ideas of the right hon. the Prime Minister, if this is not a trading concession? This agreement gives to the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company a complete trading concession. Paragraph 8 of the agreement says—

That, I think, constitutes a trading concession without doubt. Here is what the Administrator himself said in regard to it: it appears on page 5 of the Annual Report for 1922: “I am convinced that the contract justifies a reasonable hope that these requirements will be fulfilled; although creating a limited monopoly, that monopoly is under control.” We cannot get away from the fact that the Administrator himself calls it a monopoly. Here also is a prospectus, signed D. P. Graaff—

Who is he?

This prospectus is in connection with the subsidiary company mentioned in the agreement, and it is one of the attractions given to people to put up money. It is said the money was available, it had been underwritten. This is what D. P. Graaff says in regard to the agreement—

Now, Sir, one feels inclined to ask what sort of tasty morsel would, to the idea of the right hon. the Prime Minister, constitute a trading concession, if this is not one? We go on here to state—

and they are presents, too, but not in that meaning—

When the Government go in for a national undertaking, or the municipalities go in for municipal trading, how we hear the welkin ring by hon. members on the other side, to the effect that the Government should not enter into trading, and no municipality or Government department should compete with the private trader, because they say they are using the whole of the ratepayers’ money in order to bolster up a municipal or Government undertaking, to the detriment of the private trader. The whole of the ratepayers are compelled to contribute to beef bounties in order to keep the price of meat up against themselves.

The time of the hon. member has expired.

When one reads this agreement, one is rather amazed that such an agreement was entered into by the Government of the country. We have one Adminitrator, making over to a company free of charge, a considerable portion of the harbour work at Walvis Bay, together with all necessary railway connections and railway sidings, for the erection and construction of cold storage and refrigerating works. When the municipality of the Witwatersrand applied for a railway site and abattoir, they were told that the municipality must pay at least half the cost, the result being we have found on the Witwatersrand that many municipalities have not been in a position to face the capital costs of the scheme. The municipality is a Government body, and yet we find this private firm receiving facilities from the Government that they denied to the people of South Africa, represented through the municipalities. These undertakings by municipalities art not run for profit or for any reason detrimental to the people in the country—they are run for the benefit of the people by the municipalities, yet the Government are prepared to give more to private concerns than they are prepared to give to the municipalities. The agreement also states—

That is a tremendous concession, and I hope that the atmosphere that has prevailed in connection with the discussion on the teachers’ salaries will not prevail in this particular matter. I hope that some of the hon. gentlemen who sit on the Government benches, representing the people of South Africa, will let their voices be heard. After all, these gentlemen are those who can influence the Government, not us. I hope the hon. members of this House will bring pressure to bear, and the hon. members who can bring such pressure, are those who take part in the caucus of the South African Party. I ask them, is this a reasonable agreement? As citizens and representing the people of the country, whether they are really doing their duty in not protesting against this particular agreement, and further may I also ask the members of the Cabinet why this particular agreement was ratified by the Government a year or two before it was laid before the House? Further, in another clause of the agreement, it is said—

Now, Mr. Chairman, I think the Government should have got to work with a little bit of statesmanship, to organize the internal affairs of the country and to build up an internal market, but instead of that, we find that their aim is to ship all our products overseas. The products of South Africa are being sent out of the country, and we find that the people of South Africa are called upon to meet the bounty. The Government is prepared, and is backing, a scheme of sending South African products overseas, and the country has to pay for the privilege. I would ask the hon. members on the other side of the House if they are aware where this is leading us to? Is the Government to do everything they possibly can to reduce the purchasing power of the people of South Africa, and to keep on expending money in this manner? It is time that hon. members in this House raised their voices against the short-sighted policy of the Government of sending the cream of South African products overseas, when the people of the country are only left with a short market or the rubbish, detrimental to the health of the children of the country. Then we come to another question, and that is the question of the creation of a monopoly. It is laid down in the agreement that no one else shall be allowed to compete with these people, as far as cold storage is concerned. What becomes now of free competition, this beautiful competitive system, of which we have heard so much in the House? We are constantly decrying monopolies, yet the Government the other day gave a certain wine organization a complete monopoly of the wine industry of the country. Again, by this agreement, they are giving another monopoly to this company. What is becoming of the glorious principle of competition? It is urged that we must have the competitive system, and yet when we are faced with a monopoly such as we are here, the representatives of the people on the opposite side of the House do not even raise their voices in protest. As soon as it is found that competition may become too keen, and that someone else is likely to get the benefit of that competition, we find that competition is no good—competition becomes an evil thing.

The Administrator of South-West Africa said that this monopoly did not interfere with existing rights and privileges. Now I have read a portion of the contract; I have read that portion where it states that the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company, has the sole right to export livestock for three years and the sole right to export dead meat for 15 years, and that no rights or privileges have been interfered with, of the people of South-West Africa. I would like to invite the opinion of the Chairman on this matter, if I could only get it, as to the mentality of the Administrator of South-West Africa, when he says that the rights and privileges of the farmers of that country have not been interfered with by granting this monopoly. Have the farmers no rights and privileges in this country, that a concession such as this should be given over their stock without their being consulted? They were never consulted. I have here a statement by one of the leading British farmers in South-West. This is what he says—

And yet we have the right hon. the Prime Minister saying that in his opinion, and in the opinion of his legal advisers, this is not a trading concesson. According to this Act, which I am going to read, Act 49 of 1919, subsection (2) of section (4)—and it cannot be read too often in this connection, because it is the very soul of the contention, that this agreement should have come before Parliament for ratification. Sub-section (2) of section (4) of this Act says—

Now, had not the farmers of South-West Africa the right to expect that any agreement entered into between the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company, or any other company, and the Government, which gave away these rights, which gave this company a monopoly over the livestock, gave them a monopoly and a concession over their very every-day life, you might say—for in that particular territory where ranching is the main industry—that this agreement would have been brought before Parliament, that they themselves would have been consulted and that, at any rate. Parliament would have had some say in regard to the details of that agreement. No, that was not done. The right hon. the Prime Minister said this afternoon that he was not speaking as a lawyer, when he gave his opinion, that this agreement need not come before Parliament for ratification. I take it, that a great many members of this House are not lawyers, while almost every day we are making laws. I have noticed that judges often try to find out what the intention of Parliament was, when a certain law was passed. I am quite certain what the intention of Parliament was when it passed Act 49 of 1919. There is no doubt about what they meant. It was that every trading right and concession granted in that territory, should come before Parliament for ratification. In connection with Walvis Bay, this is what I find in Act 24 of 1922. and everybody with a grain of common sense can pick up what it means. It says—

If this means anything, it means that any concessions that are given at Walvis Bay should come before this Parliament for ratification, because Walvis Bay is now considered as part and parcel of the mandated territory. I would like to hear from some of the legal members on the other side, whether they are not with me in this contention. I would like to hear them argue that. Paragraph lb of this agreement says, that if profits are made in connection with the export of cattle from the territory, that after the company has been allowed 10 per cent. profit, the balance should be equally divided between the Administrator, on behalf of the suppliers of that stock, and the cold storage company. I asked in that connection for certain information from the right hon. the Prime Minister, and that is one of the points I did not get a satisfactory reply about. I think when I read paragraph 15, that I should have been able to get the information asked for. It is a most striking thing that I got all the information, except that part of it which is connected with paragraph 15. I asked the right hon. the Prime Minister to give me the information as to how many cattle were sent overseas from South-West Africa, by ship, and he gave me the dates only in regard to shipments, during the period the agreement was in suspension. On a previous occasion, I had been told that some 1,175 cattle had gone overseas, and that some 53,000 had come into the Union. I have tried to get information from the hon. the Minister of Railways, so that I could find out how many of these cattle, that came into the Union, were sent in by this company that has so, neatly bottled up South-West Africa, and all the cattle in it, and to find out whether they were playing the game—

The hon. member is not playing the game.

In connection with the concession that the Government was giving, or whether they were simply using it to glut the markets of the Union: that is all I wanted to know. Under ordinary circumstances, I would never have asked the hon. the Minister of Railways a question of that nature, because I know that usually that would be prying into private business between himself, and the people who used the railways. But when one is dealing with a monopoly, dealing with a company which has a monopoly, in an adjoining territory, one would like to know.

The time of the hon. member has expired.

Ek sou baie graag van die edelagbare die Minister wil weet wat die antwoord is op hierdie kontensie wat hier geopper is omtrent die ooreenkomst van die koelkamers en die kwessie van die bekragtiging daarvan deur die Parlement. Dis ’n baie belangrike kwessie. Die kwessie wat hier te pas kom is, dat dit nie alleen nodig is dat ’n kontrak van die aard bekragtig moet word deur die Parlement, maar wat die kwessie so belangrik maak is, dat morre of oormorre, as ek die bewering van die Regering reg verstaan, as daar regsake hier oor sou loop, dan sal die kwessie wees of die heel kontrak ’n blou duit betoken as die kontrak nie deur die Parlement bekragtis is. Seksie 4, sub-seksie (2), van Wet 42 van 1919 sê—

Dit sê duidelik “geen handels of andere konsessies toegestaan”; daar kan nie die minste twyfel daaroor wees nie dat dit ’n handelskonsessie is. En die Wet sê, dat dit nie toegestaan mag word nie, sonder magtiging van die Parlement, en die magtiging is nooit gegee nie. Soas ek die bewering van die Regering verstaan uit die antwoord wat enige tyd geleë deur die edelagbare die Eerste Minister op ’n vraag van die edele lid vir Turffontein (Maj. Hunt) gegee is, kom dit hierop neer, en ek wil weet of dit die posiesie is wat die Regering opneem —en ek meen dat volgens die antwoord die Regering sy posiesie op regsgeleerde advies baseer—dit kom hier op neer dat die konsessie ’n konsessie is wat Walvis Baai betref en nie die Suidwes gebied waaroor die mandaat loop en waaroor hierdie Ontwerp handel. Is dit so?

Ja, dis so.

Dan het ek nie die minste twyfel nie dat dit ’n kibbel is van die regsgeleerde adviseur wat hierdie advies gegee het, maar ek sou hom nie aanraai nie om dit voor enige hof in die land te bring. Kan iemand vir my sê hoe groot Walvis Baai is? Dis ’n klein plekkie, en klein eiland. Hoe groot is dit? Miskien kan die edelagbare die Minister vir my sê?

Nee, dis nie so baie klein nie.

Is dit 50 of 100 morge?

Nee, veel meer.

Wel, duisend morge?

No, it is a great deal bigger still.

Is ek verkeerd dat regte aan daardie maatskappy toegeken is oor honderde duisende morge wat hul gehuur het? Oor 300,000 morge in verband met hierdie saak, en dit is duidelik dat dit daarem ver buite Walvis Baai gaan. Mag ek vra of dit beweer kan word dat die kontrakt net op Walvis Baai slaan, kan dit verklaar word dat die kontrak alleen op Walvis Baai slaan as ons daardie posiesie sien? Ek sal die aandag vestig op Paragraaf 8—

Wat is die grondgebied—dis nie Walvis Baai nie.

Dis net alleen wat die grond betref.

Ja maar dis ’n gedeelte van die konsessie en dis hier gestipuleer. Laat my toe die Engels te lees—

Dis tog gewis ’n “interest”. Ons het die hele ding duidelik hier. Dit sê hier duidelik dat hul ’n reg kry op die land: “Binnen de jurisdiktie van het gezegde grondgebied, gedurende een termijn van 15 jaar vanaf de datum van deze overeenkomst”. Daar het ons dit ten duidelikste—die hele konsessie slaan op die grondgebied binnen die Suidwes Protektoraat en nie op Walvis Baai. Walvis Baai is maar net daaraan geknoop. In Paragraaf (1) sê die kontrak—

Natuurlik, dis net so duidelik as dit maar kan wees. En dis die enige manier, Walvis Baai is maar net daaraan geknoop, maar die maatskappy kry werkelik nul regte op die vasteland. Vir my is dit maar al te duidelik. Ek wil die Minister net dit vra. Sou ’n ander maatskappy, sê meneer Benjamin, sou dit hom toegestaan word om dieselfde regte te kry, om ’n selfde soort besigheid op te set net teenoor Walvis Baai op die gronde van Suidwes? Natuurlik, nie. Sou dit in stryd wees met hierdie kontrak? Dis die touts. As hy dit sou kan doen, dan waarom al die bepalings hierin wat sê dat daar geen ander konsessie van ’n selfde soort deur die Administrasie uitgegee sal word gedurende die gesegde termyn? Is dit te Walvis Baai? Dit word hier spesifiek belet, dat die Administrateur ’n soortgelyke konsessie aan enig ander persoon sal gee. Ek sien dat onder die vier Ministers wat vanaand hier is dat daar twee regsgeleerdes is, en wil hul nou tog werkelik sê, dat dit hul opinie is, dat dit ’n kontrak is wat nie deur die Parlement bekragtig behoef te word? En selfs as dit nie so is nie, dan moet hul tog nie vergeet nie wat die gevare is waaraan so’n kontrak sal blootstaan, afgesien van die ander kwessie, dat ons hier te doen het met ’n gebied wat deur ons onder mandaat bestuur word; en dat dit duidelik in die vredesterme verklaar word, dat daar in ’n mandaat gebied nie konsessies van enige aard verleen kan word, want die ander ondertekenaars van die terme het die reg daar te kom en soortgelyke besigheid te dryf; maar nou kom ons hier en ons verleen ’n uitsluitende konsessie, ’n konsessie wat al die ander ondertekenaars van die verdrag uitsluit. Dink ons dan werkelik, dat ons, deur Walvis Baai daar aan te knoop, die oë kan verblind van die ander mense? Nee, meneer die Voorsitter, ek sal u sê wat ek dink—dit gee vir my die indruk van so veel kullery, en ek sê dat as ons dit doen, dan moet ons weet wat die resultate sal wees want hul sal, baie gevaarlik wees.

On the 14th March I asked the right hon. the Prime Minister a series of questions in regard to the number of cattle which had been exported overseas by this company since the 21st October, 1922, on what dates were they shipped, and the number shipped on each occasion? I tried to get this information from the right, hon. the Prime Miniter because I held, and I still hold, that under Clause 15 of the agreement, this House is entitled to that information. Now, I received an answer which gave dates upon which cattle were sent out of the country to overseas markets, but only during that period during which the agreement was suspended. I want to know how many cattle were sent out during the period the agreement was in operation? On the 7th of this month I asked the right hon. the Prime Minister a question as to whether this agreement would be suspended for the further period of a year, and he said that the matter was still under consideration. Now, I think it is only due to the farmers in South-West Africa that the Government should have made up its mind on a question like that, earlier than the 7th March. They had not made up their minds on the 7th March whether they would grant a further suspension, while the present suspension expires on the 1st April next. In the meantime the farmers of that territory are getting together a shipment of cattle to send overseas themselves. You will see what is in the minds of these farmers. The Administrator said in connection with this that a section of the population of the territory was sceptical and dubious of its benefits. They are still sceptical and dubious of its benefits. This is what they say in regard to the suspension of the agreement—

The practical effect of this agreement is—

1. (1) Owing to the short period of the suspension no serious competition from rival organizations can be possible.
2. (2) In the event of the farmers themselves, at their own risk and expense, successfully finding a market within the period of the suspension, the advantages so established can be assumed by the company.

And that is exactly what is going to happen. Now, is it fair to treat the farmers in the mandated territory like that? I do not think so. I think they ought to get a better deal than that. What has happened? This agreement has only been suspended for a year, and I find during the period it was suspended, that the shipping space was taken up by the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company on all the ships that called at Walvis Bay during that period. It appears that these farmers are trying to get an outlet for their cattle themselves, overseas. It appears that the right hon. the Prime Minister, before this agreement was suspended, endeavoured to get fat cattle from the mandated territory into the markets of England, and he succeeded in getting the British Government to agree. You cannot get that concession for the Union, so far as fat stock is concerned, but it has been managed for the mandated territory. Cattle can go from there to the markets of England. I tried to find out what the farmers were getting from the company. I asked the question, and I think I had the right to ask that question, because if that agreement is worth anything, surely it is worthy of being carried into effect on behalf of the farmers, and in this agreement it is distinctly stated that the profits have to be distributed after 10 per cent. is taken. But when I asked how much was paid to the farmers, I got no answer. I did my best to get the information from other sources, as one shipment was made under the agreement. I obtained the dates of every shipment made when the agreement was in suspension, but I could not get the date in regard to that particular shipment when the agreement was in operation. The Administrator has issued a proclamation to say that if the farmers of South-West Africa are paid £5 a head for this cattle, £1 bonus will be paid to the company. Well, if that is all the monopoly is going to do for the farmers of South-West Africa, it is not much good to them. What does the Rand Daily Mail have to say about the prices paid for cattle to these farmers? It says—

[An Hon. Member: “Who wrote that”?] It appeared in the Rand Daily Mail. I attempted to get the information from the Government on the agreement, but failed to do so, so I had to get it the best way I could. I am not going to vouch for the accuracy of the information, except to say that farmers in South-West Africa tell me that it is correct; I have just seen one of them in Cape Town. Mr. Spilhaus said the average price paid on a shipment was £22 10s. per head. The farmers have had great difficulty in getting shipping companies to take cattle for them. Some friends of mine had an interview on one occasion at the right hon. the Prime Minister’s office. The right hon. the Prime Minister was not present, but they were told in the Prime Minister’s office, that they should get in touch with Sir David Graaff in regard to shipping. This they refused to do. They said that they had come to get the information and assistance from the Government, and now the Government sent them to an individual, and they declined to go. Ultimately, a gentleman came forward and said he would finance the shipment, and he went to the Union-Castle Company—this is what he told me, I believe him—and the manager of that company said to him: “I suppose you are going into competition with Sir David Graaff.” He said: “Yes.” The manager then said: “I am afraid we will not do business.” This gentleman then went to see Sir David Graaff and got his assistance, when the shipping company found that Sir David Graaff did not object, shipping space was arranged.

As a farmer, I would like to make a few remarks on the question. It is unnecessary for me to say anything in regard to the deplorable and parlous condition of the cattle industry at the present time. We are well aware that there is no market for the sale of the surplus stock. Here in the Union we have at the present time some 9,000,000 head of cattle, and in the mandated territories and in Rhodesia there are at least another 4,000,000 head, and the huge surplus is increasing yearly. We can supply our local trade three or four times over, at certain seasons of the year. What are we to do with our surplus stock? That is the question. We realize that we have not a local market for all this surplus, farmers are not in a position to start an export trade on their own. We all know that this has been attempted by various co-operative concerns in the past, but we also know how lamentably they have failed. I, as a farmer, and speaking on behalf of some of the farmers of the country, realize the great necessity of encouraging the export of livestock and of dead meat, so as to work off the surplus stock of the country. Speaking generally, this can only be done with capital and by organization, and organization having at its head someone experienced in this particular business, who must have direct control. I personally hold no brief for capitalistic organizations, but as a farmer I realize that without capital to carry on an export trade, we can do nothing for ourselves; the farmer is really the producer. Capital must be encouraged to come in and attempt this export industry. We all know the conditions in South-West Africa. We have listened to the clauses of agreement with this company, quoted in the House by various hon. members. I, personally, would like to quote one or two other clauses. Clause 7 refers to development in connection with the export of livestock from the territory, also of chilled and frozen meat, and the bye-products overseas to markets outside the Union of South Africa. Clause 12 deals with the capital and the shares. I he contract is for 15 years, and without giving some encouragement, it would be difficult to induce capital to enter trade of this kind—a trade demanding not only capital, but intimate knowledge of a most intricate and delicate business, such as the meat trade of the world. How can you expect any company or individual to take shares in this company without some sense of security and a guarantee for a term of years. In Clause 15 all profits remaining over, after a nett profit of 10 per cent. has been earned, shall be divided equally between the company and the Administration, and, in addition, the Government retains the right to take over the business as a going concern at any time after due notice. Further, the halfshare of profits, after the 10 per cent., has to be given to the suppliers, according to the quota of stock that they have supplied. Clause 19 states that any time after giving six months’ notice the Administration shall have the power to take over the works, buildings, machinery and assets of the company, as a going concern, after having given the company six months’ notice to that effect, by the payment of a fair and reasonable compensation to the company. Further, after the expiration of 15 years, the administration shall also have the right to exercise the powers of expropriation therein granted. Surely this is a fair and reasonable arrangement. I feel that it is not altogether the monopoly that hon. members try to make out, The question of capital expenditure is a very important factor to the farmers of this country, and one they themselves cannot attempt. Some reference has been made to the shipping of livestock. I should like to give some explanation to hon. members in this connection. I know that eight shipments of livestock have been shipped to Europe by the company, as an experiment. Is there any body of farmers prepared to carry out such an experiment, on the lines that we find have been done by this company? I know that eight shipments have gone to Europe for experimental purposes, and, after Some heavy losses incurred in the cases of the first shiploads, the nett result was a debit of £850 on all the shipments. How are hon. members going to expect any body of farmers to launch into a big organization of this kind, and be prepared to face losses, and yet, at the same time, to continue with experiments in order to prove whether it will ever be a success? Personally, I feel on the question of the export trade, we can only have success if, as producers, we leave the matter of export in the hands of a business concern who have experience, and who have men with experience to work out a scheme successfully. Not only is experience required, but capital, and that experience combined with special knowledge and training of an export trade.

In reply to the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) I say that the farmers are only too anxious to export cattle themselves, but it is extremely difficult to get the necessary facilities. There is a monopoly. It is not that I have a grievance against the company, but that I have a grievance against the Government for granting a monopoly in regard to the farmers’ property, without consulting the farmers. The Administration of South-West Africa, not satisfied with giving such a monopoly as this, proceeds to shower upon the company grants of huge tracts of land. I find that the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company have a lease of over a quarter of a million morgen of ground for five years, and all they have to pay for it is 15s. I ask the House if the farmers can compete against that, and we are trying to settle them on the land. I will read to you what Sir David Graaff himself said in the prospectus referred to before—

And yet the company gets a quarter of a million of morgen of land for five years for 15s.; 3s. for one year and 15s. for five years, and I find that they have got another quarter of a million of hectares of land with the right to purchase, namely Aruchab Ranch, 150,000 hectares situated on the western border of the Grootfontein district, 25 miles from Outje, which is the nearest railway station, and Etosha Ranch, 100,000 hectares, situated about 10 miles north of Outje, which is the nearest railway station. Both ranches consist chiefly of flat country interspersed by hills and rises. In some parts open water holes exist, and generally water should be found without much difficulty. Well, many of our Union farmers would like a lease like that. The veld consists of grass and small bush with occasional laakies and sweet thorn-trees and mopani bush. These ranches are suitable for all classes of stock, and according to farmers who have lived in the vicinity for the last 15 years, stock diseases are unknown with the heavy rainfall. Does not it make your mouth water, Mr. Chairman? In these parts it is estimated that the major portion of the ranches will carry one head of large stock to five hectares. On the whole these are considered to be two excellent ranching propositions. I should think so, and the farmers have to compete, the settlers have to compete, on a fifteen hectares to an ox proposition. And they have got the right of purchase. That was not said in the answer I got although, as I said before, the right hon. the Prime Minister did answer the majority of my questions in a straightforward way. But this one was not answered as I would have liked, because I find here that in this one ranch, which is 150,000 morgen in extent they have the right of purchase. They have put one European there in charge, and for the first three years they have to pay £46 16s. 3d. and for the fourth and fifth year £96 19s. 6d. For the other one of 100,000 morgen, they pay £31 17s. 6d. for the three first years, and £60 19s. 6d. for the fourth and fifth year, and it is carried over in half-yearly instalments, and capital and interest at 4 per cent. I do not think our settlers are getting that at 4 per cent. These things make one wonder where we are getting them. The conditions under which those large ranches have been granted to this company are these, that they are not to have breeding stock. They are not allowed to have breeding cattle, but are supposed to have fattening stock only. I hear on the best authority that they are buying up heifers and young stock from South-West Africa for anything from 12s. 6d. to 15s., and putting them on this land, and the cattle are grazing there. If that is not ranching, then I do not know what ranching is. But on these others they can do as they like. Now this half million hectares of land was put up and advertised for sale, after the second million hectares which they have the right to purchase, and it shows you the condition of South-West Africa, since the monopoly was given, that the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company was the only applicant. I would like to see this land offered in the Union. This monopoly has bottled up that country and practically ruined it, and a gentleman said to me the other day, and I am inclined to agree with him, that the Americans won the war in Europe, and the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company won the war in South Africa.

The right hon. the Prime Minister, in giving the explanation of this contract this afternoon, dealt with it in two aspects the practical aspect and the legal aspect. I am only an ordinary farmer, and I know nothing about the legal aspect, but I would like to say a few words on the practical aspect. There is nobody who knows better than the hon. member for Turffontein (Maj. Hunt), or nobody should know better than he, the conditions of the cattle market in this country when this contract was entered into. I would like to ask him, and I would like him to give me an answer, whether he was at the meeting in either Johannesburg or Pretoria when the Transvaal Agricultural Union requested the Government to put an embargo on the borders of this country against cattle coming in from outside. Was the hon. member at that meeting?

I will answer when my time comes.

Then the hon. member agreed to that. Anyhow I believe the Agricultural Union of the Transvaal requested that the Government should prevent cattle from coming into the Union from outside. Now the hon. member has led this Committee to believe that he is a champion of the farmers in South-West Africa.

Yes, the real MacKay!

When this agreement was entered into I believe those unfortunate people in South-West Africa had to take as low as 30s. apiece for large fat oxen.

The hon. member knows that quite well.

And the hon. gentleman should know it.

Yes, the hon. member knows it quite well.

And the hon. member should have told this Committee that.

The hon. member says that is a fact?

It is a fact; they were getting as low as 30s. a piece.

For fat oxen?

Yes.

Then the hon. member does not know what he is talking about.

And this contract was entered into in good faith by this Government, to do the best they could for those unfortunate people. Further than that what does this mean to the farmers on the opposition benches. It means that there is going to be a relief of the congestion in South Africa of this unfortunate cattle position, which we are struggling through to-day. Every animal that can be sent out of this country overseas is going to be a relief to this congested condition of affairs here.

Why are they not sent then?

And more than that, it is going to bring hard cash into this country, something that we want very badly indeed. The hon. member has said a great deal about farmers undertaking this work. I know a little about farmers trying to take a hand in the export of meat in this country. I happened to be, fortunately for myself, a very small shareholder in a co-operative organization that started in Natal. The farmers put a quarter of a million of hard cash into that organization. They struggled for years to export meat out of this country. While the war lasted, and meat was at any price, they managed to keep their heads above water, although, even then, they were losing money. But what has been the end of that company, of all the honest effort, not of words and air, but an effort of putting down hard cash?

The Hon. member stated the other day that they were still in existence.

Quite so, but they put down money. What was the position to-day?

I would like to know.

They have lost all that money, and £200,000 besides.

Why did the hon. member not say that before?

The hon. member knows it, and he is taking his orders from that corner of the House now.

Who is casting insinuations now?

That is the difference to-day. The hon. member poses as a friend of the farmer. I say he is doing more harm to-night to the farming industry than any member can possibly do, and I do appeal to hon. members sitting on that side, the farming section of that community, not to listen to such tales as these.

They know it.

I have nothing whatever to do with the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company, I know nothing whatever about their business, and I have no brief for them, but this export business Has got to be done, as the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) said, by men of capital, and by men who understand this business from A to Z.

Through a monopoly?

I do not care whether it is a monopoly or a farming organization, but if cattle can be sent out of this country under the present existing conditions, I say let us do all we can, and good luck to them if they can make a profit out of it. How can we expect men with capital to come here and relieve us of our trouble, if, every time an effort is made in this direction, the whole thing is going to be made a political business on the floor of this House. No capitalist is going to put money into this country to help us.

That is a limited liability company. Where is the capital? They get capital from the people in shares?

Will the hon. member put down money to export cattle out of this country?

No tear.

I should like to see them try it. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) knows all about this. He has been on a Commission, and has told this House that these people have lost £800, and I say instead of talking here to-night, we, as farmers, should feel glad that they have risked their capital in such a venturesome business as this.

The hon. member is not speaking for the farmers now.

As the right hon. the Prime Minister said this afternoon, money is being lost in cold storage businesses, and if we are going to take up this question in such a spirit and accuse these people of all sorts of bad practices, then I say, God help the farmers of this country!

We have been vastly entertained by that speech over here. Most delightful! The heart of the right hon. the Minister of Agriculture, I am sure, must have warmed to his hon. friend. There is no fear of that hon. member at any time saying anything against the Government. He will not, like the hon. member over here, utter thoughts that are too antagonistic to his Government’s ideas.

And I hope I never shall.

There is no likelihood of that, his mind runs too much on the lines of the Government. In their view a man who comes to the Government, represents the cold storage and gets a monopoly, is not a business man but a philanthropist. He is a person inspired purely by the one heaven-sent altruistic idea of benefiting South Africa, and away with sordid conditions of money and profit. The hon. member would never dream of lifting up an independent voice against any arrangement of the right hon. the Prime Minister, because, like the right hon. the Prime Minister, he cannot see further than his nose in these things; and when he thinks something looks like good business, he cannot do better than to go for it. Acts of Parliament do not matter, but any one of sufficient financial influence has to matter to the Government and the right hon. the Prime Minister, and such a person must not be limited by ordinary limitations. If he wants his way, let him have his way, and if he wants a monopoly, let him have it. If this is such an extraordinary intricate business, and there are so few people in the world who can conduct this business, who can combine capital and knowledge, they should be allowed to find their own command of the business, and not be bolstered up by a monopoly from the Government. I am working purely on your own assumption. Look at this grant of land. I asked the right hon. the Prime Minister has he got the views of the Crown lawyers on this grant of land? Does it not come under the terms of “title, right or interest in State land,” and, if it does, what business have the Government to have granted it to the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company, or to Sir David Graaf, without the sanction of Parliament? That is entirely the opposite view we take to the Government in these things. The Government in this matter, as in many other matters, have decided to take the way of violence, take short cuts, and there is as much violence in disregarding Acts of Parliament as there is in physical violence. We want Constitutional Government. When the Government go and give away for 3s. a year what amounts to practically 1,000 square miles —for 15s. for five years—we have a right to protest. Every single word by the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) and the hon. member who has just spoken is wide of the mark. If the Government had come here as they ought to have done—as I venture to say they would have done if they were not desirous of avoiding criticism—then it would have been time for the hon. member to have discussed this. I say, if we can read plain English, that if granting 2,000 square miles of country for a term of 15 years is not granting a right, title or interest, then I do not know what right, title or interest is. Can any legal member say this has not conferred this right, title or interest upon this company? I hope my hon. friend will test the feeling of the House by moving an amendment. With regard to his remarks about the answer he got from the hon. the Minister of Railways and Harbours, one understands from the hon. the Minister of Railways and Harbours that lie is the head of a big carrying concern, and cannot divulge certain facts appertaining to it; but he is also a member of the Cabinet as well as the Minister of Railways and Harbours. If his Government have given a monopoly, has not my hon. friend the right to know the details of it? The Government creates a monopoly in order to permit one of these philanthropists carrying on his business in South-West Africa. To my mind, it is a nasty business, because it brings before the country that this Government considers itself above Parliament.

Ek het gedag om later op die saak terug te kom, maar na die toesprake van die edele lede vir Cradock (de hr. I. P. van Heerden) en vir Victoria West (de hr. Du Toit) kan ek nie anders as die aandag van die edelagbare die Minister te vestig op Gordonia en wil weet waarom Gordonia vir die doeleindes van die brandsiektewet by Suidwes ingedeel is. Ek het op die onbillikheid gewys, maar nietteenstaande verkeer Gordonia vandaag nog in dieselfde moeilikheid as Suidwes en ek kan nie insien waarom boere van die Unie onder dieselfde moeilikhede moet gebuk gaan as die van Suidwes nie. Ek het aangeklop om die aanstelling van meer inspekteurs vir Gordonia, maar dit is nog nooit gedaan nie. Ek wil weet of daar extra inspekteurs aangestel sal word, en waarom die hoofdinspekteur, wat die distrikt nou good ken, verplaas is na, ’n ander streek. Hy het goeie werk gedaan, want hy is nou bekend met al die omstandighede en geaardhede in die noordweste; maar net soas ’n man goed op die hoogte is, ’dan word hy weggeneem. Ek vertrou ook, dat wat die edele lid vir Cradock (de hr. I. P. van Heerden) geseg het in verband met die toelaat van vee oor die lyn reggemaak sal word. Daar word geen voorsiening gemaak om die skaapkrale op die lyn lay Upington te reinig nie en so word die skape van tyd tot tyd aangesteek. Ek hoop, dat daar verbetering sal aangebring word, en dat die edelagbare die Minister my ’n besliste antwoord sal gee op my vraë.

I do not think some hon. members on that side of the House have read the agreement, because the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) says there is not a monopoly. If he will read paragraph 8, he will see that it says—

I am not one of the legal fraternity, but I think that any ordinary individual reading that paragraph, will conclude that there is only one construction to be placed upon it, and that is that it creates a monopoly for this particular company. The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Moor) went even further, in showing conclusively that he had not read the copy of this agreement, because he said only men of capital would be able to carry on this understanding. Take paragraph 12—

It is the same old story. As I have said before, a certain hon. member on the opposite side of the House, asked me to sell mining shares, because he was going to start a mining company, and he wanted me to sell the shares at £1 each to people on the Witwatersrand. It was these people who bought the shares who would provide the capital, for these individuals who were to supply the brain power to run the industry, and yet they knew nothing about it. So that all our good friend the capitalist does, is like our friend the monkey in the forest, who pinches all the cocoanuts he can. You are giving a concession to this particular company, for the purpose of making profits for private individuals. Then we come to paragraph 11, which lays down that—

There they have the whole thing, lock, stock and barrel; but the poor farmer who is supposed to be receiving all these benefits will find that, once these people get a strangle hold on him, there will be a considerable congestion amongst his own section in the country. That is the position, and the Government are going out of their way to place more power and profits in the pockets of the middleman, instead of doing the right thing. We hear a great deal in this country about supporting South African industries, and I expect we shall be told in connection with this agreement that the Government have done something for production in South Africa because “The company have decided to purchase all supplies at reasonable prices.” Then we will be told, that these people are international men of ideas, who always buy in the cheapest market, in China, Japan, Peru, or anywhere else, because they find that the cheapest market is the most reasonable market. We come to paragraph 15, which says that—

In the first few years of the company’s existence, if they are not making 10 per cent. they can carry over the deficit to the years when they are more prosperous. How do we know that this company is not going to act as other corporations in this country, when the profits are high—they issue bonus shares—shares to individuals which cost them nothing, and instead of getting 10 per cent. they get 100 per cent. There is nothing in the agreement to forbid that. May I ask the right hon. the Prime Minister, whether at the end of 15 years this particular company still retain full monopoly rights?

Order; the hon. member’s time has expired.

I do not think this matter has been yet properly ventilated from the point of view of the Government Party, because with the exception of the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat), and the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Moor), not a word has been said from that side of the House. We want an explanation from the Government members, who are as silent as they can be. We want an explanation of the agreement, and the circumstances which led up to it. I think in this matter we have been treated in a contemptuous way, but that is something we are used to—we had an experience of this the other day. The Government does something discreditable, and Parliament backs it up, and when we endeavour to elucidate the matter the Government takes no notice of what is said. They make no explanation, and it has been pointed out by the hon. member who introduced this matter, the hon. member for Turffontein (Maj. Hunt) that they entered into an agreement to transfer to the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company an enormous piece of land, without the consent of Parliament. They have broken the law, but when their attention is drawn to the fact, they do not even apologise for it. We have always been accused of being an unconstitutional party—the Labour Party, which goes with the gun to get what they want, while the Government are of the opinion that they themselves act in a constitutional manner. I contend that compared with the hon. gentlemen on that side of the House, we are nothing but sucking doves. In order to get a better perspective, one has to go back into the history of this matter, the history of the relationship between the presiding genius of the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company and the Government of this country: that is his efforts to get complete control of the whole meat trade in South Africa. The members of the South African Party have very short memories, and I will not be going far wrong when I say that one of the facts bearing on the action of the hon. member for Turffontein (Maj. Hunt) was the fact that the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company was getting a strangle hold on the meat trade of South Africa. May I remind the House of a sensation caused in the House two or three years ago, when the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) discovered, not a mare’s nest, but an agreement entered into between the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company and the Meat Producers’ Exchange—

I think the hon. member is going rather far away from the question. I do not know what the Meat Exchange and the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company have to do with the Bill before the Committee.

I hope you will pardon me, but this is only an incident in the career of Sir David Graaff and his remarkable influence with the Government of the country.

The hon. member can discuss the contract with the South-West Government, but in going back to other agreements, he is going rather too far.

I am not going to traverse the whole matter, but to show that this contract is the inevitable consequence of former agreements. A Select Committee was appointed on that occasion, as the direct result of pressure, to enquire into the whole business, and what do we find? We find that the right hon. the Prime Minister of the country, in evidence before the Select Committee said, that he himself, realizing the parlous condition of the meat trade, sent a wire—not to such experts as the Co-operative Society or the farmers of the country—but to Sir David Graaff, and asked him to come to Pretoria, and discuss the matter with him. Here he met the Meat Producers’ Exchange, and the right hon. the Prime Minister of the country told them to meet Sir David Graaff, and to make an arrangement with him. It is an extraordinary thing that Sir David Graaff is the only man who has a meat brain, in this country. A most extraordinary thing. At that time it was considered by the right hon. the Prime Minister, who said so in evidence, supported by the right hon. the Minister of Agriculture, before that Select Committee, that he considered it absolutely essential to the welfare of this country that that Meat Producers’ Exchange, on the one hand, and Sir David Graaff on the other, should join forces and make some arrangement.

I think the hon. member is going too far again.

Yes, I am afraid I am. I admit it, much too far for the Government; but I will not pursue that beyond making one other reference to the Select Committee, in deference to the Chair. I do think the Government should have this put right. A propos the statement made by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell), that these cold storage people, notably Sir David Graaff, are not out for business, but are philanthropists, whose whole and sole object is to encompass the welfare of the people of South Africa, I need only draw attention to an answer given me in that Select Committee by Sir David Graaff himself—

Well, he is working for nothing up in South-West Africa now. My hon. friend interjects that he went to Messina. Is there any placein South Africa where he is not sticking his finger? Nothing is too small, and from our experience of South-West Africa, we know that nothing is too big. I want to add a little for the enlightenment of the Committee on this agreement, which I shall not be out of order in referring to. My hon. friend has referred to the fact that this is establishing nothing more nor less than a monopoly. The Administrator of that territory states that it is so. The agreement abundantly proves that to be a fact. This has now been demonstrated, and I do urge upon members of the South African Party to read this agreement, which would dothem good.

The time of the hon. member has expired.

I have only two more paragraphs to read. There is paragraph 2—

And I hear members who belong to the South African Party standing here and complaining most bitterly abolit not Having been supplied with railway transport within the Union when they had to shift their stock from one part of the country to another. The Government, of course, is not so much concerned with the farming population of some of our friends, but lead us to believe that they have such a tender regard to this particular cold meat trust, that they actually laid down an agreement that they shall provide speedy transport—none of your five or six days to go 5 miles for the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company, they have to get there in a hurry, because, of course, a carcase cannot wait. Then there were a few more presents in this particular agreement, and the further one goes into them the more presents one finds. In paragraph 23—

Well, we are given to understand that this company has acquired rights over 2,000 square miles of territory, naturally if you are going to interpret these words “for its said business and operations” we might find the Government lending them a huge irrigation scheme to irrigate the 2,000 square miles of territory. We do not know what might happen under the hands of these clever financiers.

Is the hon. member serious?

Perfectly, and I hope the hon. gentleman over there will stand up and put me right if I am wrong. I would like to ask the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) what “operations” means. Why exclude them? They distinctly say “for the said business and operations.” What are the operations apart from the business? I am not a lawyer; I admit that quite frankly, I do not know as much about the law as the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber), or the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset), who is sitting beside him.

The hon. member knows what operations are.

Not being a doctor I am entirely ignorant of this term, but perhaps the right hon. the Prime Minister, or some other of the legal hon. members, will tell us what this particular paragraph means. But if the Government has to provide water, and fresh water at that, at cost price, I would like to know exactly what this means, and what we are letting ourselves in for there. It may mean a tremendous capital outlay, although it is rather too late in the day to argue the point about this agreement, seeing that it is equally binding upon the people of this country. Although I have only been here a few years I have been here long enough to realize that so far as this Parliament is concerned the country might just as well be without it, and let the Cabinet carry on the Government of South Africa, do away with every member of Parliament and save all their salaries for the benefit of the country, because we have exactly the Same result. Hon. members over there belong to the Government Party, but they are not of the Government, not by any means in the Government, because we have only advanced this far in democracy, that we have advanced from the rule of the King by divine right, by the rule of the Cabinet by divine right, driven by the right hon. the Prime Minister.

The more one looks at this agreement, the more one realizes that the Government on the one hand and the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company on the other have been taking every care to make sure there is no loophole through which anybody else can get. In other words, they have so surrounded it, and hedged it in with words and binding agreements, that it is impossible for anybody else to have anything to do with this particular trade-in short, they have secured to the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company an absolutely complete monopoly. And in respect of those statements which have already been read by my hon. friend, or rather supplementary to them, in the matter of services that the Administration agreed to give to the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company, may I read that over again? In paragraph 10 will be found these words—

so that they are to have all the fresh water they require for all their operations at cost price. They are to have this enormous tract of country, besides a sufficient amount of ground in the form of a site for their building; they are to have a speedy transport, and undoubtedly cheap transport; they are to have every facility given to them that it is possible for them to have. The State undertakes, through the medium of the Government of the country, to give them their foundation free. I wonder why they stopped at the foundation? I wonder why they did not put up the walls, put the roof on, and put in the refrigerating plant; and I ask, and I think it is competent for every hon. member to ask the same question, seeing the Government went so far in the provision of the necessary equipment, why they did not complete it and run the show on their own? And that is a matter that I will deal with in a few moments. In addition to all that, they are to have the necessary facilities for the shipping and stevedoring from the railway trucks to the ships at Walvis Bay free of all charge. One begins to wonder what on earth the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company have to meet in the way of expense, what they have to pay for themselves? To cap it all, we have the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Moor), who was moved to frothy eloquence, pleading the necessity for our exporting cattle from the Union. I think it will be as well if I read a portion of paragraph 9—

That seems to be the culminating point of the whole lot. I ventured to state some time ago, when this thing was only hinted at, that we were embarking on a most dangerous course, as attempts were being made to get the whole of the meat of South Africa into the hands of the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company, not by legislative enactment, but by deliberate executive action on the part of the Government itself, and that, on the other hand, the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company was worming its way into every other cold storage in South Africa, until to-day there is not one left in the whole of the country which is not owned, or in a great measure controlled, by the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company. What, in the hands of a private monopoly, is a curse to the country, in the hands of the State would be a blessing to the country, and this applies to the meat trade in this country. Parliament should put its foot down. I do not know what course should be followed, whether Mr. Speaker might lay down a ruling, or whether the Supreme Court should give a judgment; but whatever it is, every effort should be made to remove this monopoly from the hands of the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company, because this monopoly, instead of being controlled by a private firm, should be in the hands of the State.

The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Moor) asked me a question as to whether I was present at a meeting of the South African Agricultural Union, when they asked for an embargo upon cattle from adjoining territory. I was not present, and I wish to tell the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Moor) that if he insinuated that the farmers of the Transvaal ever asked the Government or passed a resolution to the effect that an embargo should be placed on cattle from South-West Africa, he is doing them an injustice.

In the Protectorate they did. It is the Protectorate I meant.

The hon. member challenged me. The hon. member said “You pose as a champion of the farmers in South-West Africa, were you not present at a meeting of the Transvaal Agricultural Union when an embargo was asked for?” No embargo was ever asked for against South-West Africa; the Agricultural Union has always looked upon South-West Africa as part of the Union in this regard. The resolutions which were passed by the committee of the Agricultural Union of South Africa were—

They wanted co-operative organizations as the Government refused to grant facilities or to arrange for the Land Bank to finance existing organizations, and those organizations at that time were crippled through lack of finance. They asked the Government to grant a subsidy for meat export as an alternative to their proposals after these had been turned down by the Government. This is where they got somewhere near an embargo that unless a solution of the parlous state of the cattle industry is found through Government subsidy for export or capital grant under which adjoining territory would pay their full complement for equal export facilities, the committee must recommend a complete embargo on all cattle of neighbouring territories. That was passed by the executive of the South African Agricultural Union and confirmed by the annual conference in 1922. As I said before my contention is that this agreement should have come before Parliament for ratification. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) and the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Moor) asked what are we to do without these capitalist companies? All I say is this that we have these companies all these years in control of the export, and what have they done for the farmer, No farmer can send meat out of the country unless through them. They control export at our ports, and we have repeatedly asked the Government for State transit cold stores, but without success. Now the last port, Walvis Bay, which is the nearest port to the European market, is to be-given over to a monopoly, if the company is not to benefit by this, who is? We know that the company is a trade competitor in regard to export. As regards meat they control 50 per cent. of the contracts for the mines, and this town is filled with their butchers’ shops, their chief object is to secure cheap cattle to carry on their business. I say the Government had no right to give a competitive company such a monopoly. I beg on behalf of the farmers in the mandated territory and the Union to move an amendment as a protest against the Government’s action in ratifying this agreement and not bringing it before Parliament for ratification—

I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that while we have been discussing the action of the Government in granting this monopoly, the right hon. the Minister of Agriculture sits with a satisfied smile on his face, and the other Ministers sitting there say nothing. The hon. member for Turffontein (Maj. Hunt) has pointed out that there has been a wholesale grant of land, of nearly 2,000 square miles, for a sum of 15s., and I want to know from the right hon. the Prime Minister if the Law Advisers advise that this is a legitimate grant of Crown land, consistent with this Act? I want again to call the attention of the Committee to a matter which I called attention to earlier in the afternoon. We passed last year a Bill, establishing a Board of Trade and Industries, and we clearly stipulated in the Act that within one month after the receipt of any report or recommendation made by it, it should be placed on the Table of the House, and, if Parliament was not sitting, then within one month after Parliament sat. The first report is due, and I asked the right hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries if that report was ready for presentation, and he said: “No”; and added that a departmental committee had been appointed to enquire into the economic policy, and as they were not in agreement, he joined to this committee the whole of the Board of Trades and Industries, and the joint body made a report to Government. I say that we are entitled to see the report. I say that the report should be placed on the Table, in accordance with the terms of the Act. The Government disregards Parliament on every point. There is not a question of a breach of faith, but the policy of the Government is diametrically opposite to the views which we hold here as to the attitude of Government to the Acts passed by this Parliament. If we are going to have Parliamentary Government in this country, we must demand that the Executive Government should pay greater respect to this House, than it has done in the past. If they persist in carrying on like that, they will destroy respect for Parliament, on which the Constitutional Government of this country depends. I want to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister if he will answer my question—whether the question was submitted to the Crown lawyer?

If the question was put in the House, I might go into the matter, but I have not gone into the question of the land grant. No doubt, if notice were given, I would gladly get the information.

Would the right hon. the Prime Minister agree to reporting progress, so that the information could be got? It is one of the very few opportunities we have. Here is a matter where a very large tract of Crown land—

Oh, yes!

But it is so; there is no mistake whatever about the terms of the Act. Let me read it again—

Here, I understand, that a grant of certain rights—nothing less than an area of 2,000 square miles—has been given, and the Act says it shall not be given without the authority of Parliament. I do not think the right hon. the Prime Minister would say it is unreasonable, that before we pass this supply to the Government, we shall know whether the opinion of the law advisers of the Crown was given, as to whether this grant could be given by the Government. At first sight, the grant for 15 years of something like 2,000 square miles of State land is a right, or interest, of State land, but cannot be made without authority of Parliament.

The hon. member asked me whether the Crown lawyers had been consulted on this subject, to which I said I did not know. If he gives me notice, I can find out; if he puts the question to me properly: “Is this a legal transaction”? Then I will tell him I have not the least doubt that what has been done has Keen done in accordance with the law, and if he were to put the question to me in the House I could answer it. This is not the only case where land has been given; he knows that land is given by the Administration almost every day to settlers.

That comes under this Act.

No, it does not.

May I repeat to the right hon. the Prime Minister the terms of the Act—

and sub-section (1) says—

I know that the right hon. the Prime Minister told us this afternoon that he was merely the plain man, and under these circumstances, we are entitled to ask’ that we shall obtain the Information. We do not want the amateur legal opinion of the right hon. the Prime Minister here, but what the Crown lawyers say.

What I am saying is that I have no doubt that these grants referred to have been given under those ordinances to which the hon. member refers— the Crown Lands Disposal Ordinance, and similar ordinances. I have no doubt that what has been done is legal, but I shall get the information if the hon. member wishes me to do so. I have not the least doubt that what has been done is legal, but I have not had the opportunity to consult the Crown lawyers on this point, as I have had to consult them on the concession, which was put to me, and of which notice was given.

This does not meet the point. We are not all of us lawyers, and the people of the country in electing us as their representatives imposed a trust on us, and we must be very careful about our legislation. If the right hon. the Prime Minister is risking a legal oponion that under one of those acts as much as 2,000 square miles can be given away, then the whole territory can be given away without coming to Parliament for authority. Then why has Parliament, invited by the right hon. the Prime Minister, to go through the solemn business of inserting sub-section (2)? I think it is time a new leaf was turned, but to say solemnly “save and provide” that the Government can give away what it likes they must not give away something without coming to Parliament, is a travesty of legislation. I was the culprit—I was going to say I was the fool—I asked that that safeguard should be put in in 1919. I proposed an amendment which was accepted and put into a better form than I could put it, for the purpose of safeguarding us against precisely what is taking place, and now the right hon. the Prime Minister tells us it safeguards nothing. And when this has taken place the right hon. the Prime Minister tells us that although he is a layman in this House—we know that he is a lawyer of great distinction—he says that it is perfectly legal to give away 2,000 square miles for fifteen years.

I have no doubt about it that it is legal.

Then why, when this was being carried, did the right hon. the Prime Minister not say that he was putting something in which would have no effect whatever? It is such things as thèse that make us believe that the country is unsafe in the hands of the Government. I say as long as that sort of thing goes On we feel very unsafe in the hands of the right hon. the Prime Minister and his friends.

Die gebied van Suid wes Afrika is al byna 9 jaar onder die bestuur van die Unie en nog altoos is die mense sonder stemreg. As die Regering meen om hulle langer te hou, welke reg het hy om hulle goed weg te gee sonder hulle stem daarop te hoor? Dit sou seker tot hulle voordeel wees om seggenskap te verkry in die bestuur van die land. In een klousule sien ek, dat die reg bestaat om vee oor land na die Unie toe aan te jaag, maar daar moet van die Administrateur een permit gekry word, maar die boer word verdruk. In my kiesafdeling moet die mense oorland aanjaag, want as ons ’n spoorweg aanvraag, dan is die nie te kry nie. Uit Suidwes betaal hulle 7s. vir ’n bees na die Unie toe en 2s. vir ’n skaap. [Een Edele Lid: “Nee. Dit is £2 vir ’n bees.”] O, nou laat dit £2 wees vir ’n bees na die Kaap en van Walvisbaai af kan ’n bees hier, geslag, gelewer word vir 5s. Maar die Administrateur staat onder die ander mense en moet maak soas hulle goed denk, anders raak hy uit die guns en word hulle hom moeg. Is die mandaat toevertrou aan die Parlement as vertegenwoordigers van die volk of net aan die paar mense, wat die Regering uitmaak? Seker nie net aan die paar mense, wat die Kabinet uitmaak nie; as daar ’n tekort is, dan moet ons die maar bypas. Daardie mense, wat uit die Unie daarheen gelok is, het geen seggenskap nie en daar gaat die Regering en gee hulle regte weg. Ek praat nie van mense, wat onse vyande was nie, maar van Unie onderdane, wat daarheen getrek het, ja daarheen gelok, en vandag daar nog sit sonder stem. Die mense, wat die konsessie het is wat reeds £3,000,000 in Suidwes gemaak het uit diamante, die man het geld wat toekom aan Suidwes of aan die Unie. Is Suidwes verower vir die paar kapitaliste van die Imperial Cold Storage of vir die mense van die Unie. Die Regering gee maar weg en denk die saak is sleg genoeg en hulle sit stil.

Ek wil net weet of die kontrak van die Imperial Cold Storage Co. geldig is onder die Wet van 1919. Stel dat ’n ander persoon of maatskappy sou gaan en grond verkry in Suidwes Afrika en dat hulle koelkamers sou oprig, onderneem die soort besigheid, wat nou in die kontrak toegeseg is aan die daar genoemde persone, sou hy geregtig wees om dit te doen? Of sou hy ’n oortreding pleeg teenoor die verpligtings, aangenome dat dit so is en ek sou graag wil hoor of dit so is. Ek meen nie Walvisbaai nie, want die is aan die Imperial toegeseg, maar sou hy teenoor Walvisbaai ’n ander koelkamerinrigting kan stig; of die Parlement die reg sou kan verleen, sonder om inbreuk te maak op die regte van die Graaff Trust.