Die Eerste Minister was eintlik nog nie klaar met sy antwoord nie by die verdaging van die debat, oor die Klausule 1 laaste keer, maar ek wens net ’n paar woorde hieromtrent te sê, en net in verband—ek sal nie lang wees nie—met die kontrakt aangegaan met die Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company. Dit is my baie duidelik dat hoe onkundig die Eerste Minister mag wees omtrent die strekking van die kontrakt dat ons hierby verleen het, dat die Unie Regering verleen het, aan die Imperial Cold Storage, dat dit ’n monopolie is dat sig uitstrek nie alleen nie tot Walvisbaai nie, maar net so seer tot Suidwes. So ver was dit my bewering gewees, dat dit kontrakt ongeldig is soas dit hier lê en om geldig te wees moet dit voldoen aan die Wet van 1919 wat vereis dat die Parlement die kontrakt sal bevestig. Dit is ’n saak vir die Imperial Cold Storage, maar so ver as dit die Regering aangaan wens ek dit te sê: dis eigenaardig, dat die Regering klaarblykelik heen gegaan is en regsgeleerde advies opsettelik ingewin het of die kontrakt wat aangegaan is die bevestiging van die Parlement vereis—of dit onderworpe is aan die bevestiging van die Parlement. Dit is eigenaardig dat die Regering duidelik regsgeleerde advies geneem het en hulle het ons hier vertel dat hulle gehandel het ooreenkomstig die regsgeleerde advies, want dit is heeltemaal duidelik daaruit dat die Regering goed bewus was daarvan dat die kontrakt moontlik altans, van toepassing is op of moes geld ook vir Suidwes. Uit die kontrakt self lyk dit nou dat die maatskappy met afneming van die regte, wat vandag bestaan, van ’n paar mense of maatskappye om koelkamers te hê, die reg verkry het dat niemand anders toegelaat sal word, dat niemand anders vryelik daar sal kan gaan om koelkamers op te set en te eksploiteer nie. Die Eerste Minister mag dit plooi soos hy wil maar dis ’n monopolie en niks anders nie. En nou wens ek korteliks te verwys daarna wat die inhoud van die monopolie vir Suid-Afrika sal beteken. Die Eerste Minister het gesê, dat hy dit beskou as te wees in die belang van die bevolking van Suid-Afrika dat hierdie regte aan die Imperial Cold Storage toegekend sal word.

Dit is so.

Ek beweer dat dit nie lang sal wees vóórdat dit bewys sal word dat die kontrakt een van die meest nadelige kontrakte en een van die meest nadelige voorregte is wat ooit deur die Regering aan enige liggaam of persoon verleen is. Aan daardie liggaam word nou die uitsluitende regte—met inagneming van bestaande liggame wat koelkamers daar dryf— die uitsluitende regte toegeken om koelkamers daar op te rig en daarvoor word aan die maatskappy oor 300,000 morge grond verleen om dit te doen, sodat hulle die nodige weiveld en anders sal hê om beesboerdery of skaapboerdery uit te voer op grote skaal en te kan voortset, sodat die maatskappy wat die monopolie daar het in posiesie sal wees dat in tye van drukking op die bevolking van Suidwes hulle in die geleentheid sal wees om al die skape en beeste op te koop vir ’n appel en ’n ei. Die maatskappy het in werkelikheid al reeds beeste in die gebied opgekoop vir 15s. tot £1 10s., maar ’n hoeveelhede vir 15s. In die vervolg sal hulle geen konkurensie hê en enig persoon of liggaam wat sal wil intree en sal wil probeer om daar iets uit te maak deur middel van koelkamers of deur die verskeping van vleis, sal daarin belet word, en die maatskappy sal die enigste wees wat in staat sal wees om dit te doen; hulle sal feitelik die enigste wees en hulle sal nie alleenig in die posiesie geplaas wees dat hulle alles sal kan inkoop teen die laagste prvs nie, maar wat sal dit verder beteken? Die maatskappy sal in die besit wees van oor 300,000 morge oor verskillende parte daar, en wanneer in die vervolg daar ’n styging sal wees in die pryse van vee en die styging enigsins boë die pryse is wat die maatskappy wil, dan sal hulle net een ding behoef te doen. Hulle behoef dan net allenig te sê: “Ek sal nie nou koop nie, en ek onttrek my van die mark en in die tussentyd vir die vleis wat ek moer uitvoer en wat nodig is vir my koelkamers, sal ek my verlaat op die duisende en honderdduisende beeste en skape wat ek in my gronde het.” En hulle behoef hulle dan net vir ’n paar maande uit die markt te onttrek en die styging wat plaas gevind het sal dan weer volg. In ander woorde, die maatskappy sal in die posiesie geplaas word om die markt te regelementeer op die meest voordelige wyse vir hulleself. En ek vra nou of dit iets is wat die land goed sal doen en in die besonder of dit iets is wat die Suidwes goed sal doen. Ons het nou deur die kontrakt ’n groot monopolie gestig op Walvisbaai. Ons het feitelik ’n monopolie hier in Kaapstad, en ooral langs die kuste is ons besig, tot aan die Limpopo toe om die hele Suid-Afrika met ’n muur te omsingel waar die koelkamers en viral die Imperial Cold Storage van alles het. Ek ontken ten sterkste dat dit in die belang van Suid-Afrika sal wees. En ek vra met watter reg ons, as die sogenaamde voogde oor die arme Suidwes, dit kan doen? Een van die eerste stappe wat ons neem as voogde om te sien hoe ons agter die belange van die land sal kyk, is om ’n monopolie, ’n konsessie, ’n monopolistiese konsessie te verleen so groot as daar nog nooit een verleen is in daardie gebied nie, ’n monopolie en ’n konsessie wat soas ek eergister gesê het alreeds die grootste onheil veroorsaak het. Ons as die voogde van die arme mense kan tog seker ’n beter diens bewys dan om die soort van kontrakt op hulle af te palm, ’n soort van kontrakt waarop ons hier altyd met afskuwing op afgesien het. Ek wil weet wat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister hierop te vertel het. Ek sal daar met belangstelling na luister.

Ongelukkig het ek veel hierop te sê, en ongelukkig is ek verplig in paaiemente van 10 minute te spreek. By die laaste geleentheid hét ek daar reeds op gewys dat wat die Unie betref, daar nie die minste kwessie is, dat die oplossing in die belang van die Unie is. Dit is onteenseglik in ons belang. Verlede jaar was daar 53,000 beeste uit Suidwes na die Unie ingevoer—meer as uit Rhodesië, of uit die Protektoraat, of uit enige ander deel. En daar was 258,000 skape ingevoer. As ons nie ’n opening maak in Suidwes vir die verkoop of die afset van hulle vee op die manier soos hier gedaan word nie, dan moet ons vir lief neem dat ons in steeds toenemende mate die afsetgebied vir daardie dele sal word.

Mag hul dan onder die kontrak niks hier invoer nie?

Die kontrak belet geen invoer nie. Maar die edele lid sal verstaan dat hoe meer ons die kanale na die wereld markte open, hoe meer sal ons die druk, die pressie op die Unie markte verminder. Die edele lid het my gevra met watter reg ons die produsente in Suidwes verbind het onder die kontrak? Ek wil hierop sê, dat die produsente in Suidwes deur deputasies by die Unie Regering gekom het en dat hul die Unie Regering gebid en gesmeek het om ’n uitweg te vind. Daar was geen ander oplossing aan die hand gegee nie, behalwe om ’n ander mark vir hulle te kry. Ons het toe met die deputasies ooreengekom dat ons tenders sou vra vir die oprigting van koelkamers in die dele. Daar word toe om tenders gevra, en daar het twee tenders ingekom. Die ene was die tender van die Koelkamer Maatskappy wat aangeneem is, en die ander was van die boere daar; die laaste tender het voorgestel, dat die Regering die nodige finansies sou verskaf, en ’n volmaakte monopolie vir uitvoer na oorsee en Suid-Afrika sou opsit, en onder die twee voorwaardes was hulle bereid dit te onderneem. Die Regering sou elke penny moet verskaf en sou hulle ’n monopolie moet gee om na buite en na die Unie uit te voer. Dan sou hulle daarop ingaan. Wel, die Regering was nie bereid om dit te doen nie— hulle kon dit nie doen nie; hulle kon hulle nie die geld gee en dit ’n Unie onderneming maak nie.

Wat omtrent Liebigs?

Ek sal daarby kom. Die Regering het moet terugval op die tender van die Koelkamer Maatskappy. Die Regering het sy beste gedoen om Liebigs in te kry en die Komitee sal sien dat in die kontrak oor Liebigs gepraat word; ons was toe in onderhandeling met hulle gewees. Maar daardie maatskappy het dit aan my duidelik gemaak, dat daar geen profyt vir hulle in was nie en hulle was nie bereid daarmee aan te gaan nie en die gevolg was dat nadat ons alle poginge aangewend het, en nadat ons alle kanale ondersoek het, het ons op die enigste aanbod moet terugval, die enigste aanbod wat vir ons oop was, namelik die van die Imperial Cold Storage. Die aanbod is goedgekeur deur die Adviserende Raad in Suidwes. Die Adviserende Raad bestaan vernaamlik uit boere, die grootste boere daar, Duitsers sowel as Afrikaners. Hulle gee raad aan die Administrateur, en hulle het unaniem hierdie kontrak, die monopolie, goedgekeur. Maar die Administrateur was nog nie tevrede nie. Hy het ’n aantal vergaderinge by mekaar geroep in al die vernaamste sentra in Suidwes en hy het die kontrak uitgelê aan die boere en hy het hulle gevra of hulle daarmee sou instem. En wat het gebeur? Die kontrak word goedgekeur deur die publiek in Suidwes by elke vergadering, deur die hele gebied heen. Daar is geen twyfel, dat die publiek in Suidwes gebid en gesmeek het om ’n uitweg te vind; en die uitweg wat aan die hand gegee word, word goedgekeur deur dieselfde publiek. En hulle het gemeen, dat dit in hulle belang was. Ons hier in die Parlement, soos ons nou saamgestel is, kan nie spreek vir die belange van die mense daar nie. Daarom moet hulle vir hulle self praat, en hulle het gepraat, hulle het deur die Adviserende Raad, en deur publieke vergaderinge, gepraat. Hulle het gesê, dat hulle dit goedkeur, en ek meen dat dit noodlottig sal wees as dit nou in twyfel getrek word. Die edele lid noem dit ’n monopolie, die kontrak wat ons aan die Imperiale Koelkamers te Walvisbaai gegee het vir 15 jaar. Ek het al baie monopolies geken, maar nog nooit so een as hierdie nie, welke die Regering met ses maande kennisgewing kan oorneem en onteien. Ek herhaal, dat ek baie monopolies geken het, daarmee groot geword, byna daaraan doodgegaan het. Ek het jare in die veld deurgebring cor monopolies, maar nog nooit een gesien as hierdie een nie. Die Regering kan met ses maande kennisgewing die waarde vasstel deur middel van arbitrasie, en dit dan oorneem. Ons moet nie probeer om politieke kapitaal te slaan uit ’n saak, wat in die belang is van die land, as ooit ’n kontrak dit was. Dit is nie enkel in die belang van die boer van die Unie nie, maar ook van die boer van Suidwes. Daar mag dispuut wees oor ander aspekte van die saak, maar nie oor die belang daarvan nie; daaroor kan nie die minste twyfel bestaan nie. Dit word gesê, dat die Koelkamer Maatskappy gaat ’n konkurrent word met die boer oor daardie grond, welke aan hulle gegee is en wat nodig is om die van die boer gekogte vee bymekaar te maak.

Daardie hele uitgestrektheid?

Die edele lid weet wat land daar is. As van grond in Suidwes gepraat word, moet mens nie skrik vir die grootte nie. Die grond lê op die Omatakoevlakte, waar niemand woon nie, geen witman en geen kaffer nie en niemand nie; daar is geen water nie, en die vyf jaar is aan die mense gegee om te boor na water en te kyk of dit bestaanbaar ís.

Hulle gee pragtige prospektusse van die grond uit.

Dit doet mense altoos. Die grond word vir die eerste vyf jaar gegee vir byna niks met die bedoeling, soas deur my uitgelê, maar vir die daaropvolgende tien jaar betaal hulle ’n stywe huur, wat neerkom op byna £10,000 vir die gehele periode van tien jaar. Die bedoeling van die grond is om die beeste, welke hulle van die boere koop, wat dit nie sou beantwoord om daar te laat nie, op te voer en in kondisie te breng op ’n plek, wat vir die doel geskik is.

Is dit net vir slag doeleindes gegee?

Ja, dit is net vir die slagbeeste bedoel. Maar daar is twee plase in die Outje distrik ook aan dieselfde maatskappy toegeken, wat oorspronkelik vir nedersettingsdoeleindes bestemd was. Toe die plase geadverteer werd, was die Koelkamers Maatskappy ook die enigste applikant en ek moet eerlik sê, dat ek liewer sou gesien het dat ander daar ingekom het; maar dit was noodsaaklik, dat daar mense inkom, wat die boerdery en die veestapel kon verbeter. Nou val dit nog alles op die Administrasie; hulle voer stamboek bulle en ander beeste in om die rasse te verbeter.

Hoe groot is die twee ranches?

250,000 hektare, maar dit is ’n helemaal aparte transaksie, wat nie in verband staat met die saak wat ons tans bespreek nie. Dit is ’n konsessie van grond en hoewel dit groot lyk, is dit feitelik woestyn.

The right hon. the Prime Minister’s remarks may be most interesting, but I think they are rather wide of the mark.

No, they are not.

May I just make a few remarks about the fact that there was only one tender. In matters of this sort, we can only get one tender so long as we have got only one predominate influence in the country, just the same as the right hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries does not get tenders from American and other capitalists for his mining areas. Dog does not eat dog in these big financial circles. The case the right hon. the Prime Minister put up, would have been very pertinent to a motion moved by him in this House, ratifying this contract as provided by the Act of Parliament; but my point is, that the right hon. the Prime Minister had no business to enter into this contract, in view of the Act of Parliament, which distinctly says that no such concession shall be given without the consent of Parliament. I am entitled to take some interest in this matter, because I have been turning up the Votes and Proceedings of 1919, when this Act was passed, and I find I put a notice on the paper for a new clause, on 12th September of that year, which reads—

That appeared on the paper in pursuance of my notice after the second reading, and the Government itself, when the Bill came to that place, through the hon. the Minister of Lands, moved a new clause to follow Clause 3 (now Section 4 of the Act of 1919) as it stood in the Bill. In view of the Government, as I thought, complying with the intention of my proposed clause and incorporating what I had given notice of, and what they said they agreed to, I agreed to this new clause of mine being dropped. The new one is sub-section (2), which I have read many a time, but now the right hon. the Prime Minister says that is all very well, but when I agreed to that I knew the elasticity of sub-section (1), and under sub-section (1) he claims that it is quite legitimate to give away 2,000 square miles of territory. If that is the case let us look out in this country; if the Government has got the power under the Land Settlement Act to give away 2,000 square miles of country.

It is the same in the Transvaal. It is simply the powers we have in the Transvaal.

From my point of view that is not playing the game. The right hon. the Prime Minister knows perfectly well that he can never give away such huge areas under that Act.

We have given away big areas before not so big, but still very big.

No, never. That is my complaint. I notice in a communication which appeared in this morning’s press, from the pen of the right hon. the Prime Minister, that he prides himself on the broad and healthy principles of the South African Party.

Yes, yes.

And our complaint is that they are so broad that no Act of Parliament can confine them. They stretch outside the limits of this Act to the extent of 2,000 square miles of territory. They are too broad. And, as for the healthiness of the principles as exemplified here, well, I think they are most unhealthy. They are healthy for certain persons who are in good odour with the Government, but whether healthy for the country is another matter. I want to put it to this House and the right hon. the Prime Minister, that in this House here we do not want to be chaffering like a lot of pettifogging attorneys, pretending to be giving way, and really not carrying out the promises. The whole object of this clause, which the right hon. the Prime Minister himself four years ago agreed to put into the Bill, was to prevent concessions being given. Once you begin giving concessions, unless they are subjected to the most searching scrutiny of Parliament—we do not say the Government shall not give any concessions, right or interest, but we say it shall not do so without the consent of Parliament, because the sanction of Parliament provides the closest scrutiny and prevents a process beginning by which, if one little thing is allowed to pass, will lead eventually to political corruption. My complaint is that first of all the Government itself should not be the body to try and find some sort of legal quibble by which it can get through an Act of Parliament. There is too much of that outside. But for the Government itself to enter on that course and to try and give a concession without coming to Parliament, is wrong, and it becomes ten times more wrong when that concession is given to a company of which the leading spirit and controlling influence is a person who is an ex-colleague and intimate political ally of the Government. That I think ought not to be done. If we do that once—it might be with a perfectly laudable motive— we would do it next time with a less laudable motive. Once we get into the way of giving concessions, particularly to our political friends, without coming to Parliament for confirmation, one is opening the way for very unhealthy principles, and I say that the broad and healthy principles of the South African Party seem to me, in some respects, much too broad, and in others very unhealthy. On these grounds I shall vote for the motion. It is not in accordance with the intention of Parliament that concessions of land of this magnitude should be granted by the Government, before laying the matter before Parliament, and giving their reasons, then Parliament could give them the closest scrutiny. The Government should not have strained the law as they have done, and they certainly should not do so when the person concerned is one of their own political allies. It is wrong, indefeasible, indiscreet, and one of those things which should not have been done, but if it had been inevitable, then it should have been laid before the House. The more we feed one monopoly, the more certain we are to get no tenders from anyone who has power to carry out a contract satisfactorily, except from the one powerful group to whom the monopoly has been granted.

I should not like the remarks of the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) to pass without some reply. My remarks were not irrelevant when I addressed myself to the question of legality. The question of policy was raised by the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog). In reply to the question of policy I stated that this contract was not only defensible, more than defensible, in the interest of the country. The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) has addressed himself to the question of legality and propriety of the grant which the Government has given. I can give the Committee the assurance, neither I, nor the Government, never had the least idea of avoiding any obligation they had undertaken under the Act. I may assure the hon. member that if my attention had been directed towards this point in time, I would not have had the least objection to laying the contract before the House. The day for doing that has passed, but if it had been put before the House we would have avoided the discussion which has been running for days. Take the case in the Northern Transvaal, where this and another party are now competing for another contract. The Government has told them that this contract will not be ratified until confirmed by Parliament. We have not done that because of any violation of the law, but as we wished that the matter should be ratified by Parliament, and that there should be no misunderstanding or suspicion. With regard to this present matter, I must say quite frankly if my attention had been drawn to it, and if I had thought the difficulty would arise, which has arisen, I would have come to the House for confirmation. Unfortunately that was not done. The agreement was drafted by lawyers, and our legal advisers informed us that we were acting legally, and acting on that advice, the Government did not come to the House for confirmation. That was one of the chief reasons why we did not come. There was not the least intention on the part of the Government to avoid, in any shape, legal or moral responsibility resting on us, to bring it before the House. Of course it is now too late. The contract was concluded in 1922, action has been taken thereunder, the terms are being carried out, and it would be ridiculous to bring it before the House now. If, at the last session, when the House was in full possession of the facts, hon. members had raised the point, it might have been open for us to bring the contract before the House for confirmation. However, that has not been done. I am told that all we have done is legal, and I admit that under the terms of the law hon. members may have some grievance. But as far as the remarks made by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) are concerned, I maintain the Government has acted perfectly bona fide, and it was not necessary for them, under another sub-section, to bring the contract before the House. The Government then has acted perfectly bona fide, and with the only intention of benefiting the producers, both here and in South West Africa. We have not been influenced by any consideration for our friends, either political or personal. We have simply tried to solve the problem, which is one of the biggest troubles in this country, namely, to find outside markets for the producers, and whatever Government is in power will have the same difficulty, unless we are prepared to spend public money over these works. [An Hon. Member: “Why not?”] I should not like this Government to embark on cold storage—it is much too risky. If you look over South Africa, and see the millions that has been put into cold storage by companies, many of which are insolvent, you would not want to do so. I think, on the whole, we have acted in the public interest, and not from a matter of political or personal friendship. Members have roasted me for days, and I think we might as well get on with this business, as it is very urgent. We must get the financial business of the country through this, and another place, before March 31st. We have wasted a lot of time on one single matter, to which quite enough public notice has been drawn.

