brought up the Second Special Report of the Select Committee on the South African Society of Accountants (Private) Bill, desiring leave to amend the preamble of the Bill in certain particulars, and moved, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Are we asked to pass this report now?

No, only to give leave to the report being considered now.

We ought to have an opportunity of comparing this with the Bill. There are very important alterations in it, and it should be laid on the Table.

The Bill will come back to the House It is still in Select Committee, which asks leave to amend the preamble of the Bill, which will come back to the House in its amended form.

Motion put and agreed to.

Report considered and leave granted to the Select Committee to amend the preamble in accordance with the report.

Ek wens voor te stel—

Ek verwag nie dat ons om 11 uur nog besig sal wees nie, om hierdie klein Wetsontwerpie te bespreek, maar veiligheidshalve is ek verplig om ons te vrywaar en om die mosie voor te stel sodat, indien nodig, ons na 11 uur sal kan deurgaan.

Waarom so vinnig?

Die Wetsontwerp moet op Maandag deur die twee Huise van die Parlement heen wees en ons moet ’n ander plek ’n paar daë tyd gee om dit te bespreek, en derhalve is dit noodsakelik om dit so snel moontlik deur hierdie Huis heen te kry.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

I beg to move this motion, which it is necessary for me to move in order that we may have this Bill through the House to-night. I have already explained that this Bill has to be through another place by Monday, and we must do our best to get it through here to-night. We have already given a great deal of attention to it, and we shall have the rest of the day to devote to it, and, under the circumstances, I hope there will be no objection to the motion. It is simply a matter to meet the public convenience that I move this motion.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Ek is nie van plan om by hierdie geleentheid oor die brede veld van algemene spoorweg administrasie en spoorweg beleid heen te gaan nie. Ek wens net om hier van middag ’n paar belangrike sake onder die aandag van edele lede te bring in die hoop dat wat ek hier vanmiddag sal sê die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorweë daartoe sal bring om sy ernstige aandag daaraan te gee en veranderinge in die sake te maak. In die eerste plaas is daar die kwessie van die vasstel van spoorwegtariewe. Soos edele lede weet is dit ’n kwessie waaroor hierdie Huis feitelik geen beweer het nie. In die verlede is dit aangetoon dat dit onmoontlik was om kwessies wat betref die besonderhede van spoorwegtariewe deur die Huis te laat bespreek of te laat vasstel sodat die belangrike kwessies wat betref spoorweg administrasie en spoorweg beleid berus by die Spoorweg Administrasie, dit is die Spoorweg Raad en die Minister. Besonder groot magte is derhalve van onder die kontrôle van die Huis weggeneem en toevertrou aan ’n liggaam wat baie belangrike funksies beklee in verband met ons spoorweg beheer. Waar dit die geval is dat dit onprakties is om besonderhede deur die Huis te laat bespreek, meen ek tog dat dit noodsakelik is dat die Huis van tyd tot tyd sy opienie kan uitspreek oor die brede beginsels wat betref die vasstel van spoorwegtariewe, en ek wens edele lede te wys op wat gedurende die laaste paar jaar aangegaan het en op die beginsel wat gevolg is deur ons Spoorweg Administrasie wat ek meen nie bekend is nie aan die meeste lede van die Huis, en dit is dat ons Spoorweg Administrasie in ’n paar gevalle ’n verskil maak tusse die tariewe wat van krag is op verskillende spoorweglyne, dit is te sê dat die Spoorweg Administrasie sig die reg toedien om te sê dat ’n sekere tarief van krag sal wees op taklyne, maar dan gaat hulle verder en hulle sê dat op sekere taklyne sal daar hoëre tariewe wees. Ek meen dat edele lede dadelik sal sien dat dit ’n baie belangrike beginsel raak, en ek meen dat hierdie Huis nie kan toelaat dat dit langer sal voortduur nie, en dat dit ’n nadelige en onwenselike praktyk is wat nou deur die Spoorweg Administrasie gevolg word. Want wat kan daar gebeur as daardie magte in die hande van ’n administrasie of van die Regering is— dit sal hulle die mag gee om te sê: “Hier is ’n sekere plek, ’n sekere afdeling, ’n sekere nywerheid wat miskien nie in die guns van die Regering is, en ons sal hulle penaliseer.” Dit mag wees dat daar miskien ’n andere nywerheid en ’n ander distrik is wat deur ’n ander taklyn bedien word, en daar sal hulle miskien laëre tariewe vasstel. Edele lede sal sien dat dit ’n ongesonde beginsel is om die Administrasie die reg te gee om verskillende tariewe op te sit op verskillende taklyne. So iets is onbekend in spoorweë wat aan die Staat behoor. Natuurlik in Engeland en andere lande waar die spoorwee deur private maatskappye besit word, daar kan dit nie geregel word nie, maar waar die Staat die eienaar van die spoorweë is daar is dit onwenselik dat die Administrasie die reg sal hê om te sê dat een tarief van krag sal wees op een lyn en ’n verskillende tarief op ’n ander lyn.

What about the Witbank coal line?

Die edele lid praat oor ’n verskil wat gemaak word tusse verskillende klasse van traffiek.

The coal carried on the Witbank line.

Dit kom onder die Minister waar hy die reg het om te sê dat goedere vervoer sal word teen tariewe wat die traffiek kan staan. Die Minister het die reg om die tariewe vas te stel ooreenkomstig wat die traffiek kan staan. Maar ek sê dat waar ons eenmaal ons tarief vasgestel het op die traffiek, daar behoor die Regering nie die reg to hê nie om te sê dat daar verdere verskille gemaak sal word, en om te sê dat op die ene lyn die tarief so veel sal wees en op die ander lyn so veel. Ek onthou op die Spoorweg Komitee, toe die teenwoordige Minister van Landbou nog in die Opposiesie was, toe ek op die Komitee gekom het as ’n jong lid, dat dit een van die eerste dinge was wat ek geleer het oor spoorweë, toe die Minister daarop gestaan het, dat dit iets was wat nie toegelaat kon word nie. Hy het gesê dat dit die pad ope sou laat tot allerhande soorte van korrupsie en allerlei soorte van misbruike sou kan plaas vind deur ’n Regering wat nie te nou geset was nie. Ek wil nie sê nie, dat dit hier so is. Ek het my oog op ’n taklyn van Springfontein na Koffiefontein —daar is miskien nog ’n ander een—en die tariewe daar is veel hoër dan oor enige ander taklyn en waar ons die posiesie het dat byna al die taklyne verliese aantoon as ons die rente en die bedryfskoste saamvoeg, dan sê ek, dat die praktyk wat nou bestaan totaal onwenselik is. As dit die posiesie is, dan behoor die edelagbare die Minister ten minste in staat te wees om ons te vertel, dat dit gedek is deur een of ander praktyk of beginsel, wat erken word in die spoorwegdiens of deur wetgeving deur die Huis gepasseer. Maar die posiesie is dit, dat die Minister nooit geprobeer het by enige geleentheid om dit te regverdig nie. Hy sê net: “Wel, ons moet die inkomste hê, ek kan nie sê dat dit geregverdig is, daar is nie ’n wet wat my die reg gee nie, dit is so, die prinsiepe is ongesond, maar dit is wat ons doen.” Ons is vandag in die posiesie dat een taklyn in die land, en miskien ’n ander—ek weet nie van ’n ander nie—gepenaliseer word, en ek wens ten sterkste te protesteer teen die politiek en ek wens dat die Huis sal insien dat dit ’n kwessie van algemeen spoorweg beleid is. Ons kan dit nie toelaat dat die Administrasie die reg sal hê dat die ene tarief van krag sal wees op een taklyn en ’n ander tarief op ’n ander taklyn. Spoorwegtariewe kan vasgestel word vir verskillende soorte van traffieke, maar ons kan nie verder gaan en verskillende tariewe maak vir verskillende taklyne. Nou is daar ’n ander kwessie wat ek wil aanroer en wat reeds gedurende die debat melding van gemaak is en dit is die afwyking van die edelagbare die Minister van die politiek wat gevolg is deur die Regering in vroeëre jare, namelik die indiensneming van blanke arbeid by die spoorweë. Edele lede sal hulle herinner hoe enige jare terug, ek dink dit was nog onder wyle Generaal Botha en sy Regering, met opset die politiek aanvaar is, met ondersteuning van alle kante van die Huis om vir ons arm blanke ’n opening te gee by die spoorweë. Ek sê, dat met opset die politiek aanvaar is en dit het van baie grote diens gewees vir die land. [Een Edele Lid: “Die edele lid lê dit verkeerd uit.”] Die edele lid sê dat ek verkeerd is. Ek weet wat ek sê. Die edelagbare die Minister en ook sy vriende daar het self ook die beginsel toe aangeneem, en tot voor enige jare terug het daardeur vir baie mense ’n werkkring bestaan by die spoorweë. Ek sê, die politiek is met opset aangeneem, en ons weet dat die politiek ook altoos hevig verdedig is deur die edelagbare die Minister en sy vriende. Nietteenstaande dit is daar nou ’n verandering in die politiek gekom, want wat vind ons nou? Alhoewel ons verseker word dat die amalgamasie van die partye geen verskil gebring het in die politiek van die land nie, vind ons, dat nouliks is die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorweë aan hoof van sake gekom, of hy begin stadigaan van die politiek af te wyk. Ons het al meer gewys op die verandering van politiek, want wat liet gebeur? Nouliks is die edelagbare die Minister aan hoof van sake, of die sirkulasie begin, mense word verskuif van taklyne na hooflyne. Die edelagbare die Minister het ons die versekering gegee, dat niemand ontslaan is nie. Ek wil nie sê, dat die mense ontslaan is nie, maar ek dink seker dat die politiek van verskuiwing tengevolge gehad het, dat die edelagbare die Minister sy doel net so effektief bereik het, asof hy stelselmatig die mense het begin ontslaan. Ek wil dit bewys deur enige syfers, wate edele lede sal vind in die Blouboek. Laat ons net neem die syfers wat betref die posiesie wat ontstaan is van 1921-’22 tot 1922-’23. Noueliks was die edelagbare die Minister een jaar aan hoof van sake of ons het reeds ’n uitgebreide verandering. Van die tyd af het weer ’n jaar verby gegaan. Alhoewel ons nie die syfers tot datum het nie, is ek seker daarvan, dat die posiesie nog in baie ongunstiger mate verander is. Ek is seker daarvan, dat die nog baie slegter geword het. Maar wat was die posiesie op 31 Maart van verlede jaar? Ons vind dat vergeleke met die syfers van die jaar vooraf, daar ’n vermeerdering gewees het van personeel by die spoorweë van 7.928, maar dit sluit in ’n vermindering van 345 amptenare en 1,218 blankes. 1,218 blanke geemployeerde en 345 amptenare in daardie ene jaar is daar minder, terwyl in die selfde tydperk daar ’n vermeerdering van naturelle en kleurling arbeiders is van 6,017. Dis die syfers van die Blouboek. Terwyl ons vind, dat die blanke personeel verminder is met 1,818, is die naturelle en kleurlinge getal vermeerder met oor die 6,000. Die edele lid vir Humansdorp (de hr. C. W. Malan) het reeds gister die aandag daarop gevestig en gesê, dat ons nie wil dat die kleurlinge en naturelle heeltemaal van die spoorweë moet verdwyn, dat daar geen plek vir hulle sal wees nie, maar ons protesteer teen die verandering van politiek van die edelagbare die Minister om die blanke arbeid te verdring. Ons protesteer daarteen, dat die proporsie, die ratio, stelselmatig word verander aan die spoorweë. Ons protesteer teen die verandering van politiek van die edelagbare die Minister vanaf hy die leidsels van spoorweë in hande gekry het. Dis die plig van edele lede van die Huis om ten sterkste te protesteer daarteen. Ons moet rekening hou met die posiesie van die land vandag. Die moeilikhede en die groot kwessie vir ons land vandag is die werkvërskaffing aan mense wat nergens in die industrie werk kan kry nie. En terwyl dit die posiesie is, vind ons dat deur die politiek by die spoorweë duisende van mense uit die werk gedruk word. Die Huis behoor ten sterkste sy afkeuring te gee oor daardie politiek en ek hoop dat die edelagbare die Minister nog hierdie sessie die Huis die versekering sal gee, dat hy sal terugkeer tot die gesonde politiek om die mense weer ’n kans te gee cm werk by die spoorweë te kry. Die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorweë sal nou voor die Huis kom en vertel, dat hy die spoorweë reggeruk het en wys op die surplus en sê, dat hy die departement uit die modder gehelp het, waarin dit onder sy voorganger gekom is. Maar ek sê, dat die land liewers sou sien, dat die profyt ’n honderduisend pond minder gewees het en dat die mense hulle werkkring by die spoorweë sou behou het. Maak dit dan ook so’n groot verskil of daar ’n honderdduisend pond meer of minder gespandeer word op ’n uitgawe van twintig miljoen, terwyl daardeur duisende van mense kon gered word van armoede en hongersnood? Die posiesie is, dat mense uitgedruk word, wat nergens ’n verdienste kan vind om van te lewe nie. Ek wil nie oor andere punte vandag praat nie, maar daar is nog net een ding en dis ’n baie belangrike ding. Ek hoef nie weer daarop te wys hoe de Regering stelselmatig wanneer hy voor ’n moeilike kwessie kom, weghardloop daarvir nie. Soos ons reeds gesê het, word die Parlement met minagting behandel en word die wette van die land verbreek deur die Regering. Die geval waarna ek refereer is die aanleg van die gekonsolideerde militêre spoorlyn van Prieska na Suidwes. Die kwessie is of die verlies op daardie lyn gedra moet word deur die spoorweë of dat die moet kom uit die Gekonsolideerde Fondse. Daar is rapport uitgebring deur die Ouditeur-generaal, dat die verlies behoor betaal te word uit die Gekonsolideerde Fondse, want die lyn is nie gebou met goedkeuring van die Spoorwegraad nie. Dis ’n kwessie wat ook van praktiese belang is, want as dit nie gedaan word nie, dan sit die spoorweë opgeskeep met die verlies en sal die algemene belastingbetaler dit moet betaal. Ek sê dis ’n kwessie van publieke belang. Maar ek wil daarop wys, dat hierdie Ouditeur-generaal gesê het, dat iets gedoen moet word deur die Parlement om die saak reg te maak. Daar is toe ’n ondersoek gewees deur die Spoorweg Kommissie. Twee jaar agtermekaar het daar ’n sterke resolusie gewees om aan te dring, dat die kwessie deur die Huis reggemaak sou word. Die edelagbare die Minister het toe met ’n Wetsontwerp voor die Huis gekom, wat ’n artiekel bevat het om die posiesie reg te sit. Die edelagbare die Minister het gevoel, dat die kwessie deur die Huis moes reg gemaak word en die Wetsontwerp is toe verwys na ’n Gekose Komitee. Die Gekose Komitee was dit nie eens met die edelagbare die Minister nie en die Gekose Komitee het die voorstel van die edelagbare die Minister afgestem. Wat het toe gebeur? Hy het dood eenvoudig die seksie uitgehaal en die saak laat staan soos die was. Die edelagbare die Minister weet dat dit nie reg was nie. Hy behandel die Parlement nie reg nie, hy het nie gedurf om dit voor die Huis te bring nie, omdat sy ondersteuners geweier het hom hierin te ondersteun. Die edelagbare die Minister is nie gewillig nie, dat die spoorwee die bedrag moet betaal, hy wil dat die bedrag aan die spoorweë vergoed sal word, maar hy haal eenvoudig die seksie uit, omdat sy ondersteuners nie daarmee eens is nie en sê dat daar ’n ooreenkoms getref is. Die kwessie is nou nog net sover as ’n paar jaar gelede en nou sal die Ouditeur-generaal weer moet kom en sê, dat die saak reggemaak moet word. Die edelagbare die Minister is in ’n moeilike posiesie, maar hy behoor met die saak voor die Huis te kom, om die stem van die Huis daaroor te kry. Dis hy verskuldig aan die gesag van die Huis. Ek maak ’n beroep op die edele lid vir Boksburg (de hr. R. H. Henderson) en die edele lid vir Kimberley (de hr. Oliver) wat geweier het om met die edelagbare die Minister saam te gaan in die kwessie, om te sê, dat die edelagbare die Minister met die kwessie voor die Huis moet kom en dat die nie langer op die lange baan geskuiwe kan word nie. Die Ouditeur-generaal het herhaaldelik gesê, dat daar ’n settelment moet kom. Dat eers die artiekel opgeneem is en later weer uitgehaal is, is ’n bewys van die opvatting van die edelagbare die Minister en die Minister behoor die mening van die Huis oor die kwessie te vra.

I do not wish to say much about the general methods of administration of the railways at this stage, but I would like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the way in which he has met the spirit of Section 127 of the South Africa Act. That lays down that—

Now I should think that one of the most necessary things for the promotion of industries in the inland parts of this country is cheap coal.

Is what?

Cheap coal. We have very large coal-fields in the Transvaal, and instead of the spirit of the letter of Section 127 of the South Africa Act being carried into effect, rates on coal to the Witwatersrand from the Witbank collieries are put up to an abnormal extent. I hope my friend the hon. member who has just spoken will support me in this, because that was what I referred to when I interrupted him.

Does that apply to other classes on the line, or only coal?

Only coal. I am speaking of the Witbank line.

That is a different matter.

The distance from Witbank to Johannesburg is 90 miles; the rate charged for coal over that line is .96d. per ton per mile. I am not sure if these are the latest figures. [An Hon. Member: “.96 of what?”] .96 of a penny per ton per mile. The rate charged on coal for consumption in the Union over a distance of 1,017 miles is .25 of a penny per ton per mile, almost one-fourth of the rate charged to the Witwatersrand. The rate charged on coal for export over 1,071 miles is .16 of a penny per ton per mile, exactly one-sixth of the rate charged on the 90 miles from Witbank to Johannesburg. Now it is evident that this cheap rate pays. It is a paying rate because, if it is not, it would have been necessary under Section 131 of the South Africa Act for the Board to make a report, and require any loss on the traffic on the chief rate to be paid out of the revenue. So we must assume that the rate of .16 of a penny per ton per mile pays, and still the Witwatersrand is charged at the rate of .96 of a penny per ton per mile. How does the hon. the Minister explain this, in view of the expressed provision of Section 127—

Industries cannot be carried on profitably unless by cheap coal, and here _is a distinct tax put on any industry started on the Witwatersrand, and a large tax put upon the leading industry of the country; the gold mines of the Witwatersrand. I would like the hon. the Minister to explain how he defends this rate, in face of the provisions of Section 127 of the South Africa Act. Not only is that done, but as will be found in the report of the General Manager a Railways, there is a very heavy traffic charge for goods going up-country, in order to meet the expense of paying for the large number of trucks which are returning from the coast empty. So we bring coal down to the coast at a cheap rate, thereby getting a large number of empty trucks, and in order to pay the expense of hauling them back we charge extremely high charges on the goods sent back. Then I would like to show how the interior portion of the country is penalized again, by the preferential rates which are allowed. In order to enable the products of this country to reach other portions than those in which they are produced, preferential and competitive rates are in force on the railways. I am the last one to say that we should not give every encouragment for the sale and development of all the products of this country, but when that is done for the benefit of the country generally, and if there is a sacrifice of revenue by the railways in allowing these competitive and preferential rates, then that loss on the railways should be met, not by charging extra rates to the people up-country, but by getting a contribution from the general revenue. These things should not be done at the expense of the inland portion of the Union only. It is for the benefit of the whole Union that the products of this country should be encouraged, and, therefore, the taxpayer of the Union, and not the users of the railway, should pay for any benefits which a railway gives to those products. Now we come to the employment of white and coloured on the railway. There again I think that is a policy which ough, to be encouraged in every way. I am glad to hear that now the white labour used on the railway is being used economically and pays for itself, but in the past that was not the case, and yet the whole cost of the policy, which is in the interest of the whole Union, has been laid on the users of the railways, because these expenses have been charged against the railways, and not against the general revenue. We were told when the Union Act was passed, that Sections 127 and 131, were the Magna Charta of the interior portions of this country, and that thereafter full justice would be done to these inland territories. I would like the hon. the Minister when he replies to this debate, to point out in what way the interior has benefited from the provisions of those two sections. It appears to me that the whole burden of the railways has been thrown on the interior portions of the country, that whatever benefits are given by the railways for the advantage of the whole of the taxpayers of the Union, have been given by the users of the railways, and not as should have been done, by the taxpayers of the country.

When hon. members address their constituents and tell them that the farmers have been taxed in the interests of the mining industry, I would like to ask them particularly to remind their constituents that the railway charges 800 per cent. more for carrying the coal of the mining companies, than they do to the rest of the community.

Ek wens, dat ek die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorweë net so hartelik kon gelukwens met die surplus wat hy gemaak het gedurende die afgelope jaar, as die edele lid vir Boksburg (de hr R. H. Henderson) en as die edele lid vir Zoutrivier (de hr. Snow), want ek praat nie vir myself nie. Ek praat vir die boere bevolking in die algemeen. Wat ek sê, is dat die boere bevolking die swaarste die besuinings politiek van die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorweë gevoel het.

How does the hon. member make that out?

Ek het ’n vraag gestel in die Huis met betrekking tot die sluiting van stasies en daarop gewys dat ’n verskrikkelike ongerief daardeur ontstaan vir die boerebevolking. Sommige stasies is gesluit wat vir die laaste 40 of 50 jaar stasies gewees het en terwyl dit ontken word deur die edelagbare die Minister, is daar baie stasies ontmantel, wat nooit weer vir stasies gebruik sal word nie. En die elf stasies wat gesluit is, is almaal uitsluitend op die platteland. Dan is ’n ander ongerief tengevolge van die besuinigings politiek, dat die treinloop verander is. Dit het in die meeste gevalle die mense maande en maande geneem om dit uit te vind, dat soiets bestaan. Ek wil nie die hele dag praat oor die ongeleerde en ongeletterde agterveldse boere, waarvan so baie misbruik gemaak word nie, maar dis ’n onbillike toestand, as die mense op die stasies kom en hulle vind daar uit, dat die trein vandag nie loop nie en miskien morre ook nog nie. Dis ’n toestand wat ek baie ernstig onder die aandag van die edelagbare die Minister wil bring. Dan kom ek tot die ekskursie fasiliteite. Iets wat vir my baie eienaardig is, is dat die ongelukkige arme ongeleerde man nie die genot het van die ekskursie nie. Die ongelukkige kêrel wat nie die koerant kry nie en wat die “posters” op die stasies nie kan lees nie, die kry geen ekskursie kaartjies nie, want die instruksie aan die stasiemeesters is nie aan die mense te sê dat daar ekskursies is nie. Dus kry die arm mense nie exkursies nie. Dis ook ’n punt wat ek ernstig onder die aandag van die edelagbare die Minister wil bring. Waarom is dit so? Ek kan nie verstaan waarom dit so geheim gehou word nie, ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal my dit sê. Ek hou nie van die geheime politiek nie. Ek weet nie of die edelagbare die Minister dit sal erken nie.

I should not think so.

Ek wil hê, dat die edelagbare die Minister asseblief daarvan aantekening sal maak. Die ander dag het ek met ’n vriend in die trein gesit. Die man is baie arm en hv het die geld vir die trein van my geleen. Ek het ’n ekskursie kaartjie gehad, maar die arm kêrel het die volle prys betaal, want hy het nie daarvan geweet nie. In die Reglement van die Spoorweë staan—

Die arm man weet daarvan niks nie, en die “posters” wat byna altoos in Engels is, kan hy ook nie lees nie. Waarom word nie instruksies gegee aan die stasiemeesters dat hulle vra or die mense ’n ekskursie wil hê of nie? Dan wil ek nog iets sê omtrent die vragpryse vir lusern en met betrekking tot die geldelike konsessie wat betref die vervoer van lusern. Ek weet nie of die edelagbare die Minister hom herinner, dat hy verlede jaar baie tegemoetkomend getoon het op die punt. Ek het hom verlede jaar gaan sien en hom gewys op die onbillikheid op die punt en daarop gewys, dat die spoorwegtarief vir lusern na die binneland vir die vee wat sterwende was van honger 17s. 6d. per ton was, maar vir uitvoer was die vrag slegs 10s. per ton. Die edelagbare die Minister het toe belowe om daarin verandering te maak. Ek het dit nie oor die vloer van die Huis gevra nie, maar ek het hom persoonlik gaan sien en die edelagbare die Minister het toesegging gedoen om die tarief per ton te verander tot 10s.

No, never.

Wag ewe. Die edelagbare die Minister het onlangs ’n deputasie ontmoet van mense wat ook gesmeek het om vermindering van die spoorwegtariewe vir lusern en die edelagbare die Minister is tog bereid om tegemoet te kom.

Only for drought-stricken areas.

Ek weet dat vir die “drought-stricken” gebiede die tarief nog 17s. 6d. is as die boer vir sy vee lusern wil daarheen vervoer, maar vir uitvoer is dit 10s., dus 7s. 6d. per ton minder. Ek kan die voorkeur vir die uitvoer na die buiteland nie verstaan nie. Daar is deur die droogte ’n skade gely van 4,000,000 skape, en waarom kan die tarief nie lager gemaak word, sodat die boer sy vee kan red deur goedkoop vervoer van lusern? De edele lid vir Troyeville (de hr. Webber) het ’n belangryke punt aangeroer met betrekking tot die vervoer van steenkool en die stelling van die Departement van Spoorweë, dat “the railways must be made to pay.” “Die spoorweë moet betaalbaar gemaak word.” Weet die edele lede, dat die wolboere swaar gepenaliseer word?

Maar die prys wat hy kry?

Omdat hy in die gelukkige posisie verkeer om ’n goeie prys te kry, moet hy ’n hoge spoorwegtarief betaal. Vir steenkool is dit oor ’n afstand van 233 myl 6s. 1½d., en vir wol oor dieselfde spoor en afstand 63s. 4d.

Maar al die werk!

Dan is daar nog lede, wat klaag, dat die tarief vir steenkool te hoog is.

Die vervoer van steenkool van Witbank is meer; dit is 1d. per ton.

Ek praat van die afstand van 233 myl van Witbank na Durban, en die syfers is my verstrek deur die kantoor van die edelagbare die Minister. Neem b.v. die vervoer van sement oor die spoor; vir plaaslike gebruik kos dit 38s. 4d. en vir uitvoer 11s. 4d., ’n verskil van byna 27s. Ek kan nie verstaan waarom die besorgdheid daar is vir die uitvoer industrie nie. Dit is seker dat lede met reg klaag, dat die platteland swaarkry onder die politiek wat gevolg word met betrekking tot die taklyne. Passesiers betaal dieselfde tarief as op die hooflyne, maar kry nie dieselfde behandeling nie; sodra die trein op ’n taklyn kom, raak die passesiers verstoke van die geriewe wat op die hooflyn mens s’n deel kan wees. Op die trein van die Kaap na Johannesburg b.v. kry ’n mens kos, beddegoed en ander geriewe, maar sodra as die trein op ’n taklyn kom, word dit ontneem; die beddegoed word soms afgeneem om 2 uur in die nag, want dit behoort aan die hooflyn. Mens kan op die taklyne nie eers ’n handdoek, of ’n glas of drinkwater desnoods sonder ’n glas kry nie. Ek wou net die paar punte onder die edelagbare die Minister se aandag breng, nie om te kritiseer nie, maar omdat dit werkelike griewe is, wat behoort weggeruim te word. Ek het die Minister verlede jaar ’n vraag gestel—ek weet nie of sy edelagbare dit nog onthou nie— omtrent 11.000 sakke mielies wat op die trein weggeraak het; hy het beloof om die saak te ondersoek, maar ons het daar nooit weer iets van gehoor nie.

Dit is nie so nie.

Ek het informasie ingewin en dit is weg.

Dit is seker op Cradock.

Altemet sal dit nog op Swellendam uitkom. [Gelach.] Die edelagbare die Minister en lede kan lag, maar die platteland sal die soort dinge almaal moet betaal. Elf duisend sakke mielies. Ek twyfel of daar twyfel molik is, dat dit weg is. Die vervoer van lewende hawe oor die spoorweë is ook glad te duur. Die edele lid vir Queenstown (de hr. Moffat) het, saam met ander lede van ’n kommissie hieroor ’n rapport uitgebreng, maar daar word niks aan gedaan nie en het skyn of die Spoorweg Administrasie meer besorgd is oor die vervoer van steenkool as van lewende hawe. Dit vat vier dage om van Witbank af na Kaapstad steenkool te vervoer, ’n afstand van 1,200 myl, maar om schape by 600 myl ver te vervoer, neem 6 dage in beslag van Middelburg af Kaapstad toe.

Dit is baie verbeterd die laaste tyd.

Ek is baie bly om dit te hoor, want soas ek dit hier beskryf het, was dit ’n onhoubare toestand. En die voer en water gee van vee op die trein: ek wens dat die edelagbare die Minister op ’n keer, ongesiens deur die betreffende beambtes hierdie werksaamheid kon aanskou. Dit is pure camouflage, en moet liewer heeltemal afgeskaf word; dan sal die koste tenminste uitgespaar word. Ek vertrou, dat die edelagbare die Minister van die paar punte aantekening sal maak vir ondersoek; ek het dit nie voorgebring om te kritiseer of om fout te vinde nie maar dit is werkelike griewe.

The hon. member who has just sat down, referred very briefly, passing by, to the report of a commission which had been appointed by the hon. the Minister, a departmental commission, with regard to the conveyance of livestock; to report upon the possibility of the improvement of transit of livestock and matters incidental thereto. I have the report in my hand. The commission was a very representative commission indeed. The chairman was a highly placed official of the Railway Department, and the other members were representative of the South African agricultural union, the farming community, buyers and sellers, which I expect means cold storages, municipalities, and the Agricultural Department. I must join the last speaker in congratulating the commission on bringing forward a very interesting and valuable report. The commission found as a fact, that frequent cases of cruelty are practiced as regards animals on the railways. They made a number of invaluable recommendations which I do not wish to refer to at length, and which naturally will take some time to bring into operation. I would commend to the hon. the Minister’s serious consideration the adoption of these recommendations.

We have done that.

Yes, some of them, but I think all the recommendations should have been adopted, and we will see in time what the effect of adopting the findings of the commission will have. There is one recommendation which the commission made, and which is couched in very emphatic language. It says—

One would have thought that a recommendation of that sort coming from a commission of so representative a character as I have just mentioned, and couched in such emphatic language, would have been adopted without any cavil, but in reply to a question by me on the fourth of this month, the hon. the Minister in the usual official language said that the matter had received consideration, but did not think there was any need for such an appointment at the present time. That answer is exceedingly unsatisfactory. It is common knowledge that a great deal of the cruelty suffered by animals in transit is due to the long delays en route, and it might be stated as a fact that these animals are often side-shunted, and the trucks in which they are contained are left standing there for a very unreasonable length of time. If a stock officer were appointed he would make it his business to see that cattle trains were run quickly, and delivered their burden within a reasonable time. Cases referred to by the last speaker would then not occur, or be rare. I would like the hon. the Minister to look at the emphatic language of his commission when they say: “The livestock of this country is of no less importance than the grain traffic.” In view of the hardships to which these animals are subjected, as has been found by the commission, it states here distinctly that cruelty frequently takes place. I say on that sentence alone of the commission, apart from any other consideration, it is incumbent upon the hon. the Minister and the Railway Administration, to make that appointment right away. I hope the stock owners in this House will make their voices heard on this occasion, and bring home to the hon. the Minister that we consider it necessary to have the appointment of such a responsible officer made, who will be in a position to insist upon the removal of the state of affairs which is contained in the report. I think I have spoken rather strongly, and I hope that very shortly an appointment will be made, otherwise I will have to use more emphatic language. The hon. the Minister is intimately acquainted with Johannesburg; he has often been there, and amongst the things that struck him was the size of the place—it is the largest city in the Union—he has been struck with the handsome buildings and the fine warehouses and residences, but perhaps he has not been struck by the absence of public, that is, State buildings. We know that Johannesburg has a fine town hall, but that was paid for by the citizens. The thing that strikes any visitors, is that in the heart of the Union, a place from which a golden stream of wealth has flown all over the Union, and which has benefited every part of the Union, yet this important place seems to be superlatively neglected by the Government. Visitors ask where are your public buildings worthy of the place? We find an antiquated post office, tumbled down in parts even, and a railway station erected of what? It may not be within the ken of hon. members, but the railway station is a wood and iron building, with fragmentary pieces of brick here and there. The building is one that was erected by the old Netherlands railway administration very nearly half a century ago. The place is wholly inadequate. One goes to Pretoria—I do not envy Pretoria—but one finds there handsome structures; one finds a post office, a mint, museums, libraries, a land bank, etc., all State constructed. It is worth while going to Pretoria to see the public buildings, quite apart from the Union Building. Naturally the inhabitants of Johannesburg are dissatisfied with the state of things there, and they have a right to be dissatisfied. The absence of State buildings in Johannesburg, worthy of the name, is a real shame and scandal. The only State building worthy of mention is the law courts, and that, I think, was due to the enterprise and public spirit of the then Minister of Public Works, the late lamented Sir E. P. Solomon. Justice should be done to the Witwatersrand, and in this respect I would appeal to the hon. the Minister. I understand he met a deputation from the town council and he made them some promise. I would like to know exactly what the promise was. Are we to understand that next year, or even this year, a sum will be placed on the estimates to be expended on the construction of adequate accommodation in the way of a railway station and post office, in Johannesburg?

Ek wil nie graag kerm oor komberse of kos nie; ek het ander griewe, maar die sal ek liewer mee voor die dag kom, wanneer die edelagbare die Minister se Begroting behandel word. Hier wil ek die kans te baat neem om die edelagbare die Minister te bedank vir die grote tegemoetkoming, wat hy die skaapboere verleen het om hulle vee per trein uit die bosveld te vervoer; die boere is baie dankbaar daarvoor. Wat die edele lid vir Cradock (de hr. I P. van Heerden) aangestip het van die duurte van die tarief vir die vervoer van vee, gaan ek heeltemal mee saam. Dit is begryplik, dat waar die Departement so gewurg het, die edelagbare die Minister die tariewe so hoog maak om die spoorweg te laat betaal, maar die doel word nie daardeur bereik nie, want hy jaag veeleer die mense van die trein af weg met hulle produkte en vee. As die tarief verlaag word, sal dit beter betaal, want daar sal meer gebruik van die spoor gemaak word, ’n Ander punt is die loop van die personetreine. Ons het ’n paar treine wat loop tot gerief van die publiek. Daar is die “Unie Express,” wat hier om 10,30 vertrek op Maandag more en is om 6.25 n.m. Dinsdag op Pretoria, en die trein is goed, maar die fout lê daar, dat die “Express,” wat Vrydag om 10.30 v.m. hier vertrek en om 6.25 die volgende aand op Pretoria aankom, die verbinding met Lourenzo Marques, met die bekende “Rufe Naylor,” net misloop met ongeveer 14 minute, want daardie mail trek om 6.11 van Pretoria af, sodat mense, wat met daardie trein naar Oost Transvaal wil gaan, alsdan verplig word om te wag vir die mailtrein wat op de volgende avond vertrek. Die edele lid vir Denver (de hr. Nixon) kyk ongelowig, maar ek dag dat hy dikwels van daardie trein gebruik maak. Ek vertrou, dat die edelagbare die Minister hierin verandering sal breng, want ’n verskil van enkele minute is tog werkelik nie so’n moeilikheid, dat dit nie uit die weg geruim sou kan word nie en dit sou vir die publiek van oostelik Transvaal die besparing van baie ongerief beteken, wat nou op Pretoria moet oorbly tot Sondagaand. Dit is net so ongerieflik vir mense, wat wil deurgaan na Lourenzo Marques toe. Ander dinge sal ek oorlaat tot die Begroting aan die orde kom.

Ek is baie bly, dat die edele lid vir Fauresmith (de hr. Havenga) gewys het op die onbillike verskil wat daar gemaak word ten nadele van die taklyne; on die een word meer betaal as op die ander. In my kiesafdeling het ons ook die taklyn Prieska met ’n verskriklik hoë tarief in vergelyking met ander lyne en die mense is baie ontevrede. Die hr. Joubert, die organiserende sekretaris van die Suidafrikaanse Party was daar, die saak is aan hom voorgeleg en hy het beloof om sy bes te doen om dit verbeterd te kry. Ek het ook angedring, dat verandering in hierdie opsig sal bewerkstellig word in verband met die Prieskalyn. Die edelagbare die Minister was baie gelukkig, waar hy verlede jaar ’n aansienlike tekort had, dat daar nou ’n surplus van £1,000,000 is en daarom het ons vrymoedigheid om by hom aan te dring op verlaging van die tarief; dit is nog 40 persent hoër as vóór die oorlog en die mense, wat ver woon moet die swaarste betaal en hulle moet tegemoet gekom word. Dit sal ook meer besigheid laat ontstaan as wat met die hoë tarief molik is. Om ’n voorbeeld te noem: ek het eenmaal van Victoria West af ’n bok gestuur aan iemand op de Paarl in ’n sogenaamde “dog box” en die vrag, wat op die dier betaal moes word was 14s. en 9 oulap, terwyl die bok sê waarde maar £1 was. Ek was so verbaasd en het die man nooit die bok laat betaal nie, dog dieselwe sommer verniet aan hom gegee. Die bok moes ook nog geweeg word, voordat hy opgelaai werd en ek wonder of hulle nie naderhand mense, wat met die trein wil reis, ook sal weeg nie. Dan sal sekere lede van die Huis ’n fikse klompie moet betaal om met die trein vervoer te kan word. Die tarief vir persone van Victoria West af Kaap toe is nou £8 waar dit vóór die oorlog £5 was en in die begin £4. As ’n mens sinkplate van Kaapstad af laat kom na Victoria West is die tarief 4s. as dit in bondels is, maar as dit los is 8s., dus net tweemaal soveel. Dit is eenmaal te hoog, want daar word baie van die dinge bestel in verband met die bou van huise en dies meer. Dan is daar die saak van konsessiekaartjies vir skoolkinders by geleentheid van die kort vakansies en ek wonder of die Department nie in dergelike gevalle ook konsessiekaartjies kan toestaan nie. Hulle wil miskien strand toe gaan na vriende of so en dit is veral vir skoolkinders, wat hard studeer bepaald gewens ’n bietjie weg te kom met die kort vakansies. Daar word wel sodanige konsessies gegee met paasfees, waarom dan nie met die kort vakansies ook nie? Verder, waarom begin die konsessie op 11 April en nie reeds teen die einde van Maart nie? En dan die verplaatsing van spoorwegbeambtes van die taklyn na die hooflyn en die vervanging van hulle deur kleurlinge. Ek wens, dat elke lid die edelagbare die Minister daarop wil wys, opdat die Regering hulle dwaling in hierdie verband kan insien en daar ’n einde aan maak. Dit word gesê, dat hulle verplaas word om te besuinig, maar waar kom die besuiniging in? Die edele lid vir Humansdorp (de hr. C. W. Malan) het gesê, dat die edelagbare die Minister ’n eerlike man is en ek is dit met hom eens, maar waar kom die besuiniging in, wil ek nogeens vraag? Die edelagbare die Minister verklaar, dat hulle die keus het om toe te stem in die verplaatsing of dit te weiger, maar daardie keus staat gelyk met ’n bevel. Daar word b.v. vir een gesê, dat hy na Laingsburg moet gaan en wil hy nie, dan word hy in die dat gesteek. Dit is ’n ongesonde politiek en lede van daardie sy het reeds daarop gewys waarom die edelagbare die Minister volhard in daardie politiek. Ek wens verder te wys daarop, dat alle werk, wat hier gedaan kan word nie na die buiteland gestuur moet word om gedaan te word nie. Ons sien, dat daar oorsee orders gegee is vir 100 lokomotiewe ketels, 100 staal troks en 50 goederetroks. Waarom kan die meeste dinge nie hier in_ die land self gemaak word nie, temeer waar ek moet verstaan, dat dit hier omtrent net so goedkoop gedaan kan word? Dog al sou dit meer kos moes die mense hier die voorkeur kry. Ons bestel groot dinge oorsee en moet hier £2,000,000 uitgee om mense, wat geen werk het nie, aan die lewe te hou. Daar word wel 5 persent voorkeur gegee vir hier gedane werk, maar dit beteken niks nie; in Nuseeland gee hulle 20 persent voorkeur vir wat daar gemaak word en hulle het daar weinig werkeloosheid. Engeland gee 25 persent voorkeur aan plaatselik vervaardigde dinge en die gevolg is, dat minder as 1 persent van hulle masjienerie buitelands gemaak word. Waarom kan die edelagbare die Minister nie die voorbeeld van Nuseeland en Engeland volg nie? Dit is ’n domme politiek, wat hier gevolg word om die goed oorsees te laat maak en dit is een van die edelagbare die Minister se swak punte en as hy hierdie punt sou verbeter, sal hy byna ’n volmaakte Minister wees. As hy dit 10 persent maak sou dit ook iets, maar nie veel help nie. Op skoene word 27 persent voorkeur gegee, waarom nie ook op spoorwegbenodigdhede nie? In verband met veevervoer het die edelagbare die Minister verlede jaar tegemoetkoming beloof en het dit ook gedaan vir die vee self, maar dit behoor ook toegestaan te word vir die kar, wat ’n mens mee moet trek as jy die skape wegbreng. Ek het verlede jaar vir ’n kar £4 betaal op die heenreis en net soveel vir die terugreis, terwyl die kar self maar £6 werd was. Ek hoop, dat die aangestipte punte die edelagbare die Minister se ernstige aandag sal geniet en dat hy verbeteringe sal aanbreng.

I rise to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow). I do so for the following reasons. I believe that if we can implant within the hon. the Minister the will to play the game, and develop not only the railways of this country, but play the game to the servants of the railways, I am sure we shall have not only a better report on the financial conditions, but on the conditions of service The hon. the Minister for Railways also believes not altogether in the development in this country, but in the development of other countries. I only wish the present Cabinet would pay a little more attention to South Africa, and try and develop South Africa not only agriculturally and industrially, but socially, for the coming generation. We know full well that at the present time there are almost 7 000 boys willing to be apprenticed in the various arts, crafts, and sciences of this country. Unfortunately, the hon. the Minister believes that there are people in other countries who need employment, and he is looking after their needs.

Rubbish! What absolute rubbish!

He purchases the material he requires in Britain, I doubt if he gets the article manufactured in Britain, but allows the tender to go out in England, and the articles to be manufactured in Germany and Switzerland. Why not allow our representative in Germany to call for tenders there, if the tenders are open to the world? The hon. the Minister of Railways, by putting it into the hands of the High Commissioner in London, is leading us to believe that the tenders are called for from British manufacturers, which, I hold, is insulting to the intelligence of the House. We have had a statement made by the hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon) from statistics, that we only save 12 per cent. by having the coaches manufactured in Great Britain. It is true before the days of the present the hon. the Minister of Railways and Harbours, I believe the advisory board of industry and science in 1918, suggested to the Cabinet of this country that it was advisable to have the manufacture of our own goods carried out in this country. They also considered, after hearing the evidence of the coach-builders, that we could compete with Great Britain. There is always comparison between Great Britain and this country. As I stated before, if they only got the goods manufactured in Great Britain, we should not have so much to grumble about, but they use it in order to get goods manufactured in the cheapest country, and by the cheapest individuals, that are on God’s earth. I would like to bring before the hon. the Minister of Railways the fact, that I believe he supported the vote on the unemployment motion. If he were to pay more attention to circulating the work he required throughout this country, the unemployment vote, I think would not be needed at all, especially if the other members of the Cabinet worked in harmony with him and put in hand the work for which this House had voted money. I am certain there would be very little unemployment in this country then. We have had a great cry about the railways paying. If the South African Railways do not pay with the reduction that has been going on, not only in personnel but in salaries, then I do not know what will pay. It is true they are now on a paying basis, but I believe that the first duty of the State should not be only to make its ledger balance, but that the first duties of the State should be to develop the country, not for the benefit of one section, as we do now. I believe the railways are used even at present to assist the farmers and the industry in this country. I thought railways were to develop the country for the benefit of the State, and, incidentally, for the benefit of each individual. I believe that we carry certain commodities at a loss, and I believe in times of drought, that we carry the stock at a loss for the benefit of the individual farmer.

Quite right too!

I am not against doing it, but I object to the railways doing it at the expense of the railway; it should be done by direct vote of this House. This House has the right to pay the railways for any service they render unto the people or unto the State. For instance, if we carry commodities at a loss for the benefit of any individuals or class of individuals, the State has the right to come before this House and say, that in the interests of the farmers they thought it was wise to carry guano and other commodities at a loss, and, therefore, we should vote a certain sum to the railways to cover these services, and to assist the agriculture of this country. If we carry commodities at a loss for the benefit of the industries of this country, we have the right to state that the Minister of Industries should come before this House and ask for a sum of money to be devoted to the assistance of industries, to repay the railways for any loss incurred. I am sure there is no person in this House who objects to the railways being used in time of drought, but I believe that it is wrong for the railways to assist even the farmers in times of drought at a loss, but if on the other hand the right hon. the Minister of Agriculture had to come to this House, and state that in a drought stricken area the railways carried the stock at a loss and, therefore, asked for a money vote by this House, to balance what was due to railways, I believe every member would vote in favour of it. If we only had these principles carried out, the railways could pay, not by means of reducing personnel or salaries, but by managing the railways on what the Minister is so keen on stating, are his business principles. Business principles mean different things to different people, and I believe that business ideals by the Cabinet Ministers of this country, should be first of all to make its ideal the flesh and blood of this country. We should not be only looking to other countries, and be always trying as far as possible to assist in the development of other countries’ industries. It may be that it is a grand ideal this free trade ideal of the hon. the Minister of Railways, but if all the world were free trade it might be reasonable. We all know that every country has its fiscal policy, and every other Government in the world looks after its own country first, and I wish the hon. the Minister of Railways would realize, when he is thinking free trade, that he will put South Africa first and play the game to South Africa, and give South Africa a fair chance. I believe, seeing that other countries in the world are looking after their industries, and have a protectionist policy, we should do likewise. But more essential is it that where we have a Government, who have, and run, the railways and the post office, seeing they do need commodities and materials to run the railways and the post office, they should see that South Africa is given an opportunity to produce its own requirements, and provide an opportunity to develop industrially and agriculturally, and thus permit the people of the country to be given a fair chance to develop and fulfil the true functions in regard to the crafts, arts, and sciences, which should predominate in a new country like South Africa.

Ek kan werklik die Minister nie geluk wens nie met die manier waarop hy besuinig het, ofskoon hy ’n surplus het. Die eerste klagte wat ek het is die manier waarop die Minister in sy departement die blanke arbeiders op die spoorweë, op die taklyne verskuif na die hoofdlyne. Dit veroorsaak groot ongerief aan daardie mense. Hulle word weggeneem van hulle plase na die hoofdlyne, dit maak dit onmoontlik vir hulle en hulle moet hulle ontslag neem van die spoorweg. Ek hoop daarom dat die Minister die mense nie sal verplaas van die taklyne na die hoofdlyne nie. Dan het die Minister besuinig op die gesondheid van die mense. Die Minister het die ontismettings-middele aan die stasies verminder met byna 50 persent en die ontsmettingsmiddele wat hulle nou het is nie genoeg om die gesondheid van die publiek te beskerm nie. Ek hoop dat die Minister van Publieke Gesondheid sal hiervan kennis neem en sien wat die ander Minister doen. ’n Andere klagte wat ek het is dat ons op die taklyne, wat nie hoofdlyne is nie, afgeskeep word op die treine—daar is nie ’n glas om water uit te drink op die treine nie. Die ander dag het ek van Witbank na Waterval Bowe gereis, daar was kinders in die trein en daar was nie ’n glas om uit te drink nie, en ons het moet rondloop om ’n glas te kry om die kinders te laat drink. Daar was nie ’n handbak nie, en daar was nie water nie, en op Hillside het ek gevra om die trein te laat stop om water van die voorman te kry vir die kinders. Die soort van ding is ’n skandaal. Daar was ’n aantal mense op die trein wat eerste klas kaartjies had, maar die rytuig wat aangehaak was was ’n twede klas rytuig. Die gevolg van daardie toestand sal nou wees dat mense wat van Witbank na Waterval Bowe reis twede klas kaartjies sal neem, en van Witbank na Pretoria eerste klas sal neem. Waarom let die Minister daar nie op nie dat behoorlike eerste en twede klasse rytuig aangehaak word, en waarom let hy nie daarop nie dat daar water en glase op die treine is nie? Dis goed vir de Minister om te besuinig, maar hy behoor nie te besuinig op die gesondheid en die gerief van die publiek. Dan is daar nog ’n ander saak, die ontevredenheid onder die spoorweg werkers. Die Minister moet uitgevind het dat die spoorweg werkers op Witbank ontevrede is met hulle toelages. Hulle salarisse is verminder en daar is algemene ontevredeheid. Ek hoop dat die Minister weer op die saak sal ingaan en sien of hy die mense op Witbank nie ’n bietjie meer kan gee nie. Dan ’n ander kwessie is die van die voormanne. Die Minister is natuurlik daarmee bekend. Sy aandag is daarop getrek dat die voormanne ontevrede is met die lange diensure wat hulle moet doen. Die voormanne voornamelik op die lyn tusse Germiston en Witbank, word nie behandel soos die andere Dis ’n besige lyn en die voormanne moet 12 uur diens doen, terwyl die klerke en ander net 8 uur doen. Dan wil ek nog wys op wat die edele lid vir Cradock (de hr. I. P. van Heerden) gesê het, die ekskursie kaartjies. Waarom die stasiemeester of die voorman of die persoon wat die kaartjies verkoop die mense nie vertel nie dat daar ekskursies is? Daar is baie mense op die platteland wat hulle koerante net een of tweemaal in die week kry, en hulle weet nie dat daar ekskursie kaartjies is, en die man wat die kaartjies verkoop bly stil, natuurlik op las van die Minister.

Oh, no!

Wel, ons hoor dat die persone wat die kaartjies verkoop nie aan die mense moet vertel nie dat daar ekskursies is, en sodoende koop die mense wat nie weet nie dat daar ekskursies is, gewone kaartjies. Ek hoop dat in die vervolg sulke persone aan die publiek sal kan vertel wanneer daar ekskursies is en wanneer nie. Dan wil ek nog ’n beroep maak op die Minister in verhand met die “Union Express” en die verbinding met Delagoa Baai. Lede wat nou met reses na hulle huistoe gaan vertrek van hier om 10.30 v.m. en ook ander mense, en hulle kom in Pretoria aan 14 minute nadat die “Rufe Naylor” weg is en sodoende moet hulle daar tot Sondag oorbly. Dit gebeur elke week. Kan daar nie planne gemaak word nie, sodat die “Rufe Naylor” 14 minute later sal bly? Die trein kan die tyd later weer op maak. Ek is verwonder dat die edele lid vir Denver (de hr. Nixon) aan die edele lid vir Barberton (Lt.- Kol. J. C. Fourie) sou vra wat die “Rufe Naylor” is. Dis ’n trein wat op Saterdag middag uit Johhannesburg vertrek dit kom Sondag morre op Delagoa Baai aan en gaat op Maandag terug. Ek hoop dat die Minister sy aandag sal gee aan die punte wat ek opgebring het.

I would like to say a few words on behalf of my long suffering constituents who are situated so far away from railway headquarters that their complaints are seldom heard, and who have all the old rolling stock of the Union shunted on to them, because they are so long suffering. I want to refer, in particular, to a question which was asked by the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Moor) of the hon. the Minister of Railways, the other day. The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Moor), asked the hon. the Minister of Railways whether he could inform the House as to the earnings and expenditure of the north and south coast lines in Natal, and whether he would give the returns for the past twelve months. The hon. the Minister replied to the effect that in view of the cost involved, branch line statistics are not taken out where experience has shown there is likely to be a deficit of less than £6,000 per annum, and to take out the particulars now required, would mean an expenditure which the Department was not prepared to undertake at the present time. I think that answer is very unsatisfactory; moreover it is misleading to the users of those lines, for it is likely to raise the belief in their minds, that a deficit is made, though it is under £6,000.

Just the reverse.

Well, if it is just the reverse, the users of that line ought to know it, and they should not be left under the impression that the north coast line is working under a deficit. It seems to me to be playing with this question, to answer it in this fashion, for a good deal hangs upon whether the north coast line is making a profit. The whole question of the rates hangs upon it. I wish to refer to the injustice which the sugar industry is labouring under. The rates which are being charged to-day, are in some cases 166 per cent. above pre-war rates on sugarcane—an agricultural product which, under the Act of Union, the hon. the Minister of Railways is supposed to provide cheap transport for in order to develop the inland portions of the Union. For the finacial year ending March 31st, 1923, there were 3,843,263 tons of general traffic carried on all the lines of Natal, that is, excluding coal; and of that amount 1,790,885 tons were carried on the north and south coast lines. This amount was all sugar, sugar cane, and treacle. There was, in addition, other traffic, such as coal and other stores and general goods. That means that over a third of the whole of the traffic of goods, excluding coal, is carried in Natal on the north and south coast lines. This traffic is growing rapidly every year, and will become increasingly important from the revenue point of view. As I have stated, this traffic is subject to-day, or it was when the last returns were made up, to an increase, in some cases, of 166 per cent. above pre-war rates on cane, and on the average over 100 per cent. increase of pre-war rates on sugar, while sugar-cane was only obtaining 30 per cent. above pre-war rates. The effect of this excessive rate is to prevent the expansion of the industry, and to prevent development in the north. In considering this matter the hon. the Minister must remember that sugar is sold in Durban, which is its central market; and whether it comes from the north or south, from 100 miles or 200 miles away, it only fetches the same price in Dubran. All those settlements in Zululand furthest from Durban are handicapped in the sending of their product to Durban, where it is to be sold; compared with the settlements near to Durban. They have to pay for their coal and stores which come through Durban. They have to send their machinery to Durban to be repaired, and pay an excessive rate upon their product over a hundred miles of railway or more. Consequently, they reach an economic limit beyond which development cannot take place. The economic limit in railway carriage is such that one settlement has nearly gone under, after struggling in the past with these very heavy rates, and if this policy is to be continued, it will prevent the development of the land to the north of Somkele. Here the Government has recently allotted land, much of which is suitable for sugar-growing. What hope is there of establishing a mill which will cost twice as much as one near to Durban— because of the railway carriage—if the excessive rates on the finished product is to place it in such an unfavourable position, compared with the settlements near a market. Representations have been frequently made to the hon. the Minister on this point, and the reply which the Minister has always given was: “You are getting a good price for your sugar.” What may be a good price for a settlement near Durban, may be an impossible price for a settlement more remote. As I have pointed out, it is a very different thing for a settlement which is near Durban, and has to pay very little carriage for its machinery, stores and coal, but when you add to that 500 or 600 or 700 per cent. for settlements further north and south, you reach an economic limit beyond which it is impossible to go. Now the Minister was asked if he would consider this matter of railway rates, and this was his reply—

What date is that?

13th December, 1923. The reply continues—

To this letter the following reply was sent—

That rather knocks the bottom out of the contention that this has not paid on the north coast line. There is another point of view, which has a distinct bearing upon this question of rates. During the last few years, since the rate was raised, the Railway Administration spent somewhere in the neighbourhood of £2,000,000 upon reconstruction, deviation, and ballasting, on the north coast line. That was done with the idea of making it a mineral carrying line. It was the intention to construct a railway line from the north coast to Vryheid to be coupled up with Durban, in order to bring down the coal. The Administration, however, changed its mind and went in for electrifying the main line instead. That £2,000,000 has been debited against the users of the north coast line, who have to pay interest on it because the Administration changed its mind. If the project of constructing the Vryheid line had been continued, and traffic had been brought down the north coast line, it would have been in a very different position, as the million tons of coal coming over the line would have paid the interest on the money. Because, however, the Administration has changed its mind and gone in for electrification, it imposes a heavy burden in the shape of interest on the users of the north coast line, which otherwise they would not have had to bear. I ask if this is fair? Perhaps the hon. the Minister will say that this is not so. Perhaps the interest is not being charged! We do not see the figures in connections with the north coast line, in the branch line reports; they are omitted altogether. We have not any means of finding out the actual position, but we have been led to believe that there is a loss on this line. It is one of the biggest carrying lines in the Union, and the users ought to obtain some benefit from the increased traffic. I hope the hon. the Minister will look into the matter, as he must see that these excessive rates are bound to cripple the future expansion of the industry. If the new Government settlements are ever to become a sugar area, there will have to be an appreciable lowering of railway rates. As things are, it would cost them between two and three times as much to market their sugar, and a considerable amount more to produce it, than the mills near Durban. These high rates, therefore, put an economic limit to the development of the north.

Die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorweë is vandag al ordentlik gekritiseer geword. Ek staan nie op om kritiek uit te oefen, maar om prys en dank toe te bring. Laatste Dinsdag is hier ’n vraag beantwoord deur die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou, dat volgens die offisiële verslag deur droogte die verlies aan skape in die kiesafdelings van Hopetown en Prieska in 1922—’23, nie minder was dan 951,673. As ’n mens bedink die groot hoeveelheid van klein vee wat deur die droogte gegaan het, dan dink ek dat ek my plig nie sou doen teenoor die noordwestelike distrikte, as ek nie die Minister sou dank vir wat hy gedaan het om die mense in die droogtetyd te help nie. As die edelagbare die Minister nie te hulp gekom was nie, dan sou daar baie groter verliese gely gewees het. Daar word aan die ander kant gesê, dat ons die spoorweë moet drywe op besigheidsbeginsel. As die edelagbare die Minister dit gedoen sou het met die vervoer van maar vee, dan sou die boere geheel en al te gronde gegaan het. Die edelagbare die Minister het uit sy weg gegaan om die boere te help. Die boere het geen geld gehad om vir vervoer van vee te betaal en die Minister het schuld bewysies van die boere aangeneem en daarop het hulle die vee kan per spoorweg wegstuur. Ek herinner my dat verlede jaar deur die edele lid vir Benoni (de hr. Madeley) die vraag gestel was in die Huis aan die Minister, hoeveel die uitstaande bedrag is wat die boere skuld, op bewysies deur die spoorweë aangeneem. Die antwoord was £32,000. Die edele lid het daarop toe gesê, dat die edelagbare die Minister die bewysies maar kan opskeur, want dat dit net een verlies vir die land beteken, en hy het die Minister gekritiseer omdat hy die boere op die manier gehelp het. Dis die soort van simpatie wat ons kan verwag van die Arbeiders kant van die Huis, en met die soort van Party-verteenwoordigers gaan die Nasionale Party saam om die Regering as ’t ware van die kussings te stoot. As die edelagbare die Minister nie gehelp had nie, dan sou die boere in die noord-westelike distrikte geheel en al tenonder gegaan het, en wat betref die bewysies, wat soos die edelagbare die Minister verlede jaar verklaar het uitstande was tot ’n bedrag van £32,000, wil ek die edele lid vir Benoni (de hr. Madeley) net daarop wys, dat volgens die rapport van die Ouditeur-Generaal wat ek hier voor my het, vind ek op bladsy 77 dat in die tyd toe die droogte nog heers, dat was in Oktober 1923, die uitstaande bedrag van die bewysies opbetaald was tot op slegs £1,749. Dus was daar ’n baie grote bedrag afbetaal deur die boere, wat die edele lid vir Benoni (de hr. Madeley) so veroordeel het. Ek dink ons behoor die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorweë nie alleen te dank vir die tegemoetkoming en hulp wat die vervoer van vee betref nie, maar ook wat betref die aanvoer van voerstowwe. Hy het nie van die besigheids beginsel uitgegaan nie, maar het te hulp gekom aan die land en volk. Hy het sover gegaan, dat hy die tariewe vir lusern en andere voerstowwe verminder het tot die helft van die gewone tariewe. Ek wil die edelagbare die Minister dank vir wat hy gedoen het vir die noordwestelike distrikte en kan hom die versekering gee, dat die mense hom daar dankbaar sal bly vir wat hy gedoen het. Die spoorweë het die redmiddel gewees om die mense te red van totale ondergang. Dan is daar ’n paar puntjies wat ek onder die edelagbare die Minister se aandag wil bring met betrekking tot die sporwegamptenare. Die edelagbare die Minister het, glo ek, kennis gegee, want daar is klagte by my gekom van spoorwegmense, dat hy van plan is om die huishuurgelde te verhoog.

Die is al verhoog.

As die al verhoog is, dan dink ek, dat dit ’n stap is in die verkeerde rigting om soiets te doen. Ek beskou dat as die huur verhoog is, dat dit ’n onbillikheid is teenoor die spoorwegamptenare. Daar is in De Aar en andere plekke spoorwegarbeiders met 15, 16 of 17 jaar diens en langer, en wat al die tyd in die huise gewoon het, en nou kom die edelagbare die Minister en gaan die huur verhoog. Ek het geen twyfel daaraan nie, of die edelagbare die Minister gaan daarby uit van die besigheidsbeginsel, hy reken dat as ’n huis so en soveel kos, dan moet die rente so en soveel wees, maar dit lyk vir my, dat die mense sekere reg het op die huise, waarvir hulle 15 jaar en meer huur betaal het, solank as hulle daar gewoon het. Nou kom die edelagbare die Minister eensklaps en sê, dat die huur verhoog moet word. Ek reken, dat dit onbillik is, en ek dink die edelagbare die Minister sal dit self ook verstaan dat dit een grief is wat sy amptenare voel. Wat meer is, is dat die meeste van die huise baie ou huise is en dis ’n rede te meer om die huur nie te verhoog nie. As die Minister gesit had met ’n groot tekort, dan kon ek dit nog wel verstaan, maar hy kom vanjaar—en ek wil hom geluk wens en alle krediet daarvir gee—met ’n groot surplus. Dog hy moet ook bedink, dat die amptenare van die spoorweë ook saamgewerk het om die surplus te kry. Hy moet dit ook in aanmerking neem en daarom ag ek dit onbillik dat die huishuur verhoog sal word, en ek hoop en vertrou dat die Minister in billikheid die saak weer in weer in oorweging sal neem. Ek beskou dit as ’n onreg, bepaald as ’n onreg. Ek kan die Minister een ding sê, wat ek opgemerk het in die laaste paar jare—laat ek sê vanaf hy op die kussings gekom het—dat sover die amptenare op die spoorweë aangaan, hulle net so ywerig is as die edelagbare die Minister om elke pennie vir die administrasie te maak, en die verhoging van huishuur is nie vir hulle een aanmoediging. Ek weet dat, b.v., vir jare lang die kommersiële mense, die smouse wat rondgaan en goedere verkoop, gewoon is die goedere op die stasie in bewaring te laat sonder betaling. Ek sien die ander dag op ’n stasie ook so’n koopman met ’n groot klomp goedere wat hy op die stasie laat. Toe hy terug kom en vir die goedere vra, sê die stasiemeester vir hom, dat hy 6s. 10d. storage moet betaal. Die koopman vraag of dit een nieuwe regulasie was, die stasiemeester sê nee. Wel, sê hy: “Dit is nou 13 jaar dat ek rond gaan over die spoorweg en nog nooit het enige stasiemeester my gevra om iets te betaal.” Ek kan die edelagbare die Minister die versekering gee, dat as jy rondgaan, dan vind jy dat die amptenare suinig omgaan met skryfbehoeftes, ens. Ek het die ander dag op ’n stasie gekom en gesien daar dat ’n brief aangekom het en dat die stasiemeester die envelop nog weer gebruik het. Dieselfde suinigheid word in ag geneem met telegramvorme en andere spoorweë materiaal. En as jy die gees vind onder die personeel, dan moet die edelagbare die Minister ook ’n bietjie rek gee, al sou dit wees, dat volgens die waarde van die huis die huur ’n bietjie hoër moes wees as wat betaal word, dan wil ek nog eens daarop wys, dat die surplus verkry is met medewerking van die amptenare en die edelagbare die Minister moet tog daarmee rekening hou en nie die huishuur opset nie. Ek hoop dat die edelagbare die Minister die saak weer in oorweging sal neem en die huur afneem. Ek kan hom die versekering gee, dat hy trots kan wees op die mense wat in die spoorwegdiens is en hy moet hulle nie nou op die manier straf. Die mense het ook die oog op die voordeel van die trein en hulle doen die werk blymoedig en goed. Ek het gesien, dat daar van sewe tot nege spesiale treine per dag loop en het hulle gevraag of hulle nie moeg word nie, maar die antwoord is: “Nee, ons is bly.” Hulle klaag nie, want hulle is bly oor die inkomste wat die meer treine beteken. Wanneer die personeel met die gees besield is, denk ek, dat dit nie die regte tyd is om die huishuur te verhoog nie Die kontrakte wat op De Aar en ander groot stasies aan mense gegee word vir die verkoop van vrugte en dergelike dinge is ’n ander punt, wat ek onder die edelagbare die Minister se aandag wens te breng; die Minister moet kompetiesie toelaat en dit nie ’n monopolie laat wees nie. Ek weet, dat vir die monopolie ’n aansienlike liksensgeld betaal moet word, maar die reisende publiek moet des te meer betaal vir die vrugte. As die vrugte goedkoper verkoop sou word, sou die publiek daar ook meer gebruik van maak. Nou word dikwels vir een perske of appel ’n trippens gevra, met die gevolg, dat die mense daarsonder bly. Die vrugtekwekers word met hierdie stelsel ook skade aangedoen, want daar word soveel minder vrugte verbruik. Dit is nie die geval op die klein stasies nie, maar dit is op die grote, waar die monopolies van krag is. Daar behoor, m.i., geen monopolie gegee te word vir die verkoop van vrugte nie.

I hope that the hon. the Minister in his reply will give the House and the country some information about the numerous accidents which are taking place at the present time on the railways. Recently in Natal there have been a series of derailments which are causing a considerable amount of anxiety, and within the last few weeks, as we all know, there have been dastardly attempts made, evidently intentional attempts, to upset the railway trains and cause accidents. I have no doubt the hon. the Minister and the Department are looking into these things, and I am sure it will ease the minds of the travelling public if he will take them into his confidence, and tell them what the result of his investigations has been. I wish to refer to a local matter. I am reluctant to do so, but as other members have brought up local claims it may be as well that the hon. the Minister should not overlook Durban. The hon. the Minister may know that Durban badly needs a new railway station. He has been informed of the disadvantages of the present station, and I hope he is not going to allow the claims of places like Cape Town or Johannesburg to overshadow those of Durban.

Not Cape Town.

And tell us, if the hon. the Minister possibly can, what he intends to do in the near future.

I will not detain the House very long, but I would like to bring a matter before the hon. the Minister of Railways, and wish he would make some enquiries. Last year an accident occurred in the Transkei, and a fireman by the name of Pelzer was killed. There was no doubt it was a miracle there was not a big loss of life. An official enquiry was held, but it was an inquiry held in private, and therefore was generally looked upon as a very one-sided affair. Grave dissatisfaction was expressed by the general public, it was described as a hushed enquiry. It is a great pity that they could not have a board of trade appointed to conduct these enquiries, and to find out what really was the matter there, as I have it on the very best authority that where this accident took place the danger had been pointed out eighteen and even six months before it occurred, that a serious accident might occur there at any time. Where the accident occurred there was a very high embankment of very loose stuff, which it was declared by gangers working at that section of the line, would be carried away if a big rain occurred. No notice was taken of their statement; nothing was done. A passenger train coming down there one night when the inevitable wash-away had taken place, went over and the fireman was killed. I have read the account of this accident from a Transkei paper, which is very favourably inclined towards the Government, it says that the enquiry was a scandal, that it was simply bolstered up to prevent officials being brought to trial for gross neglect in not providing for a culvert to take the water away, and seeing that a proper embankment was built.

When was that?

Latter end of 1923. The accident took place near Kei Bridge. This accident was very serious indeed and meant a loss to the country of anything between £35,000 to £40,000 in rolling stock. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister of Railways if he agrees with the action that was taken in regard to the settlement of the claims of the widow of the fireman? Her child at that time was about three months old. It could have been proved in any court in this country that the railway authorities were to blame for the accident, the woman was poor and had not got the funds to fight her case, even railway officials were agreed that this woman should get very substantial compensation. The Government knew that the woman was poor and they protected themselves by this fact, that if the woman failed under common law she could not claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. She was frightened into accepting the sum of £400. I interested myself in the case, and I know for a fact that those who were best able to judge, said that £1,000 would not have been too much compensation to pay the widow. She is saddled with a young child and has only got £400. Does the hon. the Minister think that common justice was meted out to this woman?

What is the name?

Pelzer. If ever an injustice was done, it was done to that woman. What happens to the Railway Administration? They have the public money at their back; if they lose in one court they go to the next, and, consequently, people are afraid to contest their cases under common law. I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Railways that while this poor woman has had to suffer, the action of the railway authorities has done one of the best things that it ever did. The N.U.R.A.H.S. are to-day one hundred per cent. stronger through the action of the railways authorities, because of the treatment meted out to that woman. Railway workers have discovered the value of an association and a union. If the N.U.R.A.H.S. had stood solid to their society, in the past, and if they had had the funds, they would have contested that case in the Supreme Court, and the railways would have lost. Every bit of evidence relating to the cause of the accident was right against the Railway Administration. I do not want to labour the point, but I do not think the hon. the Minister of Railways has not got all the facts before him. If he had he would not have dealt in the miserable way he has dealt with that woman’s case, and I put it to the good sense of the House that £400 is no compensation for a widow with a child just born. It is not £24 a year for the child until it is 18. Surely the Government is not going to throw the child on the mercy and charity of others, and I would like the hon. the Minister to go into this matter. I would also like to ask the hon. the Minister if we cannot alter the Act which deals with our employees under the Workmen’s Compensation Act? He knows quite well that the employees have not the money to fight these cases. He knows that there is an Act laying down that if they fail under the common law they are debarred from claiming under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

We never take the narrow view.

But the Administration took the narrow view with Mrs. Pelzer. I interested myself in the case. The Administration, through their attorneys, refused to give more than the £400. we suggested certain sums, officials even said that £1,000 would have been fair compensation for the woman. There is another principle which the Administration adopts: if a man, is injured and he asks for employment, he is told that he can get employment, but at lower rates of wages than he was paid previous to the accident, is that justice? If he had not met with an accident, he would be carrying out his original occupation for many years, he may be a driver and lose an arm or leg and he is put on to a job at lower wages: does the Minister think that is justice? I think the hon. the Minister should go into these cases of men being injured, very carefully, and after giving the question his careful consideration, I believe he would alter the Act. As it stands to-day, it is unfair to the men. I am not prepared to say that the hon. the Minister knew all these facts about Mrs. Pelzer, but I can give him the whole of the facts, and I am sure if he goes into the case he will find that the Administration dealt very hardly with this woman, and I would like the hon. the Minister to go into it, and see that justice is done.

Ek wens die aandag van die edelagbare die Minister daarop te vestig, dat hy verlede jaar treine laat loop het na die Laeveld, waardeur aan die mense die geleentheid gegee word om daardie pragtige wereld teen goedkope betaling te sien. Daardeur is ’n baie grote diens bewys aan mense, wat in vele gevalle dit nie kon bekostig om na die kus te gaan nie en dit word deur die publiek, volgens ek uitgevind het, op seer hoë prys gestel. Ek vertrou daarom, dat die edelagbare die Minister die trein weer sal laat loop en nie net in daardie streke nie, maar ook in ander dele van Suidafrika om die mense, wat die land wil sien of wat nie dit kan bekostig om na die gewone plesieroorde te gaan nie, die geleentheid te verskaf om daarvan gebruik te maak.

Daar is lede in die Huis wat die Minister bedank en geprys het omdat hy die spoorweë weer in ’n posiesie gebring het, dat hulle nou ’n wins, ’n surplus aantoon, maar die vraag het by my opgekom as ek na die lede geluister het of die surplus nou werkelik so veel werd is, as ons in aanmerking neem, dat die surplus verkry is ten koste van die bevolking van die land en ten koste van die werkers op die spoorweë. Die edele lid vir Zoutrivier (de hr. Snow) het gesê, dat hy wil aantoon, dat die spoorweë in die posiesie waarin hulle was, geraak het deurdat daar byna ’n half miljoen verkeerd of onwettig uitbetaal was aan rente, maar ek wens hier aan te toon, dat daar ander en dieper oorsake is vir die toestand waarin ons was. Daar is by voorbeeld die groot oorsaak —die aanleg van die Suidwes lyn; daardie lyn was natuurlik gebou op koste van die spoorweë van die Unie. ’n Ander oorsaak was dat van af die oorlog van 1914 die spoorwegonkoste in verband met die oorlog teen die spoorweë geboek is in plaas van teen die Departement van Verdediging. Dan is daar nog ’n ander punt —die hoë tariewe wat opgeset is om die tekorte gelyk te maak. Die verhoging van die tariewe het ten gevolge gehad, nie dat die spoorweë meer in gebring het nie, maar dat hulle minder ingebring het. As mens al die dinge saam vat dan behoef ons nie ver te soek nie om uit te vind waar die tekorte werkelik vandaan kom. Ons het jaar op jaar voor ’n tekort van een miljoen gestaan en die Minister van Spoorweë en die Huis het toen gevoel, dat dit onmoontlik was om verder voort te gaan op die manier. Die land kon nie langer op die manier bestaan en ’n groot besigheid soos die spoorweë drywe met ’n tekort elke jaar. En om die rede was dit nodig gewees om te besuinig. Maar nou hoor ons iedereen klaag, iedereen het iets verloor, die ene dit en die ander dat; maar ons moet daaraan dink wie die grootste verliesers was—dis die mense wat op die spoorweë werk en die duisende wat ontslaan is. En die politiek van die Regering is verkeerd, dis verkeerd om witmans te ontslaan en om goedkoop naturelle in hulle plaas te vat. Dis wat die depressie oor die hele land bring, want des te meer witmans ontslaan word, des te kleiner word die koopkrag van die land gemaak. Ons weet altemaal, dat die naturelle wat op die myne en in ander dele van die land werk, hulle geld nie hier spandeer nie; hulle vat dit met hulle terug na hulle land toe om dit daar te spandeer. Maar die witman leef hier met sy familie, en wat hy op die spoorweë verdien, of waar hy dit ook verdien, dit spandeer hy hier by die handelaar en in die land. En dit kom die boer ten goede as die werkman in sy werk is en ’n behoorlike loon kry, want dan koop hy die produkte van die boer; maar die politiek wat vandag in die land is, is verkeerd; die Regering en die myne is die grootste werkgewers. Die Regering het omtrent 12,000 blanke persone ontslaan en dan het die myne omtrent 4,000 ontslaan, tusse die 4,000 en die 5,000— nou sal ons miskien hoor “maar waar is die mense?” Dit kan maklik beantwoord word— die mense is op die alluwiale diamantvelde waar hulle sukkel om liggaam en siel by mekaar te hou, en waar hulle byna van gebrek omkom. Ek sê, dat die politiek om die witman te ontslaan en die naturel in sy plaas te neem, verkeerd is, en die land kan nie op die manier aangaan nie; ous kan onder die politiek geen vooruitgang en bloei in die land verwag nie. Ons het nou 13 jaar lank Unie gehad. Die politiek tot nog toe het gewees om al ons benodighede vir die spoorweë van oorsee te laat kom; daar word artiekels ingevoer wat hier in Suid-Afrika gemaak kan word deur werkmense hier in Suid-Afrika; maar alles word oorsee gestuur, alles word oorsee gekoop met die gevolg, dat die kapitaal die land uitgaan en die werkmense is die werkloon ook kwyt. Tensy die Regering van daardie politiek afkom en die politiek aanneem van Suid-Afrika eers, en ander lande twede, sal ons nooit verder kom nie. As daardie politiek 13 jaar terug aangeneem was, dan sou ons nou in die posiesie wees dat ons lokomotiewe hier gemaak sou kan word, en al ons ander spoorweg benodighede sou hier vervaardig word. Ek sien, dat die Regering nou spoorweg slepers invoer uit Australië; ons het ontsaglik groot houtbosse in die land; waarom gee die Minister nie die geleentheid aan die mense wat hier sonder werk rondloop, om die hout te saag, en ons eie slepers te maak? Ons kapitaal sou dan in die land bly, en daar sou werk wees vir ons eie mense. Dis die enige manier om Suid-Afrika en die bevolking weer in ’n welvarende toestand te bring. Ons moet in die eerste plaas agter ons eie mense kyk, en agter ons eie land voordat ons werk gee aan die mense wat oorsee is. Ek wil dit nog sê—die posiesie van die werksmense op die spoorweë is nie so rooskleurig nie as baie lede dink; die mense werk lank, hulle lone is verminder, en hul werk vir feitelik drie kwart van wat hulle vroeër gekry het, en dan kom die Minister daarby nog en hy verhoog hulle hure op hulle huise. Hulle het klein salarisse, maar in die dae van depressie kom hy tog nog en verhoog hy hulle huishuur. Die werksmense ly, die hele bevolking ly soos dit nog nooit te vore gely het. Maar as dit goed gaan met die boer, dan gaan dit goed met die hele land. Tensy daar ’n ander politiek deur die Regering gevolg word, dan is ek bang dat ons sal deurgaan te sink, en dieper en dieper te sink. Ons behoor die industrië van die land op te help en aan te moedig, sodat die dag sal aanbreek, dat ons al ons spoorweg benodighede hier sal kan vervaardig.

Dis vir my ’n baie snaakse debat—lede kom hier en hulle bedank die Minister vir wat hy gedoen het, hulle bedank hom dat hy die nnansies van die spoorweë reg getrek het, en dan daarna hoor ons die klagtes van Jeremiah.

Net van een kant.

Ja, dis die gesang van Jeremiah wat ons hier hoor.

Daar moet iets verkeerd wees.

Ek het gemeen, dat al die toesprake wat ons hier gehoor het op die Spoorweg Begroting sou gemaak wees, maar daar ons nou tog aan die kwessies besig is, wil ek ook graag ’n paar sake voor die Minister bring. Ek wil nie kla nie. Ek is bly, dat die politiek wat die Minister gevolg het, alhoewel ons en die boere het moet betaal, ons nou tog gebring het waar ons is; ek is tevrede met wat die Minister gedoen het om inkomste en uitgawe te dek. Maar ek wens die aandag van die Minister op ’n paar punte te trek. Daar is baie klagtes van die ander kant gekom, en ek moet sê dat daar iets in die klagtes is, tenminste in sommige van hulle. Daar is hy voor beeld die moeilikhede wat die platteland het wat die tariewe betref. Daar is die tariefboek; vir die gewone man is dit onbegrypelik en mens moet dit baie versigtig studeer. Ek het daarin gesien, dat die tariewe op verskillende maniere vasgestel is; daar is tariewe vir landbouw doeleinde, en vir gewone doeleinde. Maar ek wil nou maar ’n voorbeeld noem van ons moeilikhede. Ek weet van gevalle waar boere windmeuls het laat kom. Daar is ’n billike tarief vir die vervoer van ’n windmeul. En die boer bestel die pype, ’n paar honderd voet, wat hy vir die windmeul nodig het; maar as ons daarop ingaan, dan sien ons, dat daar minder vir die vervoer van die meul betaal word, as vir die ander dinge; die vrag vir die pype is baie swaar; amptenare vertel die boere nie, dat hulle die pype by die meul moet inset—dat hulle op hulle vragbrief moet sê “windmeul en pype” en die gevolg is, dat hulle ’n hoë prys moet betaal vir die vervoer van die pype. Ek weet van gevalle waar boere gesê het: “Maar die pype kos meer as die hele ding.” Die spoorweg amptenare het die man nie gehelp nie. Ja, dis waar, hulle het hom later sy geld terug gegee, maar in die end het dit hom tog nog ’n paar pond gekos. Wat ek wil sien, is dat die amptenare die mense ’n bietjie op die hoogte sal bring. Daar is die geval van handelsmense: sê hulle wil minerale waters in glas oor die spoorweg kry of verstuur; as jy dit spesiaal sê watter soort glas dit is, dan kry jy dit teen ’n laag tarief, maar anderster word dit verstuur as geslypte glas teen ’n duur tarief. Daardie mense weet dit nie. Ek kla nie oor die tariewe nie, maar ek wil, dat die publiek meer op die hoogte sal wees met die kwessies. Daar is nog ’n klein punt. Ek sal nou maar sê die vervoer van pluimvee. Daar is baie van die mense wat net voor die vertrek van die trein ’n klompie hoenderhokke na die stasie stuur om na Johannesburg te gaan; die man kom by die stasie, en hy wil sy vragbrief invul en hy wil dit dan aan die spoorweg amptenaar gee. Maar daar bestaan ’n reel, dat die vorme nie daar op die tyd gekry kan word nie, en, tengevolge daarvan, vind daar vertraging plaas. Ek wens die Minister te vra om dit te verander en om die amptenare die reg te gee om die mense vorms te gee sodat hulle die dadelik kan opvul. Dan is daar nog ’n ander ongerief wat betref die uitgee van ekskursie kaartjies. Ek weet van mense wat na seker Dingaansdag feeste gegaan het, en hulle het ekskursie kaartjies gekry om soon toe te gaan, maar die moeilikheid is, dat as ’n man nie elf daë weg bly nie, dan moet hy die volle prys betaal, en daar is baie mense wat dit onmoontlik vind om langer as vyf of ses daë van hulle plase weg te bly. Dis ook ’n grief, waar ek wil hê dat daar verandering in moet kom. Waarom kan daar nie verandering in kom nie? Die geld is geheel betaal. Dan nog iets anders en dit is die wegraak van goed op die treine. Daaroor is ook baie griewe. Ek weet nie of al die lede van die Huis daar so van weet nie, maar in Transvaal is die toestand baie ongesond. Ek kan van ondervinding praat. Dis nou nie die grote hoeveelhede soseer wat wegraak, maar as jy klein parsels stuur dan raak die baie kere weg. As ’n mens ’n kassie wyn hier van die provinsie wil laat kom, van die Paarl of so, dan is dit maar baie selde dat dit aan die ander kant aankom. As jy hier is dan wil jy soms vrugte wegstuur na jou familie, maar ek het nog nooit daarin geslaag om ’n kassie vrugte daar te kry nie. Dis klaar as dit daar aankom. Die spoorweë sê dan vir jou: “Stuur maar ’n claim in” en dan kry jy ’n paar sjillings terug. As al die klein bedraggies by mekaar geneem word, dan word dit duisende van ponde en ek dink die Spoorweg Departement kan daar baie besuinig.

Ek wil in die eerste plaas praat oor die wyse waarop die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorweë en ook die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies sulke gedeeltes van die Begroting voorbring. Ons het nou die end van die lopende jaar en nou kom die verskillende Begrotinge voor wat ons hele begrotingstoesprake ophou en baie tyd wegneem. Ek hoop dat in die vervolg ’n andere prosedure gevolg sal word, veral waar ons nou aan die end van die finansiële jaar is. Waarom dan nie meteens die hele Begroting bespreek nie, dan is ons daarmee klaar. Daar is al baie gepraat en die edelagbare die Minister is geprys en gedank. Wel ek sê, dat wanneer ’n man iets verdien, dan is hy die prys waardig. Daar het ’n baie grote verbetering gekom wat die spoorweë betref. Ek weet nie of die vorige Minister van Spoorweë so swak, sleg of onbekwaam was nie, maar niettemin het daar grote verbeteringe gekom en die Minister het reg op dank daarvoor. Pretoria het baie gely onder die eerste Minister van Spoorweë, want Pretoria is altoos ’n bietjie behandel as ’n ver afgeleë dorpie. As jy na Pretoria wou gaan, dan het jy lank moet bly op Johannesburg of Germiston, voor jy verder kon gaan. Maar die edelagbare die Minister het nou baie groot verbeterings aangebring. Ek is ook baie bly oor die vinnige treine wat ingestel is. Ek is dankbaar vir die verbeterings en alle Pretoria mense is bly daaroor. ’n Andere verbetering is dat Pretoria, of laat ek sê Johannesburg, 10 uur nader tot Kaapstad gebring is deur die sneltreine wat vandag loop. Dis ’n baie grote vooruitgang in die spoorweë en daarom wil ek die edelagbare die Minister hartelik bedank, want dis ’n groot gerief vir die reisende publiek en vernaamlik vir parlementslede. Hulle kan maar so min huistoe gaan en hulle kan maar so kort daar bly, want hulle moet so gou moontlik weer in hulle werk terug wees. Maar nou is daar nog iets wat ek onder die aandag van die edelagbare die Minister wou bring en dat is in verband met die konstruksie werke van Hercules by Magaliesburg stasie. Ek het verneem, dat daar nou ook kaffers gebruik word aan die konstruksie werke daar. Ek wil tog hê, dat die edelagbare die Minister dit sal verander en dat die werk daar deur blankes sal geskied, want ek sê, dat die mense daar in baie behoeftige omstandighede is. Ek wil graag, dat die edelagbare die Minister daarna sal sien en verandering maak. Daar is verder baie gepraat oor die goedere tenders wat gevraag word van Engeland en dat so min van die goedere hier gemaak word, terwyl ons vandag die bekwame mense in die land het wat die werk kan doen en die goedere kan maak. Die groot fout is, dat as daar tenders gevra word, dan stuur die edelagbare die Minister die direk na die Hoë Kommissaris in Londen en ons mense hier wat wil tender moet dan eers die informasie daar kry. Dis darem nie goed nie. Ons het al ’n grote bevolking in die land. Die spoorweg konstruksie is ’n baie grote besigheid en daar kan baie mense aan die werk geset word as die goedere hier gemaak word. Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal so spoedig moontlik die werke hier uitbrei, om alles hier te laat maak wat ons nodig het en mense wat uitgeset is om besuiniging, sal dan miskien ook weer werk kan vind daar. Daar is besuinig en dis nodig, maar ek dink die edelagbare die Minister moet ’n bietjie meer toesig hou. Ek glo nie, dat hy al die skuld het nie, maar ek dink die rus by die Algemene Bestuurder en by die ondergeskiktes. Maar ons moet maar modder na hom gooi as iets verkeerd is en hy moet dit reg maak met die Algemene Bestuurder. Hulle besuinig altoos op die arme man, die man wat so swaar werk in reent en sonneskyn. Die mense moet werkelik hard werk om te kan lewe. Ek wil hê daar moet ’n bietjie meer besuinig word by die groot, hoog amptenare, wat in die huise sit in die koelte, waar die een sy krant lees, waar ’n ander rook en waar weer ’n ander plesier maak. Ek dink daar moet ’n bietjie besuinig word, en nie ’n bietjie nie, maar baie. Want as jy die Begroting nagaan en jy kyk na die Begroting van ’n 10 jaar gelede hoeveel van die hoofamptenare toe hoë salarisse getrek het, dan sal jy sien dat dit met meer as 100 persent toegeneem het en dis nie ’n gesonde toestand nie. Dit het ek onder die aandag van die edelagbare die Minister wil bring. Dan is daar in Pretoria ’n huishoudskool, waar arm meisies van die land na toe gestuur word om te leer hulle lewe te kan verdien en hoe hulle hullesef diensbaar kan maak. Die Goewernement ondersteun die inrigting. Die meisies kry net eenmaal in die jaar vakansie maar omdat hulle skool nie val onder die toesig van die edelagbare die Minister van Onderwys of van die Superintendent van Onderwys nie, kan hulle nie ekskursie kaartjies kry nie. Die skool het al honderde en honderde van meisies opgelei van die platteland. Hulle kry net eenmaal vakansie en ek sal baie bly wees as die edelagbare die Minister hierdie saak sal ondersoek, want die Goevernement ondersteun die inrigting, en ek wil graag hê, dat die meisies daar ook ’n kans kry om ekskursie kaartjies te kan kry. Ek sê, ons is nog nie aan die Begroting in sy geneel nie en ek hoop dat elkeen nou uitgepraat is en dat ons tot stemming sal kom.

Soos al aangehaal is deur die edele lid vir Cradock (de hr. I. P. van Heerden) en deur die edele lid vir Bethal (Lt.-Kol H. S. Grobler) het ons heeltemaal oorgegaan tot tweede lesings debat. Ek sou anders nou nie gepraat het maar gewag het vir die Begroting as nie my vriende anderkant hulle nie ingelaat had met my kiesafdeling nie, soos die edele lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers) en die edele lid vir Victoria West (de hr. du Toit). Die edele lid is bepaald ’n bietjie voorbarig, want Prieska behoort nog nie tot sy kiesafdeling nie, ons as so ver nog nie. Maar ek is tog dankbaar, dat hy ’n saak aangeroer het wat vir my kiesafdeling van brandende belang is, namelik, die hoë tariewe wat nou nog daar betaal moet word. Die lyn na Prieska b.v. is al 18 jaar geleae gebou en solank die lyn alleen gegaan het tot Prieska het die lyn heeltemaal goed betaal, en met die billike koste waarmee die lyn verlang is tot Upington, kan ons oortuig wees, dat die hele lyn van De Aar tot Upington goed betaal. Maar nietteenstaande ons al 18 jaar lank taklyn-tariewe betaal, moet ons vandag ook nog die swaar tariewe betaal terwille van die verlenging van die lyn na Suidwes en dit beskouw ek helemaal onbillik. Ons het tariewe wat heeltemaal ten nadele is van ons distrik. Ek wil b.v. aantoon net die verskil in tariewe tussen die hooflyne en taklyne. Van Kaapstad na Prieska b.v. is 615 myl en van Kaapstad na De Aar is dit 501 myl en ons betaal volgens die tarief op klas I goed 86d. en van Kaapstad na Prieska en na De Aar word maar 41d. betaal, dus betaal ons vir die klein distansie van De Aar na Prieska 45d. meer op die een distansie van 115 myle verder. So is in ewenredigheid al die tariewe na Prieska in vergelyk met die hooflyn tariewe op alle ander klasse goed en ons moet kompeteer met Hopetown en Kimberley wat die voordeel van die hooflyn tariewe het. Die edelagbare die Minister sal sien, dat dit tot groot nadeel is van die handel en ontwikkeling van Prieska en Upington. Die edelagbare die Minister het op ’n vraag van die Kamer van Koophandel van Prieska wat hom omtrent die kwessie genader het, gesê, dat hy die saak in oorweging geneem het, maar dat hy sy weg nie oop sien nie om veranderinge te maak, wat dan sou ook ander taklyne vir dieselfde veranderinge kom. Maar ek glo nie, dat dit op veel lyne van toepassing sou wees nie, ek glo maar net op een of twee andere lyne, wat daardeur geraak sou word en dit regverdig die Minister sy argument nie. Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal die saak weer in oorweging neem en ons miskien tegemoet kom want die distrikte daar het hulle tamelik ontwikkel in verband met die ontginning van asbesmyne en die alluwiale diamantmyne, wat geopen word, kom baie handel daarheen. Dis nie allen Prieska wat benadeel word deur die hoë tariewe nie, maar ook ’n groot gedeelte van Grikwaland West. Dan in verband met die tariewe tussen Kaapstad en Suidwes. Ek sal weer maar net as voorbeeld twee artiekels neem, daar is nog verskillende andere artiekels wat ek sou kan neem, maar ek neem maar net huispetroleum en kerse. Die posiesie is, dat jy petroleum van Luderitzbucht tot 50 myl onder Prieska 1s. goedkoper per kassie kan kry as van Kaapstad en Port Elizabeth na Prieska. Van Algoa Baai is b.v. die tarief vir petroleum 125s. en van Luderitzbucht 108s., kerse kan jy aanvoer van Algoa Baai teen 96s. per 100 lbs. gewig en van Luderitzbucht teen 82s. Dis maar ’n paar voorbeelde wat ek noem. Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal hierdie saak ook sy aandag gee. Dit is ook onbillik teenoor die publiek en die handelaars, wat goed uit die Kaap en Port Elizabeth wil laat kom. Met betrekking tot die vervoer van vee, weet ek dat die kommissie, wat aangestel werd om ondersoek in te stel aanbeveel het, dat die vervoer verbeter moet word, veral wat betref water en voer op die pad. Ek was verbaasd om te sien by Upington Stasie dat omtrent vyftig beeste by ’n dun pypie van omtrent 1 duim moes water kry, wat lank nie genoeg kon lewer nie en ek hoop, dat as die verbetering nog nie aangebreng is nie, dit dadelik gedaan sal word. Die edele lid vir Hospitaal (de hr. Papenfus) het die saak aangeroer van die aanstelling van ’n spesiale beambte om toe te sien, dat die veevervoer op behoorlike manier geskied en ek vertrou, dat die edelagbare die Minister sal dit ook in gunstige oorweging neem. As hy meer ondervinding had van die vervoer van vee oor die spoorweë sou hy meer simpatiek wees in hierdie soort van dinge en insien, dat dit nodig is. Wat die edele lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers) gesê het oor die tydelike verlaging van die spoorvrag en wat die edelagbare die Minister gedaan het, daar wil ek ook die Minister die versekering gee, dat dit hoog gewaardeer word, en dat duisende van veediere is daardeur gered. Die kwessie van die huishuur is natuurlik reeds dikwels deur die Spoorwegraad bespreek en ek kan die versekering gee, dat die ambtenare baie teleurgestel voel oor die beslissing van die Raad maar aangesien dit nie ’n hoë som is, wat by die saak betrekke is nie, vertrou ek dat die Spoorwegraad dit weer in ernstige oorweging sal neem om die huishuur terug te bring tot die vorige skale.

Die edele lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers) en die laaste spreker het die edelagbare die Minister geprys; ek sou dit ook graag wil doen, as ek kon. Maar waarvoor moet ek hom dankbaar wees? As lede my kan wys waarvoor, dan sal ek dankbaarheid betoon. Die afdeling, wat ek verteenwoordig is niks skuldig aan die edelagbare die Minister nie. Die kiesafdeling, wat ek nou verteenwoordig had eers ’n prominente lid van die anderkant gedurende bvna 18 jaar as verteenwoordiger en hy het die afdeling verwaarloos, van dat sy Party op die regeringsbanke gekom het en veral met betrekking tot spoorwege. Die edelagbare die Minister glo nie dat daar iets goed uit my deel van die wêrelddeel kan kom nie en dit is so erg, dat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister die anderdag, toe hy oor die koelkamers gepraat het, daardie streek vergelyk het by Boesmanland. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister vergeet dat tydens die Anglo-Boereoorlog het hy altoos sy perde daar kom vetmaak; toe was dit natuurlik ’n goeie distrik. Die spoorvrag is hoog wat ons moet betaal, en dan moet die vee nog 200 myl ver aangejaag word om by die stasie te kom. Daarom spreek dit vanself, dat as dit droog is, is die vee dood voordat hulle opgelaai kan word. Die edele lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers) dank die edelagbare die Minister namens die mense, wat by die treinspoor kan kom; maar hy sit agter die Minister en moet tenminste laat hoor, dat hy ook boer is of was, of altans boere vertegenwoordig of hulle belange behoor te vertegenwoordig. Ek verkeer in die ongelukkige posiesie dat onse afdeling eerder rede het om die Minister te vloek as hom te segen, want hulle word stelselmatiglik verwaarloos en arm gehou. Die nalatigheid en ongeloof van die edelagbare die Minister gaat sover, dat hy sy eie kommissie nie glo nie. Ons het dringend gevraag, dat op die lyn van Klaver ook handoeke en seep beskikbaar sal wees vir die reisende publiek en dit is ons al ’n jaar gelede beloof, maar dit is vandag nog nie gegee nie. Die Minister verklaar, dat die lyn nie betaal nie, maar ek denk, dat as die rekening reg is, sal hy bevind, dat die hooflyne word deur die taklyne gevoed en as daar geen taklyne was nie, sou geen hooflyn betaal nie. Dit is een van die weinige lyne wat betaal, maar die grootste deel van die inkomste word op die krediet van die hooflyn geset. Die edelagbare die Minister moet begint in te sien, dat die land moet oopgemaak word en ons vra geen guns nie, maar wat ons na reg toekom. Op veediere moet ’n mens soveel vrag betaal, dat iemand in ons deel van die land 4s. en 5s. minder kry as wat hom toekom. Daar moet ook hout en sink bestel word vir huise en dies meer, maar die vrag is te hoog en die Afdelingsraad kan die paaie ook nie meer in order laat hou nie; want hulle het geen geld nie. Ons in die Kolonie word afgeskeep op die stuk van spoorwege, want op die Spoorwegraad is net Transvaal en Natal vertegenwoordig, terwyl die Konstitusie voorsiening maak vir drie lede, maar die derde een is nie bygevoeg nie. Daar is die edelagbare die Minister self, maar hy verklaar dat hy niks daarmee te doen het en nie beskou word as lid nie. Dit is ook bloot toeval, dat die Minister uit die Kaapkolonie afkomstig is, dog hy is eerder ’n vloek as ’n segen vir die provinsie, want ons word verwaarloos, omdat ons geen lid op die Spoorwegraad het nie. Op die treine in die algemeen is een ding aan te merke; heeldag word gepraat van die wynboer, maar die begin van die baie dronkenskap is op die treine, want mens kan daar enige tyd enige sterk drank te drink kry, maar om tee of koffie te kan kry, moet ’n mens juis om 11 uur of 4 uur kom en waarom kan dit nie ook te alle ure verkrygbaar gestel word nie? As ’n aantal jong seuns gaan koffie of tee soek en hulle kan nie kry nie, en as daar een onder hulle is, wat drank gebruik, dan bestel hulle onwillekeurig iets sterks en dit is baie keer die begin van die drankmisbruik. Ek wens, dat die edelagbare die Minister aandag aan die saak wil wy en bepaal, dat tee en koffie en warm water enige tyd verkrygbaar sal wees op die trein. Ek het nog net een punt en dit is die verplaatsing van witmense en vervanging van hulle deur kleurlinge. Toe die besluit geneem word om witmense op die spoorweg te gebruik, was ek bly en het gedenk, dat al is dit vir die man self nou nie so’n danige uitkoms nie, dan sal dit tog die kinders ten goede kom, deurdien hulle naby die skool kom en goeie onderwys kan geniet. Hulle word eenvoudig ontslaan, as hulle nie wil gaan nie en vele word van hulle familie weggeneem. Die bedoeling is om die blanke te ondermyn en te laat vervang deur kleurlinge. Die taklyne is byna onbelas, en die edelagbare die Minister moet begint in te sien, dat die taklyne die hooflyne voed.

Last evening the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South-West) (Sir William Macintosh), during the course of his remarks voiced a very real grievance in the Midlands. I refer to the long delays at various junctions there, more especially at Naauwpoort and De Aar, for travellers traveling by rail. That grievance is a very serious one, but we, further east, have a much more serious grievance against the Railway Department inasmuch as passengers who leave Port-Alfred about 2.30 or 3 o’clock in the afternoon, do not get to Grahamstown until 6 o’clock, and that is for a journey of 40 miles. [An Hon. Member: “The same day?”] Yes, the same day. If they want to proceed on their journey the same evening, they must remain there for nearly two hours. They get away at 20 minutes to 8 or at 8 o’clock, and then get to Alicedale, another 35 miles further on, about three hours later. When they get to Alicedale a wise provision is made, the carriage going north is unhooked from the main train, and during the time they are waiting for the train to come up from Port Elizabeth, they are shunted about in the station at Alicedale, where they remain for about three hours. This shunting is done, it is said, in order that passengers shall not fall asleep and miss their connection. I can assure the hon. the Minister that this bumping is a very serious matter indeed, and I have even heard of passengers being bumped out of their bunks. For that reason I hope the hon. the Minister will give the matter serious consideration. We are all aware of the difficulty of the Administration in preparing time tables, but I am sure that the hon. the Minister will seek for a remedy. There is also the further question of through passengers