Ek wil nie die saak ophou nie en sal probeer om so kort moontlik te wees; maar ek denk darem dat die saak beter bespreek moet word. Ek wens die edelagbare die Eerste Minister daarop te wys, dat die argument, by die begin van die debat gebesig, dat dit nie ’n kontrak was, wat Suidwes geld nie, is na die maan, want die konsessie gaat oor 300,000 hektare grond van Suidwes se gebied. Nou wil ek vraag, dat as die Regering ooit daartoe oorgaat om die kontrak oor te neem van die Imperial Cold Storage Company is dit dan ’n onderdeel van die kontrak, dat dan ook daardie konsessie verval. Dit is ’n belangryke vraag, want U siet dadelik dat as dit nie die geval is nie, dan sou die oorneem van die koelkamers niks beteken nie; as hulle namelik kan bly sit met 300,000 hektare grond. Ek wens verder korteliks te antwoord op wat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister gesê het ter verdediging op onse kritiek, dat namelik die kontrak ten voordele is van die Unie want nou sal vee, wat anders onse mark sou kom oorstok, na Europa toe uitgevoer word. Maar ek wil daarop wys dat die afstand van De Aar na Walvisbaai is 1,184 myl en neem daarby nog die 500 myl van De Aar na Johannesburg, dan is dit byna 1,684 myl, dat die vee moet afleg om op onse mark te kom. Die konsessie word sodoende verleen oor vee, wat nooit op ons mark sal kom nie. Dus wat die Unie betref, gaat dit oor vee, wat net hierheen aangeiaag sou kon word of per spoor, as die tarief dit sou toelaat, maar dit is vee, wat daar ver bruik sou word. Onder bestaande omstandighede is daar weinig vee wat nie tog nog hierheen sal kom, wat nie ook sou gekom het, as daardie konsessie nie verleend was nie; dit is sover van Walvisbaai af, dat die konsessie die posiesie byna nie sal affekteer nie. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister verklaar, dat die inwoners van Suidwes die Regering gevraag het om tog vir hulle vee ’n mark te vind. Hulle kon dit nie vind op die terme, deur hulle voorgeleg nie en is toe daartoe oorgegaan, met advies van die Adviserende Raad van Suidwes tot uitvoering van die skema, welke hierin begrepe is en die volk van Suidwes het daarmee ingestem. Ek kan dit goed verstaan want die mense het verkeer onder omstandighede, dat hulle moes doodgaan en dat hulle dus enige strooitjie sou aangryp, wat redding of verligting kon breng, maar dit is geen regvaardiging vir die Regering om van die slegte, dog tydelike toestand gebruik te maak om hulle te bind vir die toekoms deur daardie kontrak nie, wat vir altoos die mes op die keel hou. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister sê: “Nee, ons kan dit te enige tyd oorneem,” maar dit is één ding om dit te kan oorneem, wanneer daar nog niks gedaan is nie en ’n ander, as daardie mense na jare, wat hulle noem, verbeterings aangebreng het, wat hulle ver bokant die waarde sal skat; om dan te praat van oorneem, sal miljoene kos— ons sal miljoene moet betaal vir wat ons vandag hier gedaan het. Dit is duidelik, dat as dit dieselfde kontrak is as die van die 300,000 hektare grond, dan sal die mense hulle daar vasgraaf en inplant, sodat oor tien jaar sal geen Unie Regering daartoe durf oorgaan om daardie kontrak oor te neem nie. Die gevolg gaat wees dat ons die mense van Suidwes gaat oorlaat aan die genade van die Imperial Cold Storage. Dit is my vrees—ek het dit gevoel—en dis my plig om dit uit te spreek, dat die Regering nie reg gehandel het teenoor die Huis nie, om die kwessie aan die oorweging en aandag van die Huis te onttrek. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het net gesê dat die kwessie nou voor die Huis is en gevra watter verskil dit maak, of die saak vroeër voor die Huis gebring sou geword het. Dit maak ’n groot verskil, of die kontrak eers aangeneem is deur die Regering, al is dit nog nie in werking getree nie, of dat die kontrakt-ontwerp eers voor die Huis gelê geword was. Nou die kontrak eenmaal deur die Regering aangeneem is, voel ons almal, dat die eer van die Regering opgehou behoor te word, dat die eer van die Staat dit eis en dat die Huis nie daartoe oor kan gaan om die kontrak nou te ontsenu nie, maar voordat die kontrak gekonfirmeer was gewees, het ons kan sê: “Kyk julle gaan nou ’n verkeerde stap neem.” Ek hoop dat die Regering in die toekoms nie van die koers sal afwyk, om eers sake voor die Huis te bring nie. Ek is bevrees dat nou iets gedoen is, wat ons nie moes gedoen het nie en dat ons daaroor later bitter berou gaan hê.

Ek glo nie, dat die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) enige informasie ontvang het van die boere van Suidwes nie. As hy die belange van die boere van Suidwes behartig, as hy namens hulle spreek, dan het hy die informasie nodig. Daar is verskillende boere van my kiesafdeling na Suidwes getrek, en ek het informasie ontvang dat hulle baie dankbaar is dat die kontrak aangeneem is.

Hulle is net so kortsigtig as die edele lid daar.

Deurdat die kontrak aangeneem is, is die pryse van beeste baie gestyg in Suidwes. Die edele lid vir Turffontein (Maj. Hunt) het melding daarvan gemaak, dat beeste nou verkoop word teen £5, dog het is een feit, dat vóór die kontrak daar was, beeste by die honderde te koop was teen £1 10s. en £2 per stuk.

Dit het hoegenaamd niks met die kontrak te doen nie. Die pryse was so laag, omdat die land onder “martial law” was.

Die edele lid weet miskien iets van die toestand in Namaqualand, maar hy weet niks van die toestande in Suidwes nie, en iedereen weet dat voor drie jaar daar geen “martial law” was, die lid het dit gedroom. Ek spreek van mense wat daar ingetrek het, wat persoonlik daar woon, en die toestande is soos ek gesê het. Die edele lid vir Turffontein (Maj. Hunt) het ook melding gemaak van die “bounty,” wat in die sak van die Imperial Cold Storage sal gaan. Voor ek die informasie gekry het, het ek ook so gevoel en gedag, maar nadat ek die saak ondersoek het vmd ek dat dit die beste ding is vir die mense daar, en daarom wil ek ook die informasie ter kennis van die Huis bring. Die “bounty” word deur die Administrateur betaal alleen op beeste wat uitgevoer word, as die “receipt” ven die beer direkt kan getoon wordt, dat hy minstens £5 gekry het vir elke bees. Anders kry die Imperial Cold Storage geen bloue duit nie. Dit is die waarheid en dit is die toestand. Sedert die kontrak aangeneem is, kry die boere beter pryse vir hulle beeste. Dit is die feite en dit is duidelik dat die kontrak goed is en in die belang van die boere. Ek het ook ander gevoelens gehad, maar na ek die informasie gekry het, is ek daarvan oortuig dat die kontrak goed is. Dit is natuurlik gemaklik om politiek daaruit te wil slaan, maar dit doen niks af aan die feite nie. Wat nog meer is, die Regering het nie somar die kontrak gegee aan die Imperiale Koelkamers, maar daar was tenders gevra. Twee tenders het ingekom en die beste is geneem en soos ek verstaan is die kontrak nie alleen tot voordeel van die mense in Suidwes, maar ook vir ons beesboere hier in die Unie. Laaste jaar is daar 52,000 beeste ingevoer naar ons markte. Nou, as al die beeste uitgevoer word naar andere lande, dan sal dit ook tot voordeel wees van die Kaap Provinsie. Laat ons dinge reg in die gesig kyk. Ek is seker, en edele lede daar sal dit met my eens wees, dat die Administrateur goed sal kyk na die belange van die boer en onder die kontrak het hy die reg om die kontrakt te vernietig. Ek dink dat wat gedoen is, gedoen is in die beste belange van die boere en ook in belang van die beesboerdery bedryf in Suidafrika.

The right hon. the Prime Minister said that this contract is not only for the benefit of farmers in South-West Africa, but also for farmers in the Union. I will deal with the farmers in South-West Africa first. Here we have an agreement entered into without the farmers of South-West Africa ever being consulted. They were never consulted, nor asked whether they wished for such a contract.

They actually tendered!

I will read what they have to say about it. I am speaking about this particular agreement, which our law says should have come before Parliament for ratification. The tenders simply asked for the erection of cold storages; this is the agreement I am speaking of, and I distinctly say that the farmers were never consulted in connection with this agreement, and many of them do not know the terms of it to-day. I say that this agreement hands over their stock as regards export to a monopoly, and there is not one mention of the minimum price which the farmer has to get for his livestock. This is what one of the leading farmers in South-West Africa has to say about it. He was one who went to all the trouble to get the farmers to combine—

Who signed the letter?

I will tell you. It is a gentleman who got the farmers together. Mr. Procter, a gentleman of the highest standing in South-West Africa, and who got the farmers to the point of putting up the money for the exporting of these cattle themselves. A ship left Cape Town yesterday, the s.s. “Sandown Castle,” which had been fitted up by Capt. Duncan Smith on behalf of these farmers to take 350 head of cattle overseas, and as soon as they open their market Sir David Graaff can come along and say: “I have got a monopoly for three years.” Is that playing the game? The right hon. the Prime Minister said the other night that the Administrator of South-West Africa was prepared to finance a shipment of this description, when I interjected:“But when the farmers went to him he withdrew his offer.” The right hon. the Prime Minister gave the secret away when he said that the Administrator was prepared to finance a shipment of cattle through the Farmers’ Co-operative Meat Industries. It seems to me there is only one channel through which the Government will do anything, i.e., through the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company or its subsidiary companies. What does the agreement say? Coming to the Union farmer, it says—

That means this. All these facilities which have been provided at Walvis Bay, and they seem to be considerable, judging from the general manager of railways report, these privileges are all going to be placed at the disposal of the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company to bring meat and livestock into the Union. What opposition can compete on our railways against traffic by sea, to places like Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London, and so forth? There can be no competition at all. If ever there was a monopoly this is one. It is going to hit the farmers in South-West Africa and the Union very hard. The agreement further says—

If that agreement means anything it means this. That this company can claim to have its stock transported from any part of South-West Africa to Walvis Bay at export rates, rates which we cannot get, rates which the Union farmer cannot get. They can get these rates and ship the stuff at Walvis Bay and bring it back to the Union. The hon. the Minister of Railways shakes his head, but that is the agreement. That is something which has to be looked into. It says that after the end of the 15 years, after all these things being provided by the railways and the Administration, that unless the Administration is prepared to buy the company out this company has these facilities intact at Walvis Bay, and can continue its business on its own account for all time. Right in our port, and it is all very fine for the right hon. the Prime Minister to say: “We are not going in for cold storage.” I say, and I am pretty well backed up, that until the Government does provide cold storage at our docks, the farmers in this country will remain in the hands of cold storage companies. They are there now. I speak on good authority; on the authority of the Under-Secretary for Agriculture. He made the statement, and the farmers are at present in the hands of the cold storage companies. What he said is quite true.

Ek het met aandag geluister na die uitleg van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister met betrekking tot die noodsaaklikheid van uitvoer van vee uit Suidwes en ek twyfel nie in die minste daaraan nie, dat die uitvoer van vee uit Suidwes na ander lande, die markte van die Unie aanmerkelik kan help. Daaraan het ek nie die minste twyfel nie. Die kontrak is opgetrek deur die Administrateur met goedkeuring van die Adviserende Raad en daarom sal die kontrak moet wees in die belang van die boer in Suidwes. Ek wil dan ook me verder oor die kontrak praat nie, maar ek wil graag meer informasie hê omtrent die meer as 300,000 morge grond wat toegestaan is aan die Imperial Cold Storage. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het vir ons duidelik verklaar, dat op die grond geen witman en geen kaffer lewe nie, dat die daar nie kan bestaan nie en dat daar geen water is nie. En tog word die grond onder konsessie gegee aan die Imperial Cold Storage om vee vet te maak. Dis vir my darem onverstaanbaar en ek dink, dat dit iets is wat indruis teen die belang van die boer en ek vrees, dat as uiteindelik die Administrasie daartoe mag oorgaan om die monopolie of die konsessies te kanseleer—dit kan ieder kind verstaan—dan sal die Administrasie nie maar so die konsessies kan kanseleer nie, maar hy sal moet betaal vir die wateronkoste ens., wat daar gemaak is. Die sal uitbetaal moet word. En die koste wat gemaak is vir die boor na water op die 300,000 morge grond, kan hulle miskien op enig bedrag vasstel wat hulle mag goed dink en dit onmoontlik maak vir die Administrasie om die ooreenskoms te kanseleer en die grond terug te neem. Ek moet erken, dat ek nie veel van die land van Suidwes afweet nie, maar my ondervinding is, dat dit absoluut onmoontlik is om vee op 300,000 more grond te hou om vet te maak. Daarom is dit heeltemaal onnodig om enige maatskappy in die besit van soveel grond te stel. Daar sit vir my—ek wil nie graag suspiesie wek nie—iets agter die saak en ek kan die konsessie nie verstaan nie. En daar kom die groot held, die edele lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers) en verklaar dat die kontrak die gevolg het gehad, dat die pryse aanmerkelik gestyg is. Het edele lede oor die belaglikheid daarvan nagedink? Waar is die mense wat kompeteer met betrekking tot die aankoop van vee, waardoor die pryse alleen aanmerkelik kan styg? My informasie—en ek dink dat die net so gegrond is, as die van die edele lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers)—is dat beeste byna onverkoopbaar is in Suidwes en wanneer so ’n groot stuk grond beskikbaar gestel word vir enige maatskappy, dan betwyfel ek of dit in die belang van die boer sal wees. Ek is amper seker daarvan dat die groot gronde gebruik sal word om die vee van die boere so goedkoop moontlik te kry. Die edele lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers) het gepráát van ’n prys van £5, vir beeste. Ek weet nie daarvan nie.

Selfs tot £7 word betaal.

Ek sal bly wees as dit so is. Verder is hier gesê, dat die premie alleen betaal sal word op beeste wat minstens £5 gekos het. Ek weet nie van die bepaling af nie, maar as dit so is, dan sal ek bly wees.

Ja, dit is so.

Maar een ding is vir my seker, dat die pryse deur die konsessies wat daar gegee is bepaald nie sal stýg nie, tensy daar kompetiesie sal wees in die aankoop van die vee, en ek sal baie bly wees om wat meer informasie te hê omtrent die grondkonsessie. Die eksplanasie van die edelagare die Eerste Minister, dat die grond terug geneem kan word—soos hy dit voorstel—is glo ek, nie bevredigend nie, want die koelkamers sal baie moeilikhede kan maak in die verband.

As die edele lid die informasies wil hê, waar hy na gerefereer het, dan sal hy die antwoord kan kry van die Administrateur, dat die “bounty” nie betaal word nie, tenzij die boer minstens £5 kry vir sy beeste. En na die kontrak aangeneem is, is die pryse van die beeste opgegaan, nie tot £5 alleen, maar selfs tot £7 per bees en as die edele lid vir Cradock (de hr. I. P. van Heerden) na Suidwes wil gaan, dan sal hy vind dat mense daar minstens 8 hektare grond nodig het vir ieder bees om die vet te maak en as die edele lid die informasie het, dan sal hy met my saamstem, dat die paar honderdduisend morge grond wat aan die maatskappy gegee word, nie te veel is nie. Volgens kontrak moet die Imperial Cold Storage ieder week 150 beeste en van 200 tot 300 skape uitvoer of verwerk voor uitvoer en dus het hulle die grond wel nodig.

Ek dink dat dit die Huis baie sou interesseer om die opienie van die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorwee te hoor omtrent die monopolie. Ons ken die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorwee en herinner ons hoe hy, toe hy nog lid van die Opposiesie was, beswaar gemaak het teen die verleen van ’n monopolie aan die Cold Storage Maatskappy. Ek wil die edelagbare die Eerste Minister vra of hy die Huis wil laat glo dat die Imperial Gold Storage Maatskappy die kontrak aangegaan het as ’n liefdadigheidsgenootskap ten behoewe van die boere van Suidwes Afrika, of as ’n besigheidsonderneming? Die edelagbare die Minister weet dat die kontrak aangegaan is, alleen as besigheidsonderneming en niks anders nie. Vanmiddag hoor ons ad nauseam uitlatinge, asof die Imperial Cold Storage Maatskappy na Suidwes gegaan het om die boere daar te red van ondergang.

Wie het die argument gebruik?

Dit lê op die agtergrond van die argumente, selfs van die argumente van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister. Herinner die edelagbare die Eerste Minister hom nog hoe dit geblyk het dat die Imperial Cold Storage Maatskappy twee jaar gelede daarop uit was om 80 persent, indien nie 100 persent, van die vleishandel van die Unie in hande te kry, en toe die edele lid van Kaapstad (Kasteel) (de hr. Alexander) die verlopige oareenkoms op die Tafel van die Huis gelê het, waarna dit verwys is na ’n Selekt Komitee toe dit duidelik geblyk het, dat die bedoeling van die Imperial was om 80 persent van die vleishandel in hande te kry?

Dit het nie duidelik geblyk nie.

Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het dan duidelik vergeet wat gebeur is. As die edelagbare die Eerste Minister net die getuienis wil nalees, dan sal hy sien, dat Sir David Graaff ronduit erken het, dat dit die bedoeling was, maar hy het as verontskuldiging gesê, dat die Meat Exchange hom dit aangebied het en gevra of hy dan so dom moes wees, om dit nie aan te neem nie. Maar nou wil ek graag vra, of die gevolg van die ooreenkoms nie gaan wees nie, dat andere groepe wat belang stel in die veehandel in Suidwes uitgesluit sal word deur die ooreenkoms en of die Imperial Cold Storage nie alle mededinging sal belet deur al die beskikbare skeepsruimte vir vervoer hom toe te eien nie?

Nee, die edele lid vir Turffontein (Maj. Hunt) het net al ’n voorbeeld gegee wat die teendeel bewys.

Verder wil ek graag weet of die Imperial Cold Storage, Maatskappy nie beeste koop nie waarop hulle dan 50 persent betaal en die balans later betaal as hulle aflevering van die beeste neem? Hulle sê aan die boere: “Hou die vee voorlopig, tot ons gereed is om dit in ontvangs te neem?” Wat gaat die effekt daarvan wees? Dit, dat uiteindelik mens tot die posiesie geraak, dat die veeboere niks anders sal wees as bywoners en opsigters van die Imperial Cold Storage Maatskappy nie.

Veewagters.

Juis, ek is bly dat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister my net die regte woord gee. Hulle pas die vee van die Imperial Cold Storage op totdat die Maatskappy die boer kennis gee, dat die vee afgelewer moet word en dan word die balans betaal. Dit skyn presies te wees wat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister graag wil hê. Maar kan die edelagbare die Eerste Minister ons dan kwalik neem, dat ons suspiesie het, as die Regering agterbaks sulke grote kontrakte maak? Die kontrak is alleen op die Tafel van die Huis gelê nadat die edele lid vir Turffontein (Maj; Hunt) dit uitgetrek het, anders sou die Huis daarvan niks geweet het nie.

Die rapport van die Administrateur wat laaste jaar op die Tafel gelê is, het die hoofpunte bevat.

Die kontrak is nooit op die Tafel gelê nie.

Die rapport van die Administrateur is op die Tafel van die Huis gelê. En die inhoud van die kontrak was in sy hoofpunte vervat in die rapport.

Was al die besonderhede in die rapport? Was die kontrak in extenso vervat in die rapport?

Al die vernaamste nunte, die hoofpunte van die kontrak, al wat belangrik is was neergelê in die rapport. Nie die ondergeskikte punte nie, maar die belangrikste punte was in die rapport opgeneem en die rapport is op die Tafel van die Huis gelê.

Ek erken, dat my aandag daarby nie bepaal is nie. Ek sal dit natuurlik ook nagaan en ek wil aanneem, dat dit so is, maar ek wil die edelagbare die Eerste Minister vra waarom die kontrak self nooit direk onder die aandag van die Huis gebring is nie en waarom alleen die rapport op die Tafel geplaas is? Verder wil ek die edelagbare die Eerste Minister vra of die effek van die ooreenkoms nie gaat wees, dat die konsessies wat betref Suidwes vir goed in hande van die Imperial Cold Storage kom nie? Die ooreenkoms mag goed wees vir die oomblik, daar mag ’n tydelike verhoging van pryse wees. Ons het ervaring gehad in die opsig wat die bedoeling is. Eers word hoë pryse gegee om die hele handel in hande te kry, maar as die eenmaal in die besit van die maatskappy, van die kapitaliste is, dan doen hul net wat hulle wil. Dit is die ondervinding in die verlede, dit is wat die monopoliste in die verlede gedoen het. En die resultaat gaat wees ten koste van die boere en van die publiek. Ek wil daarop wys, dat nie alleen die boer op die end benadeel word nie, maar dat ook die verbruiker daaronder gaan ly. Die feit dat die Imperial Cold Storage die konsessies gekry het, bring hulle ook heelwat nader tot hulle doel om 80 persent van die vleishandel in die Unie in hande te kry. Hulle is nie tevrede nie. Hulle is besig om hulle kloue uit te steek na die veeboer en ook na die verbruiker. Beide sal uiteindelik daaronder gaan ly en daarom sluit ek my volkome aan by die protes teen die verkeerde handelwyse van die Regering wat betref hierdie kontrak.

Laat my, na aanleiding van wat die edele lid vir Humansdorp (de hr. C. W. Malan) gesê het met betrekking tot veewagters daarop wys wat die posiesie is wat nou ontstaan is. Ek rig my in besonder ook tot die edele lid vir Cradock (de hr. I. P. van Heerden), wat te kenne gegee het, dat hy die kontrak wel kan aanneem as die boere daar dit aanneem, maar wat wil weet waarom die Regering so ver gegaan het om die grond te gee. Ek wil die edele lid daarop wys, dat as die grond nie gegee was nie, dan sou die boere in Suidwes altoos die veewagters van die Imperial Cold Storage moet bly. Maar dis nodig dat daar eers water gevind word op die grond. Hier is ’n groot stuk droë grond onder die wet aan die Imperiale Koelkamers toegeken.

Is dit waardeloos?

Ek wil nie sê dat dit waardeloos is nie, dit het ’n sekere waarde maar water moet gevind word. Die posiesie is, dat as nou vee gekoop word van die boere van Suidwes, dan kan die koelkamers die vee nie wegneem nie, want hulle het geen grond om die vee na toe te bring nie. Ons het die grond aan hulle toegeken, en hulle is nou besig om water te soek sodat die vee daarheen geneem kan word. Tydelik sal dus die vee, wat die Koelkamers van die boere koop, nog op die plase moet bly. Dis waar dat die boere daarteen protesteer, hulle wil die vee verkoop en dadelik weg hê van die plaas. Daarom het ons die grond gegee en hulle is nou besig water te soek in die droge wereld daar en daarom is die boere daar op die oomblik as ’t ware veewagters van die Koelkamers. Ek hoop die edele lid sal nou die posiesie goed verstaan. Die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) het my ’n verder vraag gestel, of die Regering wanneer hulle die kontrak terugneem, ook die reg het om die grond terug te neem? Ja, dit is so; die huurkontrak maak voorsiening dat die Regering op enige tyd om publieke redene die grond kan terugneem. Maar laat ons nie hierdie twee kwessies opmeng met die stokpertjie wat die edele lid vir Humansdorp (de hr. C. W. Malan) reeds iare lank gery het nie. Ons in Suid-Afrika verstaan die posiesie goed. Tot op grote hoogte het die vleishandel in Suid-Afrika, vernaamlik wat uitvoer betref, in monopolistiese hande geval—ons weet dit en ons betreur dit.

Ja, deur saam-werking van die Regering.

Nee, nie deur saamwerking van die Regering nie, maar deur die onverbiddelike omstandighede van die land. Die boere het dikwels geprobeer hier uit te kom; die Natal C.F.M.I. het duisende ponde gespandeer, en het uiterste kragte ingespan om uit monopolistiese hande te kom; maar dis die onverbiddelike toestande wat dit belet het. Ons het hier te doen met ’n affêre wat groot bedryfservaring vereis, wat groot kapitaal vereis, groot kennis van sake, en dis nie alleen die geval hier in Suid-Afrika nie, maar dis so in die buiteland ook. En die boere het nie die kennis nie. Dis ’n besigheid wat ooral in die hele wêreld deur specialiste gedrywe word. Ons het herhaalde male geprobeer om hierin tegemoet te kom. Elke poging wat deur boere gemaak is, om koelkamers op te set en te drywe en om self hulle vleis uit te voer, het in duie geval. Ek wil dit sê, ek keur nie goed wat gebeur het nie, maar as ’n lid van die Regering vind ek dit onmoontlik, vind ek, dat ons in die posiesie is waar daar iets gedoen moet word. As een van die kanale, een van die uitgange versper en gesluit is, dan moet ons ’n ander opening kry. Suidwes was in daardie posiesie gewees; daar was niks daar nie. Die enigste ding wat die boere kon voorstel was dat die Regering die kapitaal sou gee en die besigheid sou dry we. Wel, ek is seker, dat die Huis dit nooit sou goedkeur nie. Een seksie sou dit miskien goedkeur, maar die Huis en die volk sou dit seker nooit goedkeur nie, dat ons die kapitaal van die land sou gebruik om koelkamers op te rig. Daardie voorstel was van die Tafel af. Liebigs was ook van die Tafel af; ons het met hulle onderhandel, maar hulle het “nee” gesê. Die Imperial Cold Storage het oorgebly. Had ons aan hulle moet sê “nee, julle is melaats, ons wil niks met julle te doen hê nie?” Sou dit ’n verantwoordelike houding vir enige Regering gewees het? Sou die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), as hy môre of oormôre hier op die setels sit en hy in my plaas was, dit doen? Nee, geen enkele Regering kan dit doen nie.

Maar waar is die beskerming vir die boere onder hierdie kontrak?

Die beskerming is daar dat ’n private maatskappy honderdduisende ponde van sy eie geld sal bestee om koelkamers op te rig en oorseese markte sal soek. Hulle onderneem onder die kontrak om ’n kwart miljoen pond sterling in te set; hulle sal dit nie weggooi nie; hulle onderneem dit voor besigheid en nie vir filantropie nie en dis voor ons ’n waarborg dat hulle die kanale ope sal maak en die vleis uit sal voer.

Hulle sal die vleis so goedkoop moontlik koop.

Wel, hulle het nie ’n volkome monopolie nie. Die uitvoer na die Unie is nog ope; die kontrak belet dit nie. En daarom het hulle nie ’n volmaakte monopolie nie. Dit kan miskien gesê word, dat ons die Unie marke moes gesluit het maar dit lyk my toe, dat dit ’n verkeerde beginsel vir ons sou wees om op in te gaan. Ons het van af die begin gesê, dat ons Suidwes beskou feitelik as ’n deel van die Unie.

Hoor, hoor!

En dat watter grense ons ook trek in Suid-Afrika, daar sal ons dit nie doen nie, en as ’n boer ’n kans sien om sy vee in die Unie te verkoop, dan moet ons hom die kans laat. Dit is derhalwe alleen ’n konsessie vir uitvoer na die buitelandse hawes oorsee, en nie na die Unie nie; dis nie soos die edele lid vir Turffontein (Maj. Hunt) gesê het nie—hul kry alleen ’n kontrak vir uitvoer oorsee na die buitelandse marke, maar nie na die Unie nie.

Maar is dit so?

Ja, dis so; laat my toe paragraaf 8 van die kontrak te lees—

In (b) sê dit duidelik “corsee,” en die beteken natuurlik buite die Unie.

Lees paragraaf 22, en kyk hoe dit daarteen indruis.

Nee, maar dis die paragraaf wat die regte gee en dit sê, dat hulle die uitsluitende reg kry om na buitelandse marke uit te voer. Laat my net toe om hierdie verdere toeligting te gee. Hulle kry die reg vir 15 jaar om dooi vleis uit te voer en drie jaar vir lewende vleis. Twee jaar van die drie is al verby en daar is nog net een jaar oor, maar vir die laaste twee jaar het die Koelkamers gesê, dat enigeen van die publiek lewende vee kon uitvoer.

Ja, nadat hulle al die beskikbare vrag opgeneem het.

Nee, die kwessie van vrag is heel iets anders; maar dis nie die vrag wat hier te pas kom. Daar is die geval van Proctor wat deur die edele lid vir Turffontein (Maj. Hunt) aangehaal is; hy wil ’n lading na Birkenhead vervoer. Tot nog toe het die Koelkamers na die vasteland van Europa gestuur, maar Proctor wil nou die Engelse marke aanval, en ons wens hom alle moontlike sukses toe. Maar die Koelkamers het die uitsluitende reg vir drie jaar teruggetrek; hulle sal nog die reg vir een jaar langer hê, maar daarna sal hulle allenig die reg vir bevrore vleis hê.

Ek wens net terug te kom op die kwessie wat deur die edelagbare die Eerste Minister behandel is en op die punt wat deur die edele lid vir Turffontein (Maj. Hunt) aangehaal is, dat onder hierdie kontrak die Spoorweg Administrasie sig verbind om spesiale fasiliteite te gee vir die vervoer van vee na Walvisbaai, en daar word spesiale hawentariewe gegee vir uitvoer verder. Ek wil nou weet óf dit onder hierdie kontrak nie moontlik is dat die beeste per skip vervoer sal word nie, sê na Durban of na Oost Londen sodat hulle op die manier die Unie sal bereik? Die Minister het gesê, dat wat paragraaf 8 van die kontrak betref, die monopolie alleen gegee is om na die buiteland te vervoer, maar hy het ook gesê, dat daar niks in die kontrak is om te belet nie, dat beeste na die Unie uitgevoer sal word. Maar wat is daar in die kontrak om te belet, dat die maatskappy vee van daar na die Unie sal vervoer per skip? Ons het gehoor, dat die vrag vir die vervoer van beeste en van vleis per skip goedkoper is dan oor die spoorweë. Ek wil weet wat sal gebeur, wat sal word van die voorreg waarvan ons gehoor het om die beeste oor die spoorweg te vervoer—as daar nou spesiale fasiliteit gegee word, dan sal die beeste nie oor die spoorweë maar per skip versonde word.

Nee, dis nie besigheid nie.

Ek is seker, dat dit goedkoper sal wees vir die mense, as hul spesiale fasiliteite en spesiale tariewe kry, om hul beeste per skip te verstuur.

Waar sal hulle die vee stuur—na Johannesburg?

Na Durban, of Oost Londen of na die Kaap, hier na Maitland.

Nee, dis nie prakties nie.

Maar wat is daar om dit te belet? Die Eerste Minister sê dat dit nie prakties is nie—waarom nie?

Dis nie besigheid nie.

Ek kan dit nie sien nie. Wat ons sal sien is dat besigheid, wat die Minister van Spoorweë graag sou wil kry vir die spoorweë, namelik om die beeste oor die spoorweë te vervoer, dat die besigheid verlore sal gaan, en dat spesiale fasiliteite verleen sal word sodat die vee per skip vervoer sal word. Dis ’n ernstige beskcuing van die saak. Maar nou wil ek terug kom op die ander regte wat aan daardie mense gegee is wat hierdie monopolie het, namelik die halwe werelddeel wat hulle vir ’n ranch kry. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het ons vertel, dat dit wettig is, dat dit gedaan is onder die Crown Disposal Ordinance. Die Minister kan nie beweer nie, dat dit die gees van die Ordonnansie is, dat so’n groot deel aan een maatskappy verleen sal word cm op te ranch? Wat het ons hier? 300,000 of 500,000 morge is aan die maatskappy verleen vir beesboerdery. Ons het ’n surplus van beeste hier in die Unie self, en hier gaat ons uit ons pad en moedig ons beesboerdery aan deur ’n groot maatskappy en set ons ’n groot ranch op. Wat is die doel daarvan? Die doel van die ranches is om beesboerdery aan te vang en daar deur sal ons kry, dat die ernstige posiesie van die surplus van beeste in die Unie nog vererger sal word. Ons had gehoop dat deur middel van uitvoer ons in die posiesie sou raak dat sake normaal sou wees en dat boere wat vee teel redelike pryse vir hulle vee sou kan kry, maar hier gaan die Regering uit sy pad om groot stukke land uit te gee en om fasiliteite aan ’n groot maatskappy te verleen om die posiesie nog te vererger in plaas van te verbeter. Dis tog werklik nie in ons belang, met die posiesie waarin ons verkeer, om daardie fasiliteite te verleen nie. Die maatskappy wat die regte het en die fasiliteite het om uit te voer sal in ’n paar jaar se tyd in ’n posiesie wees, dat hulle nie meer nodig sal hê om die beeste van die boere in Suidwes te koop, hulle sal hulle eie vee uitvoer.

Nee, die edele lid ken daardie dele nie. Dis onmoontlik om dit daar te doen.

As dit so is, dan vra ek waarom ons die miljoene gespandeer het om die stuk land te kry as daar nie vooruitsig vir beesboerdery is nie. Nee die bedoeling is om daar beesboerdery uit te oefen op ’n groot skaal en binne ’n aantal jare sal hulle hul maar baie weinig aan die ander boere steur, en dan sal hulle hul eie vee uitvoer. Dit kan ek goed insien. Afgesien van die kontrak, sê ek, dat dit nie volgehou kan word nie, dat dit in die belang van die land is om daardie groot stukke land aan die maatskappy te gee. Dis totaal verkeerd om dit te doen.

Ek dink dat die edele lid wat nou gepraat het ’n besoek aan daardie dele moet maak, dan sal hy sien wat nou werklik ’n armoedsvlakte is.

Is dit nou werklik so sleg?

Daar is goeie dele en daar is slegte dele; die edele lid dink aan Fauresmith.

Volgens die prospektus is dit beter.

Die edele lid moet liewerster aan Boesmansland dink.

Dis pragtige land.

Ek vra ekskuus aan die edele lid vir Namaqualand (de hr. Mostert). Ek glô nie dat men daar ranches kan drywe nie. Dis waar dit lyk as of dit ’n groot grondgebied is.

Des te eerder die Minister daar ’n besoek bring, des te beter. Boesmansland is mooi land.

That land in South-West will carry one ox to five morgen.

Nee, nee, dit sal eerder 10 of 12 morge per bees wees. Dis tenminste die indruk wat die land op my gemaak het; maar ek het nie tegniese kennis nie, ek het net van ’n afstand gesien en ek het gedink, dat dit op die land lyk waar Cain Abel begrawe het. Ek glô derhalwe nie, dat edele lede bang behoef te wees vir die groot stuk grondgebied nie. Dis nie grond soos mens in Fauresmith aantref, hulle kan nie beeste aanteel nie.

Ek praat oor die ranches.

Ja, daar kan hulle dit doen. Die ranches is ’n ander affêre.

Dis waaroor ek gepraat het.

Die ranches is beter grond, dis so. Maar dit het niks met die kontrak te doen wat ons hier bespreek.

Ek het oor die ranches gepraat.

Wel, in die Transvaal het ons onder dieselfde Ordonnansie dieselfde gedoen; ons het nie net soveel grond daar uitgereik, maar ons het taamlik veel uitgereik, taamlik groot stukke. Ek meen, dat die edele lid vir Turffontein (Maj. Hunt) bekend is met die ranches in Zoutpansberg; ons het daar stukke van 30,000 of 40.000 morge uitgegee; maar dis beter grond daar, natuurlik.

It will not carry one ox to the five morgen.

Wel, ek weet nie wat die kapasiteit is nie, maar dis heel iets anders. Die Regering het daardie ranches uitgegee en dit het niks te doen met die kontrak nie. Dit is uitgegee om beesboerdery daar aan te moedig.

En om ’n groter surplus te veroorsaak.

Waarom nie? Ons moet boerdery daar verbeter en aanmoedig.

Die land moet bewerk word.

Maar ek is baie angstig, dat ons met die besigheid van die Huis sal aangaan en dat ons nie al ons tyd op hierdie kwessie sal bestee nie. Ek dink dat hierdie saak nou genoeg uitgepluis is en ons kan werklik nie soveel tyd aan die onderwerp gee nie.

There is not the slightest doubt that in connection with this monopoly, 250,000 hectares of land have been allotted by the Administrator in South-West Africa to the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company, to breed cattle and to do as they like on, and another 250,000 hectares have been given with the object of fattening cattle. When these ranches were advertised, it was distinctly said in the advertisement that they would each carry one head of livestock to five hectares, and yet this company has been given them at a ridiculously low price. I say that the farmers even in South-West Africa cannot stand up in competition against the facilities which has been placed in the hands of the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company to breed and fatten stock in South-West Africa. In connection with the railways, I find here on page 12 of the report of the General Manager—

I would like to know in how far the Railway Administration is spending money on this cold storage. It would not appear here in the General Manager’s Report, unless the Administration was spending something. We know of the £10,000 which is being spent on the foundations. That was evidently given freely. This agreement, this concession, this monopoly, should have come before Parliament for ratification. Then we find on page 39 this statement—

This is the 250 head about which I have been trying to get some information. The right hon. the Prime Minister said 1,175 cattle were exported overseas, and I asked him for the dates on which they were sent, and for the numbers sent by each shipment, but this shipment of 250 head was not mentioned, and this shipment is the only one that comes under the terms of agreement. I wanted to know what the farmers got for those 250 head of cattle, for the agreement distinctly says that anything over 10 per cent. profit should be handed back to the Administrator, to be distributed amongst the owners of that stock. I have not got that information yet, and I have not got the information whether this agreement is to be further suspended in regard to the exportation of livestock for another year. Under the present arrangement it expires on April 1st, and the farmers are sending live stock out to the end of this month, and they wish to continue exporting their live stock themselves.

It is suspended for another year.

These are matters which this House should hear something about. If this agreement is worth anything at all, this House should get the whole of the necessary information about it. Last year the right hon. the Prime Minister said in regard to our Union export—

The same company is now exporting from South-West Africa, and I would like very much to know what the farmers were paid for those cattle; what it costs to send them out of the country, and what the company received in Europe. Mr. Spilhaus said there is not the slightest doubt that there is a good market for cattle in Europe, and that he would have no difficulty in disposing of any quantity which might be shipped. Why cannot that trade be developed? It is this monopoly which is stopping it. These cattle weigh at an average over 600 lbs. dead weight, and, therefore, there is a market for this class of stock. Both Capt. Scotland, in giving evidence before the Livestock Commission, and Mr. Goodall, Chief Veterinary Surgeon of South-West Africa, have said this. Mr. Goodall went so far as to say that 90 per cent, of the stock coming into the Union from South-West Africa were fit for export. I feel strongly on this question, and I feel that the Government has done a wrong thing to enter into this agreement without consulting the farmers; the farmers were not consulted. I feel that the Government had no right to give a monopoly over the farmers’ property before the farmers had agreed, and I feel that seeing the law is as it is, the Government had no right to ratify the agreement, but should have brought it to Parliament for ratification. After all, this is a matter on which I speak, not from any party or political point of view, but purely and simply on behalf of the farmers, as I have done for the last 20 years, and no one can say that I have ever brought party politics into my activities on behalf of the agricultural community. I have always tried to keep my work for the farmers above that, and not to drag it into the party system in the House, and I feel that any farmers’ representative who can sit still, and watch the way things are going in this House in connection with this constant drifting of the farmers’ interests and welfare into the hands of a monopoly, a trust, or a combine, has no right to sit in this House.

As the railway department has been several times mentioned in this connection I may perhaps be allowed a few words. The hon. member for Turffontein (Maj. Hunt) raised the question of spending money on Walvis Bay, and quoted the General Manager’s report. That is perfectly correct; we are spending something over £500,000 at Walvis Bay. We have just had a project within the last two months for the making of a channel right out into the bay from the shore, where we are going to build a wharf, and so forth, for the shipping of livestock and other things as well. I may point out that Walvis Bay is quite a large port; our revenue is something like £30,000, and all these things are being done on account of the Administration of South-West. They guarantee us any loss which might accrue. As I explained to the House last year, or the year before, the Railway Department suffers no loss. We do the best we can, and make the best harbour, as economically as we can, but any loss that might accrue from that harbour will be refunded to us by the Administration of South-West Africa.

How much are we spending on the cold storage.

What we are spending on the cold storage is in the laying out of the foundations. I cannot tell the amount now, but even that is guaranteed by the South-West Africa Administration. We are also laying down the water supply. We have had to bring it over 20 miles in pipes, which is rather an expensive business, but that also is guaranteed to us by the Administration. In fact, all this money we are spending up there at the present moment is on account of the local administration, who guarantee capital and interest on it. My hon. friend raised the question about the facilities. Look at paragraph 22 in that connection—

That is our duty. We provide as much railway facilities all over South Africa as we can—

We try to speed up our railways as much as we can—

That is perfectly in order.

For export?

Export certainly. We charge exactly the same rate for port dues, and so forth, as we charge throughout the Union.

For export?

Yes, certainly. It is only export, and as to coming down to the Union, I have just pointed out what it says here in this connection in paragraph 8.

Paragraph 8, second clause.

There is no monopoly there. [Dissent]. I am coming to the other. There is no monopoly. Would it be fair to say: “You must not export down to the Cape Province or to the Transvaal”? They are simply placed in the same position as any other cattle buyer in that part of the world.

Quite so! No complaint about that.

I do not dispute that.

Or under a permit from the Administrator in his absolute discretion, by sea.

By sea?

Yes, but that is limited. They have to get a permit in every case.

Well?

But he has not given a permit yet. It is strictly limited, and I want to point out that it is a cheap business coming down by sea. We are competing against the sea, and are doing it cheaply. We send goods by De Aar all the way round, and hon. members must remember that it is not just freight that is paid, but dock dues, and other things of that kind, which bring up the charges. To my mind, to carry out what my hon. friend the member for Turffontein (Maj. Hunt) suggests, would be simply absurd. It cannot be done from a business point of view, though I do think my hon. friend need not be at all afraid as regards that. As regards the profits—of course, we have no definite information on that. I have been told they lost money on it, but that is only hearsay. Let me say at once, and it is not our business to find out, in fact, the local administration would be the first to call them to account if they thought that a profit of 10 per cent. had been made, which should be divided amongst the cattle owners. About this monopoly business and the question put to me by my hon. friend the member for Humansdorp (Mr. C. W. Malan)—I was a party to this, naturally, not only in my capacity as a member of the Cabinet, but as it concerned the railways. Before ever the agreement was signed it was sent to me to be looked through from a railway point of view, and I say advisedly, that under the circumstances existing, it was the best bargain that could be made, undoubtedly. As the right hon. the Prime Minister said, we called for tenders, any one could tender, and we did our best. I was present at the meeting, to get Liebig’s people to come along. They went fully into the matter, and it was only after those efforts had been made, and the other tenders turned down, which were not as favourable as this, that we accepted this, and I may point out that already two years have gone by of a term of 15 years. If we could have done better we would have done better, because I quite endorse from knowledge that what the right hon. the Prime Minister has said, that this was done entirely in the interests of the farmers of South-West Africa, and also in some degree to relieve the market from the pressure which exists when they send the cattle down here, and all this talk about political friends’ inference, makes me smile, let me say that at once from inner knowledge. They are about the last people on this earth who have any influence in that direction.

Now we smile.

The whole world over the meat trade is getting into the hands of a few individuals. What is it in the States to-day? In the hands of four men—Swift’s, Armour’s, and two more.

Is it healthy?

No, but we cannot help it.

Oh!

Well, the United States Congress, which has, perhaps, as much brains as this House, has tried to fight it, and still the monopoly exists to-day.

They are not helping them along.

Are we?

Yes, under this contract.

The only thing to do is as they do in the United States. Get a certain amount of control. Wherever economic forces tend towards putting a thing into a few hands, the State cannot stop it. They have tried in the States for some years now to get some kind of control over it.

Where is our control here?

The control will be all right. It is, I consider, from the point of view of the Government and the people of South Africa, quite a good business proposition, and I am absolutely certain that our friends on the other side, if they had been in our position, could not have done any better, possibly not as well.

There are two statements made by the right hon. the Minister which I would like to deal with. He tells us that the Government are in a position that the Administration of South-West Africa is responsible for all the expenditure incurred. And I want to ask the right hon. the Minister whether that responsibility will be treated in the same way as responsibilities have been treated in the past in connection with deficits and expenditure incurred by the Government in connection with South-West Africa? We turn to the Auditor-General’s report, and we find that the Auditor-General draws attention to the fact that the Government have remitted an amount of £1,810,000, owing to the Union Government by the South-West Administration, and the Auditor-General draws the attention of the Secretary of South-West Africa to this question, and this is his reply—

It is pointed out that although this expenditure was incurred up to the end of 1920, and although it may be contended that this was incurred in connection with military operations in South-West Africa, it is pointed out clearly it has nothing whatever to do with war expenditure. An amount of £1,810,000 has been remitted by this Government in favour of the South-West Administration, and then the hon. the Minister for Railways comes and tells us that everything in the garden is lovely, because the Administration of South-West Africa is responsible for any expenditure incurred in connection with this agreement. Then we come to another question, the hon. the Minister made a statement to the effect that all over the world the meat industry is getting into the hands of a few individuals. I take it that the hon. the Minister feels that these people can run it far better than anyone else. The right hon. the Prime Minister when I asked him this afternoon about the consumer said: “I know what the hon. member wants, he wants Government cold storages.” We do not get any protection under this agreement for the consumer, this is never mentioned apart from the Government running cold storages, and if the Government are going to give away 2,000 square miles of this territory to put huge profits into the pockets of private individuals, why cannot they run the whole show also? But to get back to the question raised by the hon. the Minister of Railways and Harbours, he said this industry was getting into the hands of a few individuals in all parts of the world. I say in connection with this that not only this particular industry was getting into the hands of a few individuals, but everything else is getting into the hands of the same people. Let us take page 472 of the Select Committee on the Meat Producers’ Exchange, and we find in answer to the question as to whether the mining companies are interested in this particular company or not, and the question was asked by one of the hon. members sitting on the Government benches—

Not only do these companies in this country possess control in connection with mining operations, but they are also getting their claws into the meat industry. This is the point, that the whole of the means of life in this country, is being gradually transferred into the hands of these monopolists, whose hand can be traced in the diamond industry, in the gold industry, and every sphere of life in South Africa. That is the complaint raised from these benches. We feel, and we honestly feel, not from any party point of view, or in the hope of getting into power, we feel honestly the Government is doing nothing in the interests of the people of this country. I would feel far happier if, in this country, the Government was so progressive in legislation, that they would make it impossible for a Labour Party in South Africa to get into power. When Mr. Seddon was in power in New Zealand, his Government was so progressive in legislation, that the Labour Party could not oust him. People would be happier, and we would have a happier country, and a contented population if the Government legislated more in the interest of the people of this country, and not introduce legislation to create big monopolies to suck the life-blood of the inhabitants of the country.

Gister is deur die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorwege en die edelagbare die Eerste Minister verklaar dat hulle hulle bes gedaan het vir die boer van Suidwes en die boer van die Unie, maar ek gaat sover om te verklaar dat dit nie die plig is van die staatsman om net na die belange van die oomblik te kyk nie, maar ook in die toekoms, daarvoor is hulle daar en daarvoor is hulle staatsliede. En wil hulle sê dat die enigste oplossing was ’n monopolie? Die Eerste Minister erken dat die vleishandel in die hande van ’n monopolie is en een ondergeskikte maatskappy, waaroor hulle vermoedelik ook die seggenskap het. Die publiek in die Unie is baie agterdogtig oor dergelike monopolies, en die mense, wat dit kry. Hulle geskiedenis is goed bekend; in 1900 toe die Anglo-Boereoorlog aan die gang was, het hulle ook n’ monopolie gehad in Suid-Afrika om vleis te lewer en hulle het so sterk geword, dat die grote Cecil Rhodes ’n opposisie onderneming moes stig, maar hulle het ook hom te slim geblyk en het sy maatskappy ingesluk. Dit is vandag so, dat in Kaapstad geen beesmark bestaan nie; ’n mens kan nie hier beeste verkoop nie, omdat niemand kan konkurreer met die monopoliste nie en dit is daardie selfde mense, wat 80 persent van Suid-Afrika se vleishandel kontroleer, wat nou die kcnsessie, die monopolie gekry het in Suidwes. Hulle het die Meat Extract Co. ingesluk en beheers die T.C.M.I. van Natal en dit is hulle wat van die “bounties” op vleis geprofiteer het. Daar is vir die tenders net twee maande tyd gegee en die Imperial Cold Storage en ’n ondergeskikte maatskappy van hulle was die enigste wat getender het en is die enigste wat vleis kan uitvoer. Dit is ’n gevaarlike posisie, waarin ons verkeer. Die edele lid vir Wodehouse (de hr. Venter) en die edele lid vir Weenen (de hr. Moor) sê dat dit ’n verbetering van die veemark is in Suid-Afrika, maar soas reeds aangetson deur die edele lid vir Huraansdorp (de hr. C. W. Malan) is waar ’n monopolie gestig word, altoos die eerste ruk ’n bietjie verbetering merkbaar, maar net sodra as hulle hulle klouwe uitgestrek het, dan sal sowel werker as produseerder ingesluk word. Die publiek is teen enige monopolie van enige aard. Drie jaar gelede het die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou verklaar, dat geen monopolie sal gestig word nie, selfs al kom die van die kant van die boer; vandag juig hy die stigting van monopolies toe. Dit mag vandag ’n kleine verbetering van die veemark bewerkstellig, maar ons boere loop gevaar om ten onder te gaan. In die noorde van Transvaal gaat hulle ’n vleisekstrakt fabriek oprig en daar loop praatjies, dat daar ook ’n paar honderdduisend morge grond aan die maatskappy gegee sal word, en dan sal hulle daar groter boer as die boere self. Hulle kry in Suidwes 300,000 hektare om vee op vet te maak, en 250,000 om op te boer, dit wil sê ruim 500,000 hektare, en hulle kan maar net van die een, waar hulle die beeste laat aanteel, dit aan jaag na die andereen toe, waar dit vetgemaak word. Baie van ons is versigtig om hierdie kontrak aan te gaan en waar dit twyfelagtig is of die ding wettig is, was dit die plig van die Regering om dit eers voor die Huis te leg; dan sou ons heel waarskynlik nuttig wenke gegee het en die ding noukeuriger nagegaan in verband met die gevare welke ons reken, dat bestaan. Maar die Regering het op eige houtjie gehandel en die volk sal die las moet draag. Dit word gesê, dat ons dit met 6 maande kennisgewing kan oorneem, maar ons weet wat dit beteken, as eenmaal ’n monopolie toegestaan is en hulle het geld gespandeer en verbeterings aangebreng. Dit word alles gedoen met die oog op die tyd wanneer die Regering sal moet oorneem en uitbetaal.

Ek is verwonderd oor lede aan die anderkant, dat hulle so sterk gekant is teen die beginsel om die surplus beeste van Suidwes-Afrika uitgevoer te kry. Daar word gedurig op die Regering gehamer, maar dit bly nietemin ’n feit, dat die mark oorstok is van vee, wat uit Suidwes ingevoer word, altans vir die grootste deel. Maar as daar planne gemaak word vir die oprigting van koelkamers om dit uit te voer, dan is dit voortrekkery, hoewel die kontrak gegee word aan die enigste mense, wat hulle geld daarin wil waag en niemand anders, wat dit wil waag, word belet om dieselfde te doen nie.

Sê dit vir die edele lid vir Humansdorp (de hr. C. W. Malan).

Ek glo nie dat die edele lid vir Humansdorp (de hr. C. W. Malan) ooit al in Suidwes was nie. Die grond daar is niks werd nie en as iemand nie geld het om daarop te spandeer nie ten einde dit bewoonbaar en bruikbaar te maak nie, dan moet hy daar wegbly. Dit sal duisende ponde kos om op sekere plekke water oop te maak. Die edele lid vir Turffontein (Maj. Hunt) het beweer, dat mens daar op elke vyf morge grond in die land ’n bees kan aanhou, maar ek kan hom die versekering gee, dat daar streke is, waar jy op 500 morge nie ’n bees kan aan die lewe hou nie, soas juis die omgewing van Walvisbaai en hoe kan hy beweer, dat Walvisbaai goeie grond is? Daar is niks, as jy dit nie met die skip invoer nie. Daarom is dit vergaande as die edele lid vir Humansdorp (de hr. C. W. Malan) die Regering beskuldig dat hulle sonder toestemming van die Parlement en om politieke redes die monopolie gegee het. Maar dit is soas die ou spreekwoord sê dat as jyself me agter die deur staan nie, dan soek jy ’n ander ook nie daar nie. Die kwessie van die vleis en daardie monopolie is een van die redmiddels van Suidwes-Afrika en ook dat ons hier kan aangaan en veetelers bly; maar as ons ’n ringmuur om die land wil bou en alle uitvoer belet en alle manne met kapitaal wil belet om dit hier in te steek, sodat hulle besigheid kan doen en die handel laat leef, wat moet ons boere dan doen? Ons kan al die vee nie gebruik nie want dit is teveel vir die bevolking. Met die verlening van dergelike kontrakte is die beginsel neergeleg, dat vee op prys sal wees. Sodra sulke dinge ingestel word, dat vee uitgevoer sal word, dan weet die mense daar oorkant, dat hulle meer sal moet betaal vir vleis. Ons kan egter nie daarna kyk en net een seksie bevoordeel nie; ons moet die dinge aanneem en sien wat die uitwerking is. Laaste jaar is die beginsel aangeneem van die premies en ons het gesien dat dit ’n sekere mate van hulp beteken het. Ons moet ook die veeboere organiseer, want hulle is nog totaal ongeorganiseer, en daarom kan ons die dinge nie teen werk nie. Ons moet organiseer sodat die boer in die toekoms ook sulke dinge kan onderneem.

I am pleased to have an opportunity of saying something, but I am only going to deal with one or two points. It is true, as the hon. member for Standerton (Lt.-Col. Claassen) has just said, that the matter was thrown open for anybody to apply for the monopoly, but according to the report of the Administrator, there were two applicants that were suitable, Liebigs and the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company. It is also true that this report was printed and presented to Parliament last year, but the agreement had already been signed before the report was laid on the Table. It had been in force for months before. I may, however, state that the whole of the agreement was not laid before us. A very important point arises, and that is the constitutional and legal point. What is the position of Walvis Bay? I am not going to deal with the matter at length, as it is of such a comparatively simple character, that it seems to me that the position can easily be cleared up. It has not been cleared up, and the right hon. the Prime Minister, brilliant lawyer as he is acknowledged to be, is not going to express an opinion as to whether the contract is legal or not, but he says he has had the advice, but will not lay it on the Table, as it is not the proper thing to do. He gives no opinion of his own, and now members of Parliament are left to their resources to decide what the position is. Let us examine it? In the first place it is quite clear from the Act of 1919, that we were going to make special provisions that no concessions should be granted there without the authority of Parliament. I do not think anybody will dispute that this is a concession. Nobody would dispute that if this had been done in South-West Africa itself, it could not be done without the authority of Parliament. The right hon. the Prime Minister’s answer to that is that Walvis Bay is not in South-West Africa, and my reply to that is, that this Parliament has put it in South-West Africa. In the Act of 1922 this Parliament did that, and from that moment, i.e., on October 1st, 1922, when the Act came into force and was proclaimed, Walvis Bay became part of South-West Africa. And the agreement is dated 21st October, 1922. Now how can you say that if Parliament in 1919 said that no concessions should be granted in South-West Africa without the sanction of Parliament, and, in 1922, Walvis Bay was put into South-West Africa, that Walvis Bay would not be subject to the Union Act of 1919. The Act of 1922 lays down that the Port of Walvis Bay shall be administered as if it were part of the mandated territory. It is as clear as it can be, but the right hon. the Prime Minister implies that there is a mental reservation there and that it did not include monopolies. As the Act reads here, Walvis Bay is now just as much a part of South-West, as Windhoek, or Swakopmund, or any other part of the territory. The Cape Act of 1884, which annexed Walvis Bay, did not make Walvis Bay subject to the general law unless it was specially introduced. It was annexed to the Cape of Good Hope, and it was provided that the laws in force there should remain in force until Parliament should otherwise decide. Parliament never interfered again, and the Governor continued to administer the port. In this place now the Administrator officiates. The right hon. the Prime Minister said: “Well, these people know their own business. They would not have accepted the contract if it was not legal,” but a contract which was standing the fire of both Houses of Parliament, and one granted by the Government, are two entirely different things. The whole point is this—did it need the authority of Parliament? If it does not, the contract is not worth the paper it is written upon. If the authority of Parliament is required, the Government by putting its signature there, cannot bind the Union of South Africa, unless Parliament ratifies it. I do not agree with the right hon. the Prime Minister that the company would have any action against the Government. Whatever the legal or constitutional position may be, no one at this stage will deny that it was in the highest degree equitable and right, for this to be laid on the Table, and brought before Parliament before it was ratified. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to have done it. In paragraph 26 of the agreement, it says—

Instead of “Government” why was not “Parliament” substituted? If that had been done, the farmers and citizens would have been protected. It could have been done, and it should have been done. It was an unfortunate thing that this matter was not brought before Parliament, and that the opinion upon which the Government has acted, was not laid upon the Table. Consequently, the only thing members of Parliament can do in this matter, is to protest in the way that it has been done, in the amendment that has been moved. The Government, in dealing with this matter, have shown a want of regard for the interests of the citizens of the country. With regard to the hon. the Minister of Railways, I could not help thinking, when he was speaking, of his little Bill of 1907. He said that we cannot prevent these monopolies. Well, if we cannot prevent meat monopolies, we can control them. In 1907 he introduced an Act showing how he regarded meat monopolies, and there is a Bill on the statute book introduced by him, when he was a member for Cape Town, before he was a Minister, which is an Act to prevent a monopoly of the meat trade.

Dis jammer, dat hierdie saak soveel kosbare tyd wegneem en dat die diskussie so lank aangehou het is deur lede wat niks van Suidwes-Afrika afweet. Die lede wat so baie gepraat het, is nie bekend met die behoeftes van die bevolking van Suidwes-Afrika nie. Die edele lid vir Cradock (de hr. I. P. van Heerden) het openlik erken, dat hy niks van die toestande in Suidwes afweet nie en hy het blykbaar ook nie op die kontrak ingegaan nie, want hy sê, dat die kompanjie hom sal vasplant in Suidwes en vasgrawe en dat as die kontrak een dag vernuut moet word, dat hulle dan so’n hoë prys sal vra, dat dit vir niemand moontlik sal wees, om die prys te betaal nie. Maar as die edele lid net paragraaf 19 van die ooreenkoms sou nagegaan, het, dan sou hy gesien het, dat as die twee partye nie tot ooreenkoms omtrent die prys kan kom nie, dan sal dit beslis word deur arbitrasie, waarby die prys sal vasgestel word. Dus val die beswaar weg. Ek kan my ook nie verenig met die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) nie wanneer hy sê, dat die bevolking van Suidwes onder die kontrak sal ly, want die kontrak is opgetrek deur die Administrateur met instemming van die publiek. Daar is oor die kwessie publieke vergaderinge gehou oor heel Suidwes-Afrika en ek dink, dat die kontrak ’n rekord is van kontrakte wat deur cold storage kompanjies gemaak is oor die wereld. Daar sal moeilik ’n kontrak te vinde wees wat sulke liberale bepalinge bevat as hierdie kontrak.

Iemand wat sê dat die kontrak ’n goeie kontrak is, die besef die toestand nie, want om aan een persoon of aan een kompanjie soiets as 500,000 morge grond te gaan gee om beeste te kan vetmaak, dit is baie onbillik. As dit nie onbillik is nie, dan weet ek nie wat onbillik is. Die gevolg gaan wees, dat Suidwes nog ’n groter vloek vir ons gaan wees, as dit nou is. Deurdat ons Suidwes geneem het. [Een Edele Lid: “Die fout lê by die ‘Empire.’”) Ja, ons het geprotesteer teen die neem van Suidwes. Dis juis, die gevolg van die imperiale politiek, dat ons al die moeilikhede het en lede anderkant sal nog een van die daë brand oor daardie kwessie.

Waar?

Op hulle sitplekke, waar hulle sit. Ek wil net daarop wys hoe Suidwes verdeel word. Die diamante is verdeel aan die kapitaliste en die Graaff’s Trust, wat ook kapitaliste is, kry nou ’n groot gedeelte van die land. Dis nie reg teenoor die publiek en nie reg teenoor die Unie nie. Ons wil weet wat die bedoeling van die Regering kan wees, as die land daar niks beteken nie. Toe ons Suidwes geneem het, het hulle gesê, dat dit goeie grond is, dat ons die plek nou gaan skoonmaak vir ons kinders en hulle aan die ander kant het gesê dat onsself miskien daar nog wel heen sal trek en nou gaan hulle heen en gee honderdduisende morge van die goeie grond weg. Laat ons net eens bedink wat die Suidwes ons al gekos het. Dit het ons al £30,000,000 gekos en wat van die rente wat die kapitaal opvreet?

Watter land?

Suidwes.

£60,000.

Ja, wat dit die Regering al gekos het, om Suidwes te neem. Ek dink dis baie onbillik om aan ’n kompanjie so’n grote stuk grond te gee en ek is seker—dit is hier aangehaal—dat dit baie kos vir die mense om per spoor die vee hiernatoe te vervoer. Ek verstaan dat dit oor die £4 per bees is, maar met die skip kan die beeste baie goedkoop hier gelewer word, en ek is seker daarvan dat die meeste van die beeste wat daar geslag word sal hiernatoe, na Kaapstad, vervoer word, en dit sal die beesboere hier ’n grote neerslag gee. Vandag het ons nie markte nie, en die Regering wil ook nie markte vir ons soek nie, maar vir Suidwes, waarvoor hulle nou verantwoordelik is, soek hulle wel markte, ten koste van die Unie. Dis nie reg nie, en ek is verwonder daaroor dat terwyl dit so’n grote saak, so’n groot kwessie is, dat die Regering die saak nie eers voor die Parlement gebring het nie. Soos die edele lid vir Waterberg (de hr. P. W. le R. van Niekerk) al gesê het, sou as die kontrak eers voor die Huis gebring was, miskien van hierdie kant van die Huis of van enige andere kant probeer geword het om ’n voordeliger kontrak optetrek, dan wat ons vandag het. Maar nou het ons absoluut niks kan doen nie. Dit het weer net so gegaan as met ander sake. Die Regering wat sterker is, kan sy wil doorset. Na eers al buitekant die saak aangeneem is, kom die Regering voor die Huis net om die, saak deur te drywe. Al die moeilikhede waar ons nou mee sit en wat die Parlement so lang ophou en wat baie tyd wegneem, is veroorsaak deurdat die Regering sulke wonderlike dinge doen, en dan later voor die Parlement bring, Ek hoop dat in die vervolg, die Regering nie weer sulke grote sake, as die sluite van kontrakte, buitekant doen en dan net die vir goedkeuring voor die Parlement bring nie. Dis nie reg teenoor die lede van die Huis en die publiek nie.

Ek het nie van plan gewees om aan die diskussie deel te neem nie, want ek is nie goed bekend met die toestande van Suidwes nie, maar in die diskussie is daar een ding, wat baie in die ooglopend en vreemd voorkom en dit is die weggee van honderdduisende van morge grond daar. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister sê, dat die grond niks beteken nie, want dat daar geen wit mense en nie eens ’n kaffer woon nie, maar ter selfdertyd sê hy dat die grond bestem is om vee daarop vet te maak. Dus kan dit nie slegte grond wees nie, dit moet goeie grond wees. Verder sê die edelagbare die Eerste Minister, dat daar ook nie water is nie en dat die kompanjie besig is om water daar te boor. Ek herinner my nog, toe ons Suidwes geneem het, wat wyle Gen. Botha gesê het, dat dit sulke goeie grond is wat ons gaan neem, dat daar net water gevind moet word, en dat daar dan 10,000 burgers van die land daar geset kan word, en as die vee daarop vet gemaak moet word, dan kan die grond so sleg nie wees nie. Ons hoor aldag van die armblanke. Waarom gaan dan die Regering nie heen en doen dieselfde as wat nou die kompanjie doen en gaan water boor? Dan sal 10,000 van die armblankes daarnatoe gebring kan word. Ek sien baie gevare in die transaksie. Daar word gesê dat die kompanjie die boer se vee sal opkoop en dat die honderdduisende morge grond bestem is om die vee daarop te sit. Maar ek het ’n ander gevoele oor die saak en ek dink dat ek nie so ver uit is nie. Die kompanjie sal sy eie ranches daar hê en daar genoeg vee self aanteel, om instede van die boer se vee te koop sy eie vee te hê. Ons moet dit nie uit die oog verlies nie. Ons hoor aldag van die invoer van vee uit Rhodesië. Ek weet van ryk mense, selfs uit die Vrystaat wat groot ranches in Rhodesië het, verskrikkelik grote plekke en daar teel hulle die beeste wat na ons markte kom. En nou gaat ons heen en gee aan ’n kompanjie in Suidwes omtrent 450,000 morge grond—ek spreek onder korreksie, maar dit is wat my gesê is—en stel die kompanjie in staat om dieselfde te doen, wat nou vanuit Rhodesië gebeur. Die gevolg gaan wees dat hulle hulle eie ranches daar het, dat hulle instede van die vee van die boere te koop, gaat hulle kompeteer teen die boere en gaat hulle die boer sê nek breek. Ek wil nie verder oor die saak praat nie, want ek weet nie genoeg van die toestande in Suidwes af nie. Ek praat maar net oor wat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister gesê het, en ek sê as op die grond vee vet gemaak moet word, dan kan dit nie slegte grond wees nie, en, as daar water tekort gekom word, laat dan die Regering sorg vir die water en laat ons die grond hou. Ons moenie somar honderdduisende morge grond weggee nie. As daar profyte gemaak kan word, laat dit dan wees vir die volk wat belasting betaal het en vandag nog betaal vir die grond daar.

Ek wil nie weer op die meriete van die saak ingaan nie, maar net iets sê oor twee punte wat aangeraak is deur die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorweë. Die eerste is dat die edelagbare die Minister gesê het dat hy nou ook, net soos die edelagbare die Eerste Minister tot die konklusie gekorm het, dat ons dergelyke dinge, as die vleishandel, maar moet laat in hande van ’n monopolie. Die edelagbare die Minister sê dat wat betref ons vleishandel, onder die omstandighede, die beste gedoen is wat gedoen kon word. Maar dan vra ek die edelagbare die Minister waar ons die minste kontrôle het oor die werksaamheid en die profyt van die maatskappy? As die edelagbare die Minister werkelik bedoel het wat hy gesê het, namelik dat onder die omstandighede die Regering niks anders kon doen nie, dan vra ek vir hom waarom hy dan nie vashou aan die beginsel dat ’n kontrôle uitgeoefen moet word. Die ooreenkoms is tog van die aard, dat wat betref die politiek wat daar die maatskappy wil volg, hulle absoluut vry gelaat word sonder enige kontrôle van die Staat. Neem die kwessie van kontrôle van profyte

Paragraaf 15.

Ja, maar waar is die kpntrôle van die kant van die Staat? Dis waar, daar word gesê 10 persent, maar dit moet gepaard gaan met kontrôle van die Staat.

Paragraaf 16.

Die edelagbare die Minister verstaan my punt nie. Ek wil hê, dat dat daar ’n. direkteur moet wees van die kant van die Staat op die direksie van die maatskappy wat die politiek vasstel. Die edelagbare die Minister wil te kenne gee dat in paragraaf 16 kontrôle vasgelê word. Waar is, die kontrôle? Die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorweë weet hoe maatskappye profyte kan weg steek op allerlei maniere o.a. deur reserwes, “hidden reserves” te maak.

Paragraaf 16.

Ja, maar daar is geen kontrôle oor die gedragslyn van die maatskappy nie. Die ouditeur wat aangestel kan word, gaan die boeke van die maatskappy na, maar dit het niks met die politiek van die maatskappy te doen nie. Laat ons net ’n bietjie na die myne kyk, daar vind ons ook dat die profyte weggesteek word in reserwes, om belasting te ontgaan. Die edelagbare die Ministers mag nou voorgee asof dit nie so is nie, maar hulle weet goed genoeg dat jou ouditeur ’n amptenaar is wat net vasstel of die boeke goed gehou is, maar nie die beginsels, die gedragslyn van die maatskappy in die minste raak nie.

The hon. member is wrong.

As die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou dit nie weet nie, dan bejammer ek hom, maar die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorweë sal erken, dat die direksie die politiek van die maatskappy vasstel, die reserwes bepaal en ook die balansstaat optrek. Hulle kan die profyte op die wyse reguleer. Die kontrak gaan werk ten nadele van die boer en van die verbruiker, tensy op die direksie ’n direkteur sit namens die Staat. Paragraaf 16 kom glad nie in my beswaar tegemoet nie. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister weet dit goed genoeg. Die tweede punt wat ek onder die aandag van die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorweë wil bring na aanleiding van wat hy gesê het, is paragraaf 8. In die paragraaf word gesê, dat geen vee oorsee uitgevoer kan word na die Unie nie, tensy met ’n verlofbrief van die Administrateur. Maar nou vra ek die Huis, wat gaan die posiesie wees? Sal die Administrateur die belange van die boer in die Unie of die belange van die Suidwes boer behartig? Veronderstel die maatskappy vind, dat die uitvoer oorsee ’n mislukking is. Dan sal hulle naar die Administrateur gaan en sê, dat die markte oorsee ongelukkig ongunstig is, maar dat hulle ’n aansienlike kapitaal gesteek het in hulle werke op Wailvisbaai en hulle vra clan verlof in die belang van die boer van Suidwes om vee uit te voer oorsee na die Unie. Dis nie onmoontlik nie. Wat is dan die posiesie? Die maatskappy het die voordeel van spesiale laë spoorweg vragpryse in Suidwes vir uitvoer van vee en deur die goedkope tariewe kan hulle oor die spoorweë die vee goedkoop tot Walvisbaai kry en vandaar oorsee die vee invoer in die Unie en op die Uniemarkte “dump.” Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister mag sê, dat dit nie prakties of besigheid is nie, maar dis moontlik, en heel waarskynlik sal dit gebeur. Die boere in die Unie, in die binneland, moet die hoë spoor vragte na die kusplase betaal en kan dan nie konkureer nie met die vee wat oorsee van Suidwes sal ingevoer word nie.

moved, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

I do not expect there will be any objection to the third reading being taken now, as it is very necessary that this Bill should be through Parliament before the end of the month. That leaves us only a few days for it to pass through here and another place. I hope there will be no objection. It is purely a matter of meeting the needs of the moment, and if there is any complaint about the shortness of time, I may say that this is due to the prolonged debate which has surrounded another Bill, and which has made this measure late.

We had intended to object, but we want to be kind to the Government.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

When the debate was adjourned the other evening we thought that the hon. the Minister would have gone into more details about the state of the railways generally, and given members more information. I would like now to deal with one or two matters, one of which is whether the time has not arrived when the Government will take into consideration the advisability of manufacturing more of our requirements in South Africa. I intend to move as an amendment at the end of what I intend to say, but before I come to that I would like to touch upon what is rather a large question for a back-bencher, and one who is not a business men, and that is the financial side of the railways. There are several hon. members who think with me that the time has arrived when some thorough enquiry should be made into the financial arrangements of the railways. When we find that regularly, year after year, the capital expenditure of the railways is rapidly increasing, and no provision is made to wipe it off, such as is ordinarily done by any business body, nothing has been tackled from that point of view, with the result that our profits each year are handed over to the real owners of the railway in this country—the bondholders. We do not own our railways, as we say we do. Perhaps that is a rather startling thing to say, but if hon. members had an opportunity of going into a return which was produced in the Senate, in answer to a question by Senator Whiteside, they would find that it contains some enlightening figures as to how far we own the railways. In the schedule prepared here in this return, and as far as my understanding goes, on the original line of railways on the Wynberg line, we still pay interest charges. We do not own the railways in the sense I consider we should own them. Hon. members can see this return for themselves, as I have no time to go into that now. But it does seem to me that there is a great need for a thorough investigation to be made into railway financial matters. The total liabilities on our railways, according to this return, amount to £104,852,000, but this has been increased to £110,000,000. Where is all this going to stop? In an ordinary business concern provision is made to wipe off, at least, a certain portion of the liability, but in so far as our railways are concerned nothing has been done. If the general manager’s advice had been taken, some steps in this direction would have been adopted. I understand there has been some legal difficulty in the way, but Parliament could have removed that at any time, and if the provision had not been made there was no reason why it should not be made now. There has been £73,322,000 paid in interest on the total loan liability since it was incurred of £104,852,374. That was, the total sum paid in interest. There is not a busiman who would not emphasize this point, to have provision made to reduce capital expenditure. I think the time has come for a thorough investigation, whether by commission or otherwise. There are other matters connected with finance, such as the payments on interest on non-interest bearing capital, and the hon. the Minister knows perfectly well that the bone, of contention has never been cleared up. Hon. members on the Railway Committee know that; they bring this question up regularly, but because some committee at some time came to a certain decision, we suspect that the present hon. the Minister, out of loyalty to his former colleague and to a former decision, refuses to go into this matter. Many hon. members in this House do not realise that we are paying a sum of money close upon half a million pounds yearly, and have been for thirteen years. That matter should be gone into more fully, and I think the hon. the Minister should give facilities for investigation. In 1920 the General Manager gave some evidence and said—

Well, that is the evidence of the General Manager, and he goes on to say with regard to a sinking fund—

Now I say that these things alone constitute a case for thorough investigation. The hon. the Minister of Railways is looked upon as a business man par excellence, he is so business-like that, from my point of view, he has done things which are wrong towards the railways and the public. We respect him for his honesty though we do not agree with his policy. If he is a business man, he should see that an investigation is made. The General Manager of Railways, who is a permanent official, despite change of Ministers, has consistently held, and I agree with him, that our railways, apart from the huge payments which I say are unfairly made, and says in effect—

Certain things are charged on the revenue, and I say that if concessions of that sort are granted, the cost should be estimated, and the railway revenue should be credited, otherwise it is unfair for the Minister to say that there is a loss on the working, when there are large sums not credited to the railway revenue which should be. These concessions should be a State charge, in any case, railway revenue should be credited at the full rate, so that we could get a fair business-like return, and a genuine idea whether the railways were paying, otherwise the hon. the Minister can get up at any time and say that the railways are not paying, whereas the General Manager, if he were credited with all these things, even during the time of depression, would show that the railways are paying. We have been told with regard to sinking funds that the renewal fund itself constituted a kind of sinking fund. That is not the case; as the Auditor-General rightly states, the renewal fund is simply a fund to replace working assets. We should have some system of sinking fund for the purpose of reducing gradually our huge capital debt of the railways.

It comes exactly to the same thing.

I have just mentioned why it does not. How can it? If our capital debt has increased from 1922 to 1923 by £5,000,000, we have our renewal fund, but that is simply used for the purpose of renewing rolling stock, etc. Such a fund does not have the effect that I want produced; they are two separate funds, and they cannot be classed together. The renewal fund is not the same as a sinking fund, and provision should be made for a sinking fund, and after a few years we should get an enormous benefit from it. The hon. the Minister knows perfectly well that if the Cape Town municipality raises a loan, they have to pay interest from the day it was raised, and provision has to be made for redemption in all cases. There is this return asked for by Senator Whiteside, and I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that seeing we have paid interest since Union, of something like 40 million pounds, the time has now come when we should go on right business lines and apply proper business principles to make the financial position of the railways more satisfactory. I want to say further that, in my opinion as a business man, the hon. the Minister of Railways has been rather too hurried to make his accounts square. Business men do not expect to make accounts square in times of depression. We appreciate the fact that the railways are paying, but we know that a great deal of the saving has been made at the expense of the railway men, and in a way they do not deserve. The hon. the Minister has reduced the working expenses—I do not want to see money thrown away—but as the result of the reduction in expenditure, the majority of the men are unable to pay their way as citizens should be able to do. The hon. the Minister also stated in regard to the raising of the rents of railway houses that they had only to pay 15s. a month extra. That represents to them a larger amount than it would to other well-to-do people. I again repeat that the economies which have been carried out by the administration should not be carried out in such a stringent way in a time of depression, caused through no fault of the men themselves. What is the effect of the action of the department? I am surprised that the business community has not taken the matter up. If the hon. the Minister of Railways goes on with his policy of closing down development and reducing pay and taking away the means of livelihood from thousands of men, the commercial community also suffers. By reducing pay to the extent of £10,000 in any district there is, of course, that amount of money less to be spent, and the commercial community must also feel the results and further depression is caused. I hold, with the general manager, that during a period of depression the Government should go along with the development work. Also it would be better to have three men working eight hours a day than two working ten. If one man is retrenched, after a month or so he will have to go to a labour bureau and ask to be taken on relief work, and thus descend in the social scale. This is a bad way of saving money. If a man was got rid of in time of prosperity he would have reasonable opportunities of getting employment outside. In time of depression the Government should help him out of his difficulties. The Government which adopts a serious policy of retrenchment in time of depression, is not the Government I could respect. It is one thing to show on one side of the ledger that the railways are paying, but as against this it is to be remembered on the other side there are men looking for relief work, and that they and their children are suffering. I would like to see a little less balance sheet doctrine and a little more human nature feelling. There is another matter, and that is in regard to certain promises given to me by the hon. the Minister of Railways last session in regard to the hours worked by certain groups of the staff, who perform arduous duties. He promised to go into the question of men working 12 hours a day, and others working 12 hours a night. The latter work from 7 o’clock in evening until 7 o’clock in the morning. They are supposed to have 2 hours off for meals, but they cannot get away for meals, as if anything went wrong during their absence, they would be held responsible. That is a very serious state of affairs. The hours are too long, even although the work is not continuous.

What group is that?

The station-foremen, who work all night from 7 o’clock in the evening until 7 o’clock in one morning; and other grades are working the same hours. If they live any distance away from their work the hours are then even longer. No low paid man, for instance, could live at Muizenberg, owing to the high rents, so he would have to get from there, say from Wynberg or Woodstock, and return, which would almost make the time 14 hours. This is also a very bad form of economy on the part of the administration. Of course there is always reason for proper economy, but the Railway Administration should play the game to the staff, and I ask the hon. the Minister to give something back to the men that he has taken away, in my opinion most unjustifiably. Now I would go into this question of the manufacture of our own requirements. The greatest problem of South Africa, as every thinking man in the country knows, is what to do with our children, and the provision of opportunities of employment for them. In answer to a question which was recently put by an hon. member, it was stated that in round figures we were purchasing in London on an average £5,000.000 worth of articles a year, and that we purchased locally in South Africa goods to the extent of £5,000,000, of which 25 per cent. only were of South African manufacture, 75 per cent. was being manufactured overseas. Those figures took me somewhat by surprise. The Government of this country is responsible for the future of the children of this country, and the Government should take into serious consideration whether it is not possible to manufacture more of these articles in South Africa. I am not a high protectionist, but I do say if we can manufacture in this country articles, under fair rates of pay and conditions, we should do it. We can manufacture our own requirements, and can compete very successfully with anything that can be brought in from overseas, if things are properly organized.

What is a fair preference?

The hon. the Minister is only prepared to go to 5 per cent., but I think we should go as far as we have done, with regard to boots and shoes, and furniture. The hon. the Minister will remember in 1923, the hon. member for East London (Mr. Stewart) moved this motion, I may say that the original motion was that we should give the same amount of preference to railway requirements, as the Central Government does to its requirements, but the hon. the Minister is not prepared to go as far as that. The hon. member for East London (Mr. Stewart) moved—

We thought that that matter would receive fair consideration from the committee, but the only member who supported us was the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser). That recommendation was a reasonable one, and I cannot understand why the Government did not adopt it. We are turning out from the schools of this country about 17,000 young men annually, and I want to know as a parent, and other parents want to know, what future there is going to be in South Africa for these young people if the Government is not going to open up every possible avenue of employment and set a good example to private employers. Unless this is done there is no future for them. When we hear of a new industry being started in South Africa, our hearts beat faster, and we believe this is rather good, but we find too often that opportunities are simply given for the employment of cheap labour. I want to know whether the hon. the Minister is going to continue this policy of purchasing requirements in other parts of the world just because they are a little cheaper. The other day the hon. the Minister said he would purchase rails where he could get them cheapest, but they do not do such things as this in Australia.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.10 p.m.

When the House adjourned I was dealing with the question of creating better opportunities for the young men of South Africa, and I think I am on good substantial grounds in advocating that, because I am advocating something quite reasonable. I do it in all seriousness, and say that unless the Government goes into the question, we are not doing justice to our young men. I noticed yesterday in a reply to a question by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), who asked the hon. the Minister of Railways about the procedure in regard to the quotations for railway material in England, the hon. the Minister replied, and gave a very lucid description of the method adopted by the administration. It seemed very involved; all sorts of things had to be done. The specifications for locomotives may involve up to a hundred drawings. To arrange for the printing in South Africa, as well as in London, would involve expenditure which would not be justified. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that in my opinion the time is past when it should be necessary to have to prepare drawings in some other country. We have proved in South Africa that we can manufacture our own requirements. We have the material, or if we have not the material we can get it; we have workmen second to none in the world, in fact, it has been proved that we have as good workmen here, as anywhere else; engines were made in Natal years ago, and we have capable men and everything necessary, except the will to do this, and I want the hon. the Minister to have the will to do this thing, and to enlarge on this policy. I know he will come up with some argument that this thing cannot be done, that costs are too high, and that unless the workmen are prepared to take lower money, the thing cannot be done; but we cannot solve this problem by giving lower wages but by securing greater efficiency, not only on the part of the workmen but on the part of the technical officers, who must be possessed of the highest ability. That is one aspect; another aspect is in regard to the boys. We have to educate our children and after a certain age are compelled to send them to costly secondary schools and technical schools, to pick up the technical side of their trade. After that they go into the workshops, and are trained to be competent artisans and mechanics. What do we do with these boys at the end of that time? The present policy of this continual importation of material, if it goes on, will mean that these boys will have nothing to do; they will be put outside—put outside to do what? Walk the streets or leave the country. These boys are trained for railway work only, and you should to the utmost of your ability, get them employment in this country, otherwise the policy of training your children in the workshops here has gone for nothing. In South Africa to-day we have youths who have served in the workshops, and are competent men, and for whom no work is to be found. When a boy has been trained and educated in this country on the railways, he is finished here—he may go to America or elsewhere to seek employment, but he has not an opportunity here. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that even if it costs £120 to do work in this country, and that it costs £100 elsewhere, that a certain amount of that extra cost represents a good State investment.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

I would just like to say that I have not covered all the ground that I should like to, but I hope that the hon. the Minister of Railways will reply to the questions I have put. I now wish to move the following—

Ek sekondeer. Ek wil net ’n vraag doen aan die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorweë in verband met die blanke arbeiders wat hy weggestuur het uit die Westelike Provinsie na Natal. Ek kry herhaaldelik briewe uit Natal van die spoorwegarbeiders wat uit Piquetberg en ander plekke gestuur is soentoe. Die mense sê, dat hulle, toe hulle na Natal gegaan het, voorgespieël is, dat hulle betaling hoër sou wees, dat vir hulle huisvesting gesorg sou word en dat hulle posiesie beter sou wees as in Piquetberg. Hulle sê, dat die beloftes nie nagekom is nie en dat hulle met hulle vroue en kinders daar nie kan lewe nie. Ek wil graag weet of die edelagbare die Minister bekend is met hulle toestand en weet van hulle griewe. Indien nie, wil die edelagbare die Minister dan ’n bietjie ondersoek instel in verband met die griewe van die mense nie. In elk geval behoort die edelagbare die Minister vra of die tyd nie gekom het, om die mense wat weggestuur is uit die Westelike Provinsie na Natal weer terug te bring nie. Die Spoorweë is nie meer in so’n verskrikkelike toestand op finansiële gebied as ’n paar jaar gelede nie. Soos die edelagbare die Minister met reg geroem het, is die toestand nou baie beter. Wil die edelagbare die Minister nie die blanke arbeiders, wat onder die verstandhouding was dat sodra die omstandighede beter sou werd, hulle weer kon terug keer, nou die kans gee om terug te kom nie? Hulle verkeer in baie moeilike omstandighede. Hulle sou met hulle vroue en kinders onder die kaffers in Natal moet lewe, as hulle nie kan terugkeer nie. In elk geval behoort die edelagbare die Minister dadelik ’n ondersoek in te stel na hul griewe.

I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) on the tone of his speech. I think it is quite different to some of those we remember in the past, and the change in the tone suggests, Sir, that the railways are beginning to see daylight. He said, “the Minister of Railways has brought us triumphantly through bad times.” It is pleasant, it is gratifying to hear this from the elected railway authority of the Labour Party, but it also shows the truth of the old adage that “nothing succeeds like success,” because according to the hon. member, our railways, that great carrying machine of the Union, has been changed from the parlous position it occupied a few years ago, to a triumphant success.

I said from a business point of view.

And there is no better point of view than that. What was required to bring the railways to a success, was business working, and that is precisely what we have had. The hon. member seems surprised that we do not own the railways. If there is one thing provided for in the Act of Union, it was our position in regard to the railways. And if the hon. member had been a taxpayer up north, and had been there through the long and persistent increase in rates and passenger fares, he would have known by hard experience who owns the railways. He was also disappointed that there was no sinking fund, and pointed out to the House that all other large institutions such as divisional councils, municipalities, etc., who borrowed large amounts of money, always provided for a sinking fund. That is true, but municipalities and divisional councils are not really working with one great asset. This particular asset is maintained at 100 per cent. efficiency and value by means of the Renewal and Betterment Fund, and I suggest that these take the place of any sinking fund, as there is no occasion to write off an asset, unless that asset depreciates in one way or another. That is the principle which has been accepted by any business dealing with such affairs, in this and other countries. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) also said that the railways were making profits for the landholders. These railways are precluded by the Act of Union from making any profits—no profits can be made. The railways have to be worked so that revenue and expenditure shall balance, and I may say, a very good thing too. Having gone so far with the hon. member, I have to say with regard to his larger contention on the question of the large payments made, previous to Union, from earnings for capital work only, that I think, in this respect, the hon. member is correct. It is no use for the hon. the Minister to tell us we are beating a dead horse; this is a real live thing, and I think it is one which demands attention here and now. I am not going to argue it as I intend to speak as shortly as possible, but I would like to put one or two facts in regard to the large amount of money really due by the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the railways and harbours. It runs, I think, into about 13½ millions—money spent from revenue on capital expenditure prior to Union. The hon. member is right also when he states that the interest on this amount at 3½ per cent would be £459,000 per annum. This had been a disputed matter for a long time. Years ago eminent counsels’ opinion was taken, but it was not taken on the merits of the case, but on the Act of Union, and what the Act of Union meant. An Act of Union might mean one thing and the merits and justice of the case another. I am not going to suggest to the House that it should dispute counsels’ opinion. The remarkable thing is that they all agreed; something unusual for such a number of counsel. We pay considerable respect generally to the Auditor-General of this country, and here is what he reports to the Select Committee a few years ago, at the request of the Railways and Harbours Committee. Speaking on counsel’s opinion, he said—

Millions of money were spent after Union, in bringing the railways up to their present high pitch of efficiency and value, and to put them in first-class order. This money was provided out of revenue, so that the maintenance of our railway system, keeping it up to its present standard of efficiency the railways have paid twice, firstly by the 13 millions prior to Union spent on capital undertakings, and after Union providing further funds to put the railways in a proper state of efficiency. The Auditor-General continues—

Certain of these monies are chargeable with interest and certain portions are not. The main fact is this, that this money paid out of revenue and spent on capital expenditure previous to Union does not cost the consolidated revenue a penny, yet we are taxed to the amount of £459,000 per year as interest, which should now be refunded, and it will be a great consideration in the reduction of both rates and fares. There is another important matter, and one which is of the greatest possible interest to the people in the north. It will be remembered that an all-round rate of 3½ per cent. interest was agreed to at the time of Union, and agreed to until it was found what was the actual rate which the country was paying. The overcharge arose in the first instance owing to the all-round rate of 3½ per cent. being fixed, whereas the correct rate as subsequently ascertained, instead of being 3½, per cent, was £3 8s. 8d. It was then decided that this difference of ¼ per cent. should be worked off as a contra against the cost of raising railway loans. Instead of working off, however, it is increasing every year, and one of the most remarkable things which we find in this connection is this: in 1920—’21 when the railways were in a parlous position they borrowed 1½ millions of money from the consolidated revenue fund, but they paid that fund over 5 per cent. interest, and all the time they were owing the railways about half a million, upon which they were paying no interest at all. There is no possibility of escaping from this position, and I claim this, that it is one of the amounts which ought to go towards the reduction of freight and passenger fares. I want to read in that connection a sentence or two from the Auditor-General’s report of a year or two ago, to the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours. He says—

I suggest to the hon. the Minister there is only one way of settling this matter, and that is to pay the money back. In 1923, only a year ago, the Railways and Harbours Select Committee, which had dealt with this matter on many previous occasions, passed this resolution. It is in the fourth report, paragraph 29, 1923—

I suggest that the time has come when an adjustment should be made and I think we can fairly call upon the hon. the Minister to make such arrangements as shall have this important matter adjusted. I just want to say a word or two about numerous increases in railway rates during the past few years. I am not offering any complaint, but I am anxious of showing to the House that the raising of goods rates and passenger fares, is the worst possible thing for the country and the railways.

Hear, hear!

One hopes that the railway policy of the years 1917-’22 will never be repeated in the history of this country. If you will take the tariff increases and if you will take the passenger fare increases, you will find that the losses in revenue and expenditure have all gone up or down, in accordance with the amount of the increases, and in 1923 in accordance with the amount of the decreases. It is not only interesting, but it is wise, that we should remember what increases have taken place in tariff and passenger fares. I want the House to look at the tariff increases. In May 1918 the terminal charges were raised from 6d. to 2s. 6d. per ton. It does not seem a very serious amount but it is a 500 per cent. increase. In November 1919 the surcharge was increased to 25 per cent.; in April 1920 the 25 per cent. was increased to 331/3 per cent. In October 1920 there was a general revision on goods traffic, and there were increases all round. There is no denying these figures, which show that every time the railways have raised their rates, their losses have been greater. The year in which the greatest rises in the rates took place, the greater the loss in working. Our passenger fares are more telling, and we were getting into such a state up to nearly two years ago, that a large percentage of our people were not travelling at all. In May 1918 there was a special surcharge of 2½ per cent.; in January 1919 there was an increase to 10 per cent.; in April 1920, the surcharge introduced in 1919 was altered to one-sixth of the whole; in October 1920 the surcharge made in April 1920 was altered to one-quarter. In 1922-’23— may I say the situation was handled in a very businesslike manner—in 1923, when the reductions came into force, reductions here and reductions there, the loss during that year was only in the vicinity of £30,000 or £31,000. That was brought about by economising, reducing rates and fares, and an endeavour was made to balance revenue and expenditure. In the matter of these Government railways, the position has been saved not for the Government, but for the users of the railways, the taxpayers of the Union, and most of all for the great railway service. There are about 45,000 white men and an almost equal number of coloured and natives, and it is a splendid service, and the country owes them a great deal. I doubt very much if there are many railway men in this country to-day who do not appreciate the policy and persistent action of the hon. the Minister, and I suggest that the outlook for the railway men of South Africa today is better than it was when we began to make losses in 1917 and better to-day than it has been for many years. I do not know how any member of a great service like the railway could have any hopeful outlook for the future or could be satisfied with the position, knowing that by the Act of Union the railways had got to balance revenue and expenditure, and yet to see month by month and year by year the amount of losses that were being made. I say that the hon. the Minister, and indeed the country, has every right to be proud of the service, for they have taken their share of economy and they have brought the Union Railways from a losing position, to the present proud position it occupies. I remember in this House and outside, there was not a word to be said for economy, and indeed no objection raised to the piling up of deficiencies by the opposition. Economy was said to be reducing the railway mens’ wages, and the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) was the loudest in proclaiming that fact.

Pure imagination.

Yes, short memories are sometimes rather convenient. Now, I think I mentioned, that two years ago, there were something like 500 mules doing the transport between the East Rand and Springs. They may have disappeared, I think they have. The railway was not doing the work at all. Why not? Their rates were too high; they were excessive. There was no other reason, and what is the position to-day? The rates are still excessive. To-day the work of distributing on the Witwatersrand is being done by road motor vehicles, and I am prepared to say that most, if not all, of the large distributors on the Rand, are making provision, or have made provision, for their own deliveries. That is the kind of position our railways ought not to occupy, and until we get our railway rates down to a level which cannot be obtained elsewhere in the country, and which cannot be cut out by lower prices, our railways are not going to fulfil the mission intended. If our rates on cattle are excessive, what happens?— they are driven. If rates on short distance traffic is excessive, other means are provided. It is purely a matter of calculation. If our passenger fares are too high the people do not travel, and the passenger fares and rates in this country are unquestionably far too high. One is delighted to hear the hon. the Minister say that further reductions are under consideration and I say that is the only policy. Even with the reductions which have taken place the railways to-day will not fulfil their mission of being the great carriers of the country on the present rates and passenger fares. Further, if the railways do not provide for low rates for the development of the north, then they are not fulfilling their mission under the Act of Union. For progress, development, and extension of industries, mining, commerce, farming, agriculture, and all other enterprises, low rates are the very life blood of the country. That is where our success will come from. Now I will leave some other small matters over until we get to the Committee stage, but taking all these circumstances into consideration, and the position at which our railways stood twelve months ago, I think, with the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow), that the hon. the Minister has triumphantly brought us through. I am glad to be able to say this, and I doubt whether any one can read the General Manager’s report, without being justly proud of this great machine of the Union Government. I have not read a report for many years which has given me greater interest or pleasure, and I think when we find a railway such as this, with a capital of £109,000,000,—of course, it is granted the interest must be paid,—which carried last year something like 61,000,000 passengers, without a fatality, the point arises how many passengers could be carried, and how much more profit could be made, if the fares had been 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. lower than they are. It is a question for consideration. We handle something like 5,000,000 tons of freight, how much more could we handle if we did not permit competition to come in from some of the large distributing centres? We would handle considerably more traffic, and at considerably more profit. I offer my congratulations on the recovery so far of the Railway position, and I believe the general outlook for our railways is something that we in the Union ought to be proud of.

Dit is nie my bedoeling om die Begroting nou in sy brede aspek te bespreek nie. Die toespraak van die edele lid vir Zoutrivier (de hr. Snow) het miskien meer veld gedek. Ek het ’n paar punte, wat ek, onder die edelagbare Minister se aandag wens te breng. Dit is bepaald noodsaaklik, dat die stigting van ’n delgingsfonds vir ons spoorweë sal oorweeg word. Die edele lid vir Boksburg (de hr. R. H. Henderson) het gesê, dat die verbeterings- en vernuwingsfonds genoegsaam is om die spoorweg masjienerie in goeie orde te hou en daarom is ’n delgingsfonds nie nodig nie. Daar is ewewel een aspek van die saak, wat ek onder die edelagbare die Minister se aandag wil breng en dit is dat ons spoorwegstelsel ontwikkel is met die oog op die myne en aangesien die mynindustrie ’n verdwynende industrie is, moet die feit in die aangesig gesien word dat ’n tyd sal kom wanneer die spoorwege nie meer soveel sal inbreng, omdat die mynindustrie nie meer sal bestaan nie en ons land met die grote skuld op die spoorweë sal sit. Die edele lid vir Boksburg (de hr. R. H. Henderson) het die edelagbare die Minister geluk gewens met die sukses, wat hy gedurende die afgelope jaar met die spoorweë gehad het. Ek is dit met hom heeltemaal eens; ek het dit reeds by ’n vorige geleentheid gesê en is bereid dit weer te herhaal, maar ek wens hom daarop te wys, hoe jaar na jaar die grofste verkwisting aangegaan het en hoe hy agter die vorige Minister daarvoor gestem het en dus die toestand, waarin die spoorwege verkeer het goedgekeur het. Ek is bly, dat hy tot ontwaking gekom het, maar ons sou sy steun meer gewaardeer het, toe die verkwisting aangegaan het. Die edele lid wens die edelagbare Minister geluk; ek ook. Maar het hy daaraan gedenk ten koste van hoeveel leed en lye en ellende die Minister die toestand sodanig verbeter gekry het? Hoeveel mense is uit die diens ontslaan, hoeveel huise is opgebreek en hoeveel kon nie weer werk kry nie? As mens die edelagbare die Minister gelukwens met die verbeterde toestand van die Spoorwegdepartement, waaroor ons ons almal verbly, kan ons nie nalaat nie om in herinnering te breng, die wanbeheer van die verlede en die feit dat dit geskied het ten koste van die personeel.

Nonsens.

Die edele lid sê “nonsens,” maar dit openbaar eenvoudig sy onkunde. Ek wens verder te vra wat die gedragslyn van die Spoorweg Administrasie is ten aansien van die vaste verhouding tussen die blanke, gekleurde en naturelle in die diens. Dit skyn dat die gedragslyn nou is, dat as die Spoordepartement in moeilikheid verkeer, dan word die blanke ontslaan en vervang deur kleurlinge of naturelle en omgekeer. Daarby kom die verplaatsing van blanke werkers van taklyne na die hooflyn, omdat so word beweer die taklyne nie betaal nie. Die mense word sodoende ver van hulle huis en familie gestasionneer, waarheen hulle, wegens die geringe beloning, hulle familie nie kan saamneem nie. Dit is niks anders nie as ontslag van die mense. Die Minister weet dat al onse spoorweginkomste in één kas gaan dus kom dit daar nie op aan waar die verlies gely word. Ek wil by die Minister daarop aandring om ’n vaste gedragslyn aan te neem ten aansien van die werkverdeling. Laat die Spoorwegbestuur vasstel, dat ’n sekere deel van die werk deur blankes sal gedaan word, ’n ander deur kleurlinge en ’n verdere deel deur naturelle en laat dit op die basis gehou word. Daar moes nie, as dit sleg gaat, blankes ontslaan en deur kleurlinge of naturelle vervang word nie en as ’t weer beter gaat, dan weer die kleurlinge en naturelle ontslaan en blankes aangestel word nie. Dit is onregverdig teenoor die blankes, sowel as teenoor die kleurlinge en naturelle. Hoe eerder die Spoorwegdepartement oorgaan tot ’n vaste en eerlike gedragslyn in hierdie verband, hoe eerder sal die gevoel, welke daar bestaat, en wel met reg bestaat, dat die Spoorwegbestuur soveel moontlik van die klankes wil ontslae raak, weggeneem word. Ek wil verder vra met betrekking tot die aankondiging van die edelagbare die Minister, dat die tarief op landbou-produkte verlaag sal word, wanneer die in werking sal gestel word? Hy het dit beloof en ons het dit van harte toegejuig, maar ons wil weet wanneer tree dit dan in werking?

Volgende maand.

Dan wil ek nog die edelagbare die Minister wys op Artiekel 127 van die Grondwet, welke na my oordeel, op skromelike wyse veronagsaam word deur die Spoorwegadministrasie. Ek refereer na die deel, waar verklaar word, dat die spoorweg die industriële ontwikkeling in ons land moet bevorder, asook die vestiging van ’n industriële bevolking in die binnelandse stroke moet aanmoedig. Wat was die antwoord van die Minister en sy Departement tot nog toe gewees?

That policy is carried out.

Nee, die informasie wat ek het is, dat die Minister en sy Departement sê: “Nee, ons kan nie onderskeid maak tusse die binnelandse en buitelandse industrië, want dit sou tot oneerlikheid lei.” As die Minister dit wil nagaan dan sal hy sien, dat dit gedurende die laaste jare die politiek van die Administrasie gewees was om voorkeur tariewe af te skaf op goedere in die binneland gefrabiseer omdat dit oneerlikheid in die hand sou werk en derhalwe nie prakties is om dit uit te voer nie. Die Spoorweg Administrasie het egter g’n keus, dis hulle duidelike plig, die Wet vereis dit dat daar behoorlike voorsiening gemaak sal word deur middel van spoorweg tariewe ten gunste van die goedere wat in ons eie fabrieke gemaak is. Daar is nog ’n ander kwessie wat ek wens te behandel, namelik die kwessie van die taklyne. Die sisteem van die Departement nou in gebruik is onbillik en die verklaring wat elke drie maande gegee word van die sogenaamde verlies op ons taklyne is niks anders as camouflage nie en die Minister weet dit goed.

No.

Dis onteenseggelik waar dat die aanbouw van taklyne groter vervoer ten gevolve het. Tans word die taklyne met 10 persent van die verdienste gekrediteer op traffiek op die hoofdlyne van die taklyne afkomstig. Vanwaar kom die persent? Daar was ’n administratiewe kommissie wat op die saak ingegaan het en wat sê dat dit billik is. Ek verneem dat die Minister self in ’n ander plek gesê het, dat in Australië die taklyne met 40 persent gekrediteer word. Ons moet wegkom van die idee, dat ons taklyne nie betaal nie; die werkelike posiesie is, dat as die taklyne nie daar was nie, dan sou die hoofdlyne ook nie betaal nie. Die Minister behoor daardie publiekasie van kwartaalse opgawes af te skaf—

Yes.

Ek sal daarmee heeltemaal instem, maar as hy dit nie wil doen nie, en hy wil informasie gee, dan moet hy reg doen teenoor die taklyne. Ek beaam ten volle wat deur die edele lid vir Zoutrivier (de hr. Snow) gesê is omtrent die vervaardiging van goedere in ons spoorweg werkwinkels. Telkenmale as daar aan die Regeringskant van die Huis vrae gestel word oor die plaatsing van tenders in die Britse Ryk of in ander dele van die wereld, amuseer dit ons wanneer ons die verskriklike angs sien wat daar bestaan oor die plaatsing van tenders binne die Ryk. Die Minister het gelukkig ’n sterke posiesie opgeneem in verband met die plaatsing van die laaste kontrak. Maar wat ons hier aan die kant van die Huis sê is dit: “Gee die bestellinge nie aan Duitsland, België, Frankryk of binne die Ryk, maar plaas hul hier in ons eie land, en laat die goedere sover moontlik hier vervaardig word”. Ek weet, die Minister sal sê, dat ons nie ons eie lokomotiewe hier kan bou nie. Maar waarom nie? Omdat ons spoorweg werkplase nog nooit tot hul reg gekom het nie, en hulle sal nie tot hulle reg kom nie solang as die gees bestaan wat deur die Minister geopenbaar is in die antwoord op die vraag van die edele lid vir von Brandis (de hr. Nathan). Wanneer tenders gevra word, moet ’n persoon die tendervorm op die kantoor van die Hoë Kommissaris in Londen gaan sien. Doen Australië dit? Nee, hul sê: “As julle die tenders wil sien, as julle wil tender vir ons benodighede dan moet julle in Australië kom tender, en as julle inligtings wil hê, dan moet julle dit in Australië kom kry.” Daar mag, wel ’n kopie in Londen wees, maar sekerlik in hul eie land in die eerste plek. Maar wat doen ons Minister? As handelaars of fabrikante inligtings wil hê, dan moet hul dit oorsee kry. Met die oog op die ontslag van mense, en met die oog op die feit, dat daar vandag so baie mense in die Unie is wat glad nie wers het nie, is dit werkelik onbillk en onregverdig teenoor die belange van die Unie om die teenswoordige politiek verder te drywe. Die Minister weet goed, dat in die laaste tyd seuns van Suid-Afrika uit Europa teruggekom het, mense wat elders ’n goeie opleiding ontvang het in die konstruktie van lokomotiewe en alles in verband met die spoorweë, maar die Spoorweg Administrasie het die deur vir hulle gesluit, en in die tussetyd plaas ons ons bestellinge oorsee. Dieselfde gesindheid wat in soveel ander sake uitkom, dieselfde gesindheid wat aan die dag gelê werd toe ’n order vir miljoene slepers in Australië geplaas werd terwyl die produseerders van sleepers in Suid-Afrika vertel werd: “Ons het nie geld nie, ons kan nie julle slepers koop nie,” dièselfde gesindheid hou die land terug.

That is not so. We place as many orders as we can here.

Die feit is dat meer as ’n miljoen slepers ingevoer werd teen hoë koste terwyl die Suidafrikaanse fabrikante vertel werd: “Ons het nie geld nie, ons kan nie julle slepers koop nie”. Daardie gesindheid moet eindig, ons moet die voorkeur gee aan die produkte en die goedere van ons eie land. Dit is vir ons die moeite werd. om werk aan ons mense hier te gee, selfs as die Spoorweg Administrasie, as ’n Staatsinstelling meer moet betaal tot ’n bedrag van 10 persent dan wanneer hul die goedere invoer; dit is beter om mense hier werk te gee, dan om die mense te laat rondloop sodat hulle hulle selfrespek verloor en op noodlenigingswerke ’n lewens bestaan moet soek.

The hon. the Minister of Railways will no doubt think that we will have many opportunities on the main estimates of discussing railway matters, but I want to bring one or two things to his notice now, so that he will have an opportunity of thinking them over during the interval, and possibly have them rectified. Before proseeding to these items I would first like to refer to the 13½ millions mentioned by the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. R. H. Henderson) and the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow). I can quite understand the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) not being sufficiently well up in accountancy or finance, to think that the method of dealing with the matter is wrong, but I cannot understand the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. R. H. Henderson) as a business man, not being well acquainted with one of the elementary principles of accountancy. It is an elementary principle of accountancy, that where the profits from a business are allowed to be put back in that business, and such is recognized as an increase in the capital of that concern. If the 13½ millions of the profits of the railways were put back into capital expenditure, it is only a reasonable proposition that such should be considered as part of the capital of the railways. It is urged that the railways should have a sinking fund so that in the course of time they would be relieved of the necessity of paying interest on capital. I put it to the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. R. H. Henderson) that if he had a private business, and put a certain amount of capital into it—he might put his own money or get an overdraft from the bank and if out of the profits he paid off that overdraft, would he not still consider that he had some capital in that business, and would he not have the right to expect that the business would give him a return on it? The same applies to the railways. If the Government wiped out the national debt entirely, the State still remains the owner of the railways, and we would be entitled to expect that the railways, if they were run on business principles, would show a reasonable interest on the money invested in them. If hon. members were anxious to help us— and this is the first time that one has heard a member from a coast division admit that the inland provinces had reason to complain of the excessive railway charges imposed—instead of finding fault with the payment of the 13½ millions, they should have found fault with the hon. the Minister of Railways for not having established a fund under Article 129 of the Act of Union, for the purpose of stabilising railway rates. If such a fund had been established, as was provided by Clause 129 of the Act of Union, we would not have had the fluctuation in the rates which have been complained of. I submit to the hon. the Minister of Railways, that this fund should be established, so that in the future we shall not have these fluctuations. I would also draw his attention to Article 131 of the Act of Union—

Now surely a branch line which is reported on by the Railway Board as likely to be run at a loss, and which, in spite of such report, is made under the authority of an Act of Parliament for the development of a certain area, must be held to come under this section and to be a service rendered, or a facility provided, at less than cost. Consequently, I consider that such loss should, in accordance with the Act of Union, be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund; and not borne by the imposition of high rates on the lines which do pay. If the hon. the Minister thinks that at the date of our entering into Union, there was nothing to indicate that the inland portions of the railway system were bearing an undue proportion of the revenue. I would refer him to the Revenue Accounts, which were published at the time of Union. If the hon. the Minister will refer to them he will find that the Central South African Railways came into Union with a renewal and betterment fund of something over £3,000,000. The Natal Government Railways had no such funds and the Cape Government Railways had a renewal fund of only £13,000. In addition, the railways of the Transvaal, for that concluding period, showed a profit for the ten months preceding Union of some £2,000,000, and provided at the same time a quarter of a million for a renewal fund. The Cape railways for the same period showed a considerable loss after paying interest on capital, and provided nothing for either renewal or betterment fund, whilst the Natal railways not having either of these funds, came out with £300,000 profit. If we take that basis right through, we are justified in submitting to the hon. the Minister that the Central South African Railways of to-day are contributing out of all proportion to the running of the branch railways generally. I will commend to his careful consideration Clause 131 of the Act of Union which provides for the payment of these losses out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. If one is to judge whether the railways are fulfilling the true functions for which they were intended, according to Clause 127 of the Act of Union, we must judge by results—according to this Clause the special object is the “agricultural and industrial development within the Union and promotion by means of cheap transport, of the settlement of an agricultural and industrial population in the inland portions of all provinces.” I want the House to specially note the word “inland” and a reference to the official statistics of population will show that the increase in the white population since Union, has been to a great extent absorbed by the coastal ports. From 1911 to 1921 we find that the white population of the Cape district, exclusive of Wynberg, increased by 26 per cent.; Port Elizabeth, 31 per cent.; East London, 33 per cent.; Wynberg, 30 per cent.; and Durban, 52 per cent. The increase in the white population in our four ports, and I include Wynberg, ranges from 26 per cent. in Cape Town to 52 per cent. in Durban, whilst at Aliwal North there is a 6 per cent. decrease; Cradock, 5 per cent.; Winburg, 4 per cent. and the outstanding increase, apart from the Witwatersrand—

Take the Transvaal.

Even the most enthusiastic and thick-skinned of Ministers of Railways would not suggest that the railways, by cheap transport, or any other means, have fostered the mining industry on the Rand. If we leave the Rand out we find that the only material increase in the inland portions of the Union has been at Bloemfontein to the extent of 15 per cent.

And the Transvaal.

I think there is something wrong when the railways are failing to do what they were hoped to do under Clause 127 of the Act of Union. I have been asked, along with others, by the Transvaal municipal association to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister, and incidentally the House, to the fact that there are no special rates quoted for supplies for municipal services. Certain correspondence has taken place with the hon. the Minister and the Board on this matter, and it has been contended that it is not the policy of the Board to extend any facilities in this direction. The Board states that its preferential rates for agricultural products is all that they are going to do. If the hon. the Minister would bear in mind that the local authorities and local communities provide a market for these agricultural products, I think he might look upon these bodies with a more sympathetic attitude and persuade his Board to give preferential rates to them. Especially as the bulk of their requirements are for what are known as essential services. There is one other point, and it concerns a question of concession. Just before the last annual meeting of the municipal association, the Railway Board was approached for concession tickets for members attending that conference. The Board refused to grant any concession, saying that they had decided to limit these concessions to delegates attending meetings and conferences of agricultural associations and religious denominations. The suggestion was put forward that these municipal associations might hold their annual meeting at a period when excursion tickets were available over the railways, such as Easter and Whitsuntide. But these meetings are held by the municipal association at a time when municipal councillors can get away, and I would remind the hon. the Minister that these municipal councillors are not paid for their services, and that they are an essential and necessary part of the Government of the country, who look, after the health and interest of the people in their own particular communities, just as much as the people who belong to agricultural and religious bodies. I submit to the hon. the Minister that they are equally entitled to the concessions they ask for, and they should be given the same consideration. There is a feeling among local manufacturers in my part concerning the question of local tenders for railway work. The hon. the Minister will remember that I formally brought to his notice last session, the question of the footbridge to be erected at President Station, Germiston, and as a result local tenderers were given an opportunity of tendering. There is an impression amongst the local tenderers that the conditions of tender were made unduly difficult, and certain articles were called for in that little footbridge which could not be obtained in this country. I submit to the hon. Minister that I can find him blacksmiths in Germiston who can make very serviceable footbridges out of discarded steel rails. I hope the hon. the Minister will see for the future that, when local firms are tendering, provisions will not be put in which will prevent South African manufacturers from doing this work.

I do not wish at this stage, and on this vote, to go into questions of general policy, but I want to bring one matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister, affecting my constituency, in the hope that he will be able to put it right at the earliest possible date. The hon. the Minister may have heard of a section of the Cape Province known as the Midlands, and he may have heard that it looks upon itself as a neglected place in regard to railway matters. There is a port in the Midlands known as Port Elizabeth—

Never heard of it.

The hon. the Minister need not be alarmed. What I am bringing before him is a perfectly innocent thing, and he need not be alarmed. A passenger leaving Port Elizabeth for Kimberley departs by the train leaving at 8.45 p.m. He goes along at a rate, which is not a very high rate of speed, until he gets to Naauwpoort at 12.45 p.m. the next afternoon; after waiting there three hours, all but ten minutes, in the middle of the day, he is then hitched on to another train, and gets to De Aar at 6.12 p.m. in the evening. Then he finds himself hitched off again for three hours and ten minutes, until finally he gets to Kimberley at 5.35 a.m. next morning, if he is lucky. Supposing he wants to go a bit further on, to Mafeking—Port Elizabeth is also the nearest port for that place —we find that the Railway Department obligingly arranges that he should spend the whole day in Kimberley before he can move on. He gets to Kimberley at 5.35 a.m. in the morning, but he can get no train to Mafeking until 7.40 p.m. That is all very pleasant, because Kimberley is a very nice place, and he has lots of friends there, but to a man who has any business, that is the position. He wants to go from Port Elizabeth to Mafeking; he has a wait of over three hours at Naauwpoort, another wait of 3½ hours at De Aar, and he has to wait a whole day at Kimberley. Something very much the same applies if he wishes to go to the Western Transvaal. To do that, the passenger who wants to get to Klerksdorp, often goes from Port Elizabeth, catches the Free State train through Bloemfontein to Johannesburg, and from there gets a train to Klerksdorp, in the morning. But it is only the people who have a suitable amount of money in their pockets, who can do that. The others have to put up with this service, and I put it to the hon. the Minister, whether that is a service that is a fair one to Port Elizabeth? It is not only Port Elizabeth, but every town in the midlands which has to put up with this service. Is that a fair service to give between an important part of the country, and these other parts. I feel sure that the hon. the Minister has only to have it brought to his attention, to have it put right. There must be some better way of serving the country than that. There are plenty of other matters, but I will give them to him when we come to the main Budget.

I am quite sure that the House is always deeply stirred by the painful story of this poor unfortunate passenger. There is one thing that struck one, and that is that the waits are progressive, and one shudders to think what would happen to any poor unfortunate individual who wanted to go from Cape to Cairo. The probability is that some of the stops en route would be about six months. I find a propos of that, that the members on that side of the House standing behind the Government, find it necessary to bring their grievances on to the floor of the House in order to get some little consideration given to them by the hon. the Minister, but even now they have a forlorn hope.

It shows impartiality.

Impartiality! I congratulate the hon. the Minister he has a supporter. There is one thing I am very much surprised about, and sorry too, and that is to find that that body of business men who sit on that side of the House have not seen fit to take up the two points which the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) brought up—two points of the utmost importance to any man who presumes to sit here representing the citizens of this country. One is the swamping effect of these interest charges, not only on the railway but on the general financial administration of the country, and the other is that matter which forms the subject of an amendment by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow), namely, this matter of the manufacturing of our own railway requirements in this country. On the question of interest, I was astounded at the figures which were quoted by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) and I am therefore the more astonished that hon. members on that side of the House, who play with figures and juggle with them, who are steeped in finance, have not seen fit to take up this question of the enormous amount of dead money that is being paid out by the Railway Department, and its enormous effect upon employment in the country. My hon. friend the member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) quite rightly pointed cut the tremendously deleterious effect which it had upon the Union, and I think it cannot be too often referred to in this House, nor can we afford to misunderstand the position, that we are turning out every year in this country thousands of boys, to say nothing of the girls who are looking for employment. That is on the one hand, and on the other the hon. the Minister of Railways calmly sends across the seas for no less an amount than £5,000,000 worth, roughly, of railway material per annum, which we on these benches, and I believe we are supported by the hon. members on those benches, claim can be equally well made here and equally cheaply. The hon. the Minister of Railways says he is not prepared to give more than a 5 per cent preference to the locally manufactured article. On a question of principle what right had the hon. the Minister of Railways to decide that only 5 per cent. preference shall be given so far as railway material is concerned, when other departments in the State decide that 10 per cent. shall be given? Why the difference, may I ask? And how is it we have not got the same uniform scale of preference which obtains right throughout the other departments of the service? No uniformity! We have been for some days arguing this question of uniformity where it meant uniformity on the salaries of the teachers, but where it is a question of uniformity, which uniforms up and may have some important bearing on the future of the youth of this country, we find that the Government fights completely shy of uniformity. May I ask the right hon. the Prime Minister whether he has no influence with the hon. the Minister of Railways? Surely if it is thought wise in most departments to allow a preference of 10 per cent., it is equally wise and advantageous that the same percentage shall be given in the form of preference on railway material, especially when we realize that the department is the biggest manufacturing department in the whole country, or it should be, but is it altogether necessary to give a 10 per cent. or a five per cent. preference? Must we in this country depend upon the preference in order that we shall be in the position to manufacture our own requirements? I say, no. Is this statement we have heard true, that the men cost more in wages in this country than they do in others? That is problematical, and I would like to see a complete enquiry into that position, because the information we have from other parts of the world show that men in identically the same walks of life as here are receiving higher salaries. Take America: the predecessor of the hon. the Minister ran away to America to buy certain engines, the majority of which are to-day on the scrap heap, not because they are too old, but because they were badly made. He ran to America for engines, and yet America is paying its mechanics infinitely more than South Africa is doing. This is a bogey; the ultimate cost of articles does not depend upon the wages paid to the men who are engaged in the manufacture of these articles. It has some slight bearing it is true, but the ultimate cost is the large amount of private profit made by those people controlling industry, in which these articles are manufactured, and various leakages en route, and a great many other factors come in. I say that the question of wages paid to the men is least of all. It has practically no bearing on the ultimate cost of the article, and I feel certain of this, and my hon. friend put the case in a nut-shell, when he called on the hon. the Minister to have the will to do it, instead of having the will not to do it. I am certain that if the hon. the Minister of Railways were to determine on a policy of manufacturing all our articles in this country, he would manufacture them as cheaply as any article that could possibly be imported into the country, but without going into all these details, and the wide ramifications of the scheme, there are articles being manufactured in cur railway workshops to-day actually cheaper than the same articles which he is importing. I think my hon. friend the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) can bear me out in this matter. Nobody knows better than he whether we can manufacture our railway coaches cheaper in this country than they can be bought abroad. I was talking to a man who is engaged on the railways. I am not going to give the hon. the Minister his name, but he told me, from his practical experience, that we can manufacture coaches in the South African workshops £400 cheaper than we can import them, with this further great advantage in favour of the locally manufactured article, that it is an infinitely better one, and, as my hon. friend rightly interjects, has a longer life. What happens? The coach that is manufactured abroad, I care not whether it is America, England or Germany, where, perhaps the right hon. the Minister of Railways takes advantage of the exchange—he is a man of business first and foremost—wherever they are manufactured, they have to be manufactured in sections; they have to be taken apart again, brought out to this country and re-erected, and in consequence of being manufactured in sections, they are not so strong as the article made here; in addition, they have soon to be re-varnished, whereas the article made here has not to be varnished again so soon. That is the opinion of a practical man, and on the face of it, it appears to us laymen, a very correct position that this man has put forward, because it appears to us that the article which is built in sections and put together again in this country, cannot possibly be so good as the article manufactured on the spot. Then the seasoning of the wood is by no means equal in quality, and, as a result of its bad seasoning, by no means equal in life to the article that we manufacture here, so that in every particular aspect we examine this question, cheapness, quality, long life, seasoning, length of time where the article requires renovating, the whole thing tends to the advantage of the locally made article, and though the hon. the Minister does allow some to be manufactured here, as a concession to national sentiment, he is prepared to carry out the policy of buying the cheapest article abroad, and bringing it out here to the detriment of the country. Supposing it does cost five or ten per cent., I am now going to give vent to a heresy, supposing it costs 25 per cent. more to make this article in this country than it does abroad, will it not still be to the advantage of the country? It will be to the advantage of the country in so far as we will be giving employment to the youth of the country, instead of allowing them to walk the streets and become chargeable to taxation. As my hon. friend rightly interjects, we are every year in this House faced with the necessity of passing large globular sums in order to meet this great unemployment question, an unemployment question which so far from diminishing, is actually increasing. We are sapping the individuality of the youth of this country, we are taking away from them their veritable manhood, and I say that if we were providing work for our own youth, it would pay this country to pay 25 per cent. more, than it costs us to bring it from abroad. There is another aspect, and surely this should appeal to the business mind of the hon. the Minister of Railways; that money would be sent abroad and is lost from a circulation point of view to South Africa. Even if the question of the employment of South African youths was taken out of the purview, we should look upon it from the point of view of money expended in the country, which hon. members opposite say we are short of. If you had 100 business men together and put the proposition to them, 90 of these would say it was far better to spend the money on articles manufactured in the country, so that we should have the money in the country. We should approach this question from the business aspect, which we are often asked to do by the hon. the Minister of Railways himself. I say that this purchasing abroad of goods not manufactured here, is a penny wise and a £ foolish principle. That is a trite remark and an old one which we learned at school, but how very true. The hon. the Minister of Railways will spend his money all over the world, £5,000,000 of it, and not a penny in South Africa if he could help it. One can understand that, but it is the penalty of taking our Minister from a body of importers, such as is the hon. Minister of Railways. He is an old importer and free trader, and I understand these manufacturers actually pay ten per cent. on the goods that are purchased for the department. There is another side of the question which I want to discuss, and which I touched upon during the debate on the teachers’ salaries—that is the question of apprentices. The Government should provide work for them in South Africa, at least the hon. the Minister of Railways should do so, as he is responsible, and should play a big part in providing such work, but when there are opportunities for obtaining such work, he hedges them round with conditions and so severe examinations, that there is very little probability of lads in the country being able to pass the examination. I think if hon. members had an opportunity, as I have had, of perusing the papers set at such examinations, they would be aghast. When you remember it is laid down that a sufficiently high standard of education for the children here—the ultimate limit of compulsory education, which is as far as the bulk of the children in South Africa can go, is the sixth standard, they are deliberately shut out from learning a trade in the railways. I defy anybody in this country to pass the apprentice examination who has not matriculated. He cannot do it. I am prepared to guarantee there are not 25 per cent. of the members in this House, who could pass the examination, and even my barrister friend there would not do so, though he has passed through a university. I do not believe the hon. the Minister of Railways himself could pass it. I would not like to try him. I want to return to the question of the tremendous amount of interest charged against the revenue of the railway. An hon. member pointed out that this was £77,000,000 since Union, which the workmen on the railways themselves have got to pay; £77,000,000 is the present amount, but it is still progressing. It will one day reach that stage when we will have to pay interest on an enormous amount, and this is the worst feature of the whole concern. Do hon. members realize that in our estimates for this year, we are, for railway interest, charged no less than £4,927,000, and this is got mostly out of the blood and tears of the men employed on the railways. Last year the hon. the Minister of Railways started to issue a monthly bulletin, or at least the General Manager did, showing the financial state of affairs in regard to 40 or 45 lines in this country, and it is said that these were not paying lines. The fact that they were developing lines run for the interests of the community, and as feeders for the main lines, was ignored entirely by the hon. the Minister. He had an ulterior object in view, and this ulterior object was in the way of substituting black men at the cheap rate of pay for the white gangers, on these lines. I went through the figures and I find that, with possibly two exceptions, everyone of these lines was showing a working profit. Everyone of these lines which had been shown as working at a loss, was showing a working profit, even when the so-called high paid white men acted as gangers. What do we see on the debit side of the ledger?—The hon. the Minister of Railways is continually harping on the ledger. We find that invariably these lines were debited with interest which brought them into debt. Last year the aggregate interest was £4,685,000, and now we have £262,000, extra money which we have to pay this year. I want to point out if we are going on “progressing” in this way, we will find that ultimately it will be a sheer impossibility to work the railways, unless you make a provision in the way of a sinking fund. We shall be gradually but certainly getting into indebtedness, and the interest will become so tremendous, that we shall not be able to run lines at all in this country. We shall ultimately reach a stage where railways will have automatically to stop. I put that before the hon. the Minister of Railways for his consideration. Finally the railways are run something like an inverted pyramid which will ultimately either tumble over or the dead weight of the base at the top—which sounds like a paradox—will crush the apex at the bottom which are the unfortunate workmen who run the railways. Why does not the hon. the Minister put his pride in his pocket, and do away with his old shibboleth of borrowing money? It is simple to go on without borrowing money. Whom do you borrow the money from? This is all right, if my friend the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) comes to me and wants to borrow £1,000 to-morrow. I understand a private individual coming to another private individual and wanting to borrow money, but when you talk about a nation borrowing money, it is time to ask: Who does the nation borrow money from? It borrows money from itself. And it is finite, and when you boil it down it comes to this, that the nation borrows from itself. That being so, it is borrowing its own money, and you have got to pay interest to yourself in effect, for the money you have borrowed. And no person or collection of persons, corporations, or good, kind financiers, will lend you money unless you are prepared to give them security. What does this State do? It gives as security its own credit. Articles that are required by us and the rest of the world are our credit, and the credit of the nation is its productivity. Why cannot the State then, instead of going about it in the roundabout manner it does, issue its own credit. The past is past. You have borrowed the money, and there is an honourable understanding, which business men do not always recognize, that we, as a State, must pay. Let us now start and build our railway lines, whether they are actually wanted from a paying point of view or from a developing point of view, the latter point of view I advocate most strongly in this House. Whatever be the reason, let us-build them upon our own credit. Let us be a lending instead of a borrowing nation. Let us pay ourselves with our own credit, and thus avoid this ruinous interest, and it will give the hon. the Minister an opportunity of paying the men better wages than he is doing, and will enable him to bring in an eight hour day—which I know he is burning to do—and which he deprived them of. It will give him an opportunity of paying the men better, and giving more instruction and opportunities to the youths of the country becoming trained artisans, and giving them more employment when they become artisans. There is one matter which I want to bring before the hon. the Minister, and I think it is only necessary to do it, for him to take notice of it. I must say that the hon. the Minister has always kindly done that whenever I have submitted anything to him. This is on the question of cheaper trips to the British Empire Exhibition in England. I expect the hon. the Minister has had this brought before him already. I would like to read a letter from a man who wants to go to England on one of these trips. He writes—

Well, I cannot make it clear to him, perhaps the hon. the Minister can. He proceeds—

If the hon. the Minister is confining these privileges to these two lines, then I suggest to him that he extends them. It does not matter what line a man or woman desires to travel by; they should have equal concessions, if concessions are to be given. Now, what about the ships? I notice they are not on the rocks, although it would appear that the hon. the Minister would like them to go on the rocks. These ships are paying in every case. It must be remembered there are only three of them, and they are all heavily handicapped. Ever since we started with them they have returned a profit, and that is in spite of every obstacle which the hon. the Minister has tried to put in the way of their operation. In the first place, they charge as against the running of these ships 5 per cent. depreciation. I can quite understand the charge for depreciation, but I do strongly object to a 5 per cent. depreciation. It means that you are wiping out the whole of the capital cost within 20 years. Well that is not right, because I understand that the usual method of depreciation, and that is a conservative one, is 2½ per cent. That gives them a 40 years life, and that is not too long for a ship. In the first place, the hon. the Minister is charging twice as much for depreciation as he ought to do. He is charging 5 per cent. for renewal, for replacement and repairs. That is too much. If the hon. the Minister can show me that as a result of their experience, it is necessary to do this, I will accept it, but I confess that it appears to me to be an unduly heavy charge. Five per cent. interest is charged and you have no right to charge that except as a book entry. When we get more ships we will have to buy them, and in the present condition of our finance we will have to pay interest on them. We are paying a charge of 15 per cent. on the running of the ships, 10 per cent. of which should not be levied at all. The hon. the Minister is doing all he can to prevent these ships from getting freight. These ships are only being employed to carry rails, although I know the hon. the Minister will say that on one occasion they carried maize, but he did not do that of his own volition. The ships go out with ballast, and they have to pay all their charges as a result of the freight they carry. That is very unfair. Is it not right that we should expect from him that he gives these ships a fair chance? Why should the hon. the Minister endeavour to make the only ships we have a failure; yet, in spite of it all, they are a stupendous success. In view of that, is it not time that we should consider enlarging our fleet? These ships are helping the hon. the Minister to pay interest charges on other parts of the railways. They are helping him to pay lots of things he would not otherwise be able to pay; they are helping him to keep men employed, who would not otherwise be employed. That being so, they have established themselves as a gigantic success; so, what right has the hon. the Minister to refrain from extending? Is it because he fears once more to compete with private enterprise? No, he knows perfectly well that if we establish a proper State fleet on proper lines to cope with the whole export and import traffic of this country, in addition to passenger traffic, we have completely beaten from the field, all those people who are running ships privately owned to-day. That, I am afraid, is why the hon. the Minister is so keen on not extending our shipping enterprice in this country. I think it is not fair, and it is due to the fact that he is so obsessed, so soaked, with the idea that private enterprise should run everything, that he cannot for one moment, even in the interest of the State, think anything else could be better.

The time of the hon. member has just expired.

It is certainly not an easy matter to tackle the hon. the Minister of Railways on his Budget, but there are a few remarks which I find it necessary to make this evening, for the purpose of which I rise to bring a few facts before the hon. the Minister. The time, I think, has arrived for this Parliament to take a closer grip and a closer hand in the control of expenditure on the railways. Year by year Select Committees are being appointed by this House to go into the finances of the railways, and they bring up reports, but never an opportunity is given to this House to discuss these Committee reports properly. The unfortunate part of it is that this is brought on so late during the session, that no proper opportunity to discuss all the various resolutions and recommendations of such a Committee, is given to this House. One is reluctantly brought to the opinion that there is no use for Select Committees. They bring up reports, move practical resolutions tendering excellent advice after having heard the necessary evidence, but no chance is given to the House to discuss them. No remedy is given to this Committee to have its resolutions carried. I ask in all sincerity of the hon. the Minister of Railways, is it any use for this Committee to bring forward resolutions for carrying out, or strengthening, the report of the Auditor-General or bearing out the opinion of the Railway Board, when this Parliament which is, after all, the body most competent to deal with those questions, is not given an opportunity to discuss them? We have, year by year, taken resolutions on great questions of railway matters, on the policy of the Government, but we never have a reply to them; in many instances we are simply ignored, and we find that it is a matter of complaint, nay, I shall even say it is a matter of a charge, which this House should have against the right, lion, the Minister, for not giving us an opportunity for discussing them. I wish to bring a few facts before the hon. the Minister, and he will find out that what I have said here now, is fully borne out not only by the Auditor-General but by resolutions taken by this Committee. We will take each matter in detail. The question of the finances of the South-West African railways has been brought before the Committee, and year by year we have been discussing this point, whether it is not necessary for this Government to keep a separate account of those railways, and, of course, we are put off every time with the reply that this is a matter of policy which the Government has to decide. The Select Committee of 1923 has taken a very strong resolution on this matter. They said in the resolution that while South Africa has a mandated territory reporting periodically to the League of Nations, the railways accounts should be kept separate from those of the Union railways, so that the financial position of the railways and harbours of the territory could be separately got at in a moment. This does not appear to have been carried out; the only effect that this resolution has had is that sectional statistics have been rendered to the Auditor-General, but this is not an account which has been properly audited, and it is not a proper account for us to deal with. Now, it is quite likely that very important issues may ultimately be involved in this matter, and it is absolutely necessary to keep these accounts separate, notwithstanding that an Act of Parliament has made the South-West African railways a part of the South African railways. We must remember that the South-West African territory is a mandated territory and though by resolution those railways are placed under the Union railways, it will always be a question in after years to find out the exact proportion of the debt which we, as the Union Government, have to pay for the South-West African railways. We find that even last year there was a net loss of £53,847. Now what becomes of that loss? That loss has been borne by the Union Government railways, and the tax payer of the inland counties has had to pay that in taxation. These figures, together with the losses during all those years of the Administration of the South-West African railways, has had to be paid out of Union exchequer. Not the Union Central Government, but by the railways of the Union. There is also the line which is still an open question—the line from Prieska to Nakop, which is a military line built by the Central Government at the beginning of the war. Up till the 31st March, 1920, the loss on the working of these railways, when they were taken over by the Union Government, was £210 000. This was paid by the Union railways. The Select Committee has successively dealt with this since 1917, in the reports of 1917—’18, and as late as 1921, when it reported on it again, and it was then promised that the subject would be brought up for legislation in 1922. A Bill was brought in and carried in this House in 1922, but the clause dealing with this part was struck out, and now the position stands as it was before. The position is, therefore, that the loss on working the railways of South-West Africa is paid by capital account, as part of the general settlement. The South-West African railways are being paid out of the capital account of the Union, whereas the two railways built by the military, that is the one from Prieska to Nakop, and from Windhuk to the border, forms part of the accumulated deficit in the Union Revenue Account. Now this is absolutely a policy of expediency, and I think this matter should be placed on a proper footing before we go any further. Take another matter which has been in the minds of the Committee for several years, that is the question of the renewal fund, but before I deal with that I want to make a few points on the question of the electrification of the railways. The capital cost of the electrification of the railways, or electric locomotives, is being debited to the renewal accounts, instead of to the capital account. When this money was asked for in the first instance, the amount that was brought up for electrical locomotives, formed part of the capital account. This policy has been changed by the hon. the Minister of Railways and the accounts for 78 electric locomotives, are now being charged to renewal funds. I would like to know by what rule the hon. the Minister places these amounts on the renewal funds. This is a new scheme altogether, and why should this new railway scheme not be charged to capital account, and charged as such against the railways. On what basis is the electrification of the electric locomotives placed on the renewal fund?

It is a sounder policy.

I shall be very pleased if the hon. the Minister will make a note of that. Of course, we have several views on the matter; it is stated that those are renewals, because they take the place of the engines which are at present running on them. Let me say that the cost of this new system of electrification should not be against renewals, but against capital account. Let me go into another question which has been discussed, that is the £10,000 given as a subsidy to the Messina Copper Company to develop the country. This, it is said, is a subsidy given for copper supplied for the electrification of railways in Natal. Another reason is that the £10,000 is an amount paid as a subsidy on articles manufactured in the Union. If the finished article is not made in the Union, I do not see by what rule this can be charged as a subsidy. I think it is necessary for this House to pass a Bill so as to cover that amount. There is another matter, the question of the appointment of an engineering staff in South Africa. I do not want to go into the matter of elevators, as the question is properly to be taken up by a Committee appointed by this House, but I only wish to remark on this one question: Why are South African engineers not being employed in these big works? Why are South African civil engineers not employed on the elevators, and South African electrical engineers employed on electrification? We have to-day, according to report, some of the finest men in the world, civil, mechanical, electrical, in the country, and we are continually going out of the country to get others, which, I think, is a distinct insult to the engineers in this country. Under agreement with Messrs. Merz & McLellan, they are bringing out a staff of seven men from England. Why did not the Government provide for the appointment of South Africans, seeing that the country has to pay for the engineers? Why did not the Government protect the South African engineers? Seven engineers are to be employed, five of whom are brought from England and two of the minor positions filled by South Africans—one a clerk and the other one an assistant engineer. Now I want to go back to the interesting question of the renewal fund. This appears to be a question which it is, the duty of this House to go carefully into and lay down a policy. A Select Committee has already on several occasions framed reports on this matter. The railways do not provide for a sinking fund, but the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. R. H. Henderson) said that instead of a sinking fund, we have a renewal and betterment fund, but these only provide for machinery, and do not provide for reduction of debt. Things can never be satisfactory until a definite policy is laid down. In 1922 and 1923 the Government, by Act of Parliament, took two million pounds from the renewal fund, which had accumulated to five millions, and they utilized it by taking two millions out, and applying it to the railways which were short that year. I certainly think that this is a very wrong policy. If the renewal fund has too much money, it is the duty of the hon. the Minister to go into the matter and reduce the contribution from revenue thereby lessening the strain to be borne by the taxpayers, and the inland man. We have learned from the report that in 10 years’ time the renewal fund has gone to 12½ millions, and the expenses of renewal was £1,300,000, so the Administration thought that they were justified in taking £2,000,000 and recently paid for 78 electrical locomotives from the fund instead of from the capital funds. There is another matter in which closer control is necessary by the House. That is the question of catering and bedding on trains. We notice in the Auditor-General’s report, that £11,775 was expended on additional equipment, without the consent of Parliament. This was brought to the notice of the General Manager, and only in 1923 was this item brought forward. This shows a lack of control, and it is necessary for the House to have better control. There is also the question of superseding white labour by coloured. I will only say that this policy initiated by the present Minister of Railways and Harbours has had a disastrous effect all over the country. It has made more poor whites, and created more un-employment, than ever before in this country. The feeling of the country is that it is a very bad policy, to supersede white men and place them on relief work, by coloured men. You are going on with this policy by discharging white men, which is a policy that ought to be put a stop to. This policy, if you will follow the Auditor-General’s Report, has caused 274 railway cottages to be emptied, representing a capital value of £90.000, and, according to the Auditor-General’s Report this is the cause of these white men being taken away from branch lines, and leaving the dwellings empty there. There you have made a loss in revenue of £7.876. What about the ships? My friend the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has remarked about the ships that, the Government has acquired, and the question is, have these ships been given to the Union as a present, or are we to be charged in future for them? What is the value of these ships? The only value we have of them, is the valuation which has been put on them for the purposes of insurance. Are these ships to be considered as the property of the Union, or have they to be paid for? There is an amount of profits which it is shown these boats have made. This amount is shown as being earned by the transportation of sleepers from Australia, but I think we can make more use of these ships. It appears that they run empty to Fremantle, Australia, and come back laden with sleepers. But why should we have ships running empty from South Africa? We might be able to use them in carrying products to a foreign port, and we have an opportunity of transporting from South Africa, articles which may be utilized in South America.

What?

We have it on record that South America want some of our products more than Australia, and we have it on record that sleepers are more cheaply manufactured in South America than in Australia.

What about the quality?

Why could we not manufacture what sleepers we require ourselves. Many people working in our Forestry Department would be only too glad to make sleepers for the Government. I do not say it in a carping spirit, but this has been looked upon as a question which can be remedied.

There are a few points which I would like to raise in the form of queries to the hon. the Minister before this vote is passed, because I do not think it right for some of them to wait another five weeks, when we deal with the Budget. The first question I should like to ask the hon. the Minister is, will he deal with the question I raised earlier this session, with regard to the employment of South African graduates as engineers on the South African Railways? I understand that the department to a certain extent has been sympathetic, but the authorities of the University of Cape Town do not consider that the Administration has gone far enough, and I would like to know what the hon. the Minister is prepared to do in view of the notice I gave him a few weeks ago? There is another question with regard to some of my constituents at Alberton who along with their colleagues at Germiston sent a petition to the Administration asking for their ordinary leave to be granted, and they should not be deprived of the leave they would have been entitled to but for the strike. Hon. members will remember we passed an Act last year No. 29, of 1923, which in Section 1 said—

Some of my constituents living in Alberton, and some living in the constituency of the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. McAlister) sent a petition on this point to the Administration, asking that they might be given their leave as if they had not been on strike. The General Manager replied in a letter as follows—

Notwithstanding subsequent representations to the hon. the Minister, I understand, in fact I know, that up till quite recently the administration and the hon. the Minister himself persisted in refusing the concession. I suggest if any hon. member looks at the section of the Act carefully he will see that the intention of this legislature was that these men were to be regarded in exactly the same position as if no strike had taken place, that bygones were to be bygones. The hon. the Minister was gracious upon this matter last year, but I hope he will go a step further now. I also wish to refer to a scandalaus article which appears in to-day’s Die Burger. The insinuation is that the big houses have watered the ground on the branch line round the railway in Zululand, and that this Bill is being introduced by the hon. the Minister of Railways in collaboration in an underhand way with the Corner House, and other people, who are buying up ground along the proposed line for speculative purposes. It goes on to refer to the railway line from Bronkhorstspruit te Pietersburg and I will read a portion if the hon. members can follow me—

Wait and see!

I need not refer to the others, except that it says also that in Piet Retief in the Wakkerstroom Parliamentary district, there are strong rumours that the hon. the Minister is commencing with the first section of the line to go to Kosi Bay. I am prepared even without having seen the hon. the Minister on the subject, to give the lie direct to these statements, and I hope the hon. the Minister will deal with these foul aspersions.

The hon. the Minister without portfolio!

I am surprised that the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow), who made such a useful speech, should make sarcastic remarks when I am dealing with such an important subject as this. I support the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) in his references to the £13,000,000, if he does not support me in this scandalous reference to the Government I am sorry, but that is on account of the pact, which has been entered into with those who are responsible for the bringing out of this paper. I wish to refer to the following points very briefly and I want the hon. the Minister to deal with them. First of all, I want to know whether he considers it right that during such a time as we were going through last July, people on the branch lines in the Ladybrand district, where there are a great number of poor whites, should be taken away from there, away from their families and their positions, and that they should be replaced by coloured persons? I am sure that the hon. the Minister in that respect, will have to say that the remarks of the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Brand Wessels) to a great extent were justified. I would like also to ask the hon. the Minister when we can expect the ballasting of the Kalk Bay line to be done, and if it is not to be done, when will the line be electrified, because it is not fit to travel on now on account of the dust? Further, I beg to ask whether the hon. the Minister is now prepared to re-consider the proposal I made three years ago, that railwaymen in distant stations up-country—and there are some even in my constituency—should get extra leave so as to allow them to come down to the coast? These foremen and other senior men have to work twelve hours a day; they have had their salaries very greatly reduced, and have taken it very well as the hon. the Minister has himself acknowledged. Can nothing be done to give these men a little extra leave to enable them to come down to the coast? In conclusion, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister two questions. Will he go on this session with the Railway Service Bill, which has got very far down on the Order Paper? I know that the railway servants are very anxious that this Bill should be proceeded with; it was dealt with last session by Select Committee, and the hon. the Minister has himself got various amendments on the Order Paper. I would like to know from him what hope we have of its going through after the recess? The other point is a reference to the manufacture of our own material for the railways. Some time ago I said the preference should be 20 per cent., but after I enquired into the matter I find that if the local merchants and contractors know what the amount of their preference is going to be, they are in the habit of finding out what the oversea cost prices are and then adding to the amount of their tender exactly what the administration allows them in preference. I understood that the hon. the Minister was prepared to increase this preference from five to ten per cent., but I do not think that that goes far enough, and in view of the remarks I made recently, when the unemployment question was under consideration in this House, I trust that the hon. the Minister will let us know whether he is prepared to deal with the question later, and give a certain measure of preference to South African tenderers, the amount to be unknown, and to be left to the discretion of the Railway Board before the contract is given out. For example, that if we find anybody in this country is prepared to make coaches, and I believe they can be made at about 12 or 15 per cent. more than we can import them for, then that percentage preference should be given, and we should be able to give employment to men who are at present out of employment. Apart from the other things I have mentioned, I trust that this question of policy with a view to further encouraging South African industries and producing in our own country all the railway requisites we can, will be seriously considered by the hon. the Minister during the recess.

Ek staan net op om ’n vraag te stel aan die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorweë en wel na aanleiding van ’n vraag, welke ek op die 7de van laaste maand reeds gestel het in verband met die nuwe spoorlyn Magaliesberg—Hercules. Die vraag het as volg gelui—

Die antwoord op (1) was ontkennend en op (2) dat aan die saak oorweging geskenk word Wat ek nie kan verstaan nie is dat 20 dage na die antwoord kry ek berig van mense, wat enige myle van die spoor afwoon, dat die werk gedaan word deur naturelle. Indien dit so is, wil ek graag weet, of dit gedaan is met kennis van die Minister, of die ingenieur werk in oorleg met die Departement. Die edelagbare die Minister is miskien nie so goed bekend daar nie, maar ek wil met nadruk verklaar, dat die mense daar in die omgewing bereid is om enige werk te doen, solank as hulle dit kan kry daar in die nabyheid van hulle wonings. Dit is onbillik om die werk te laat doen deur naturelle, wat die witmense net so goed kan en graag wil doen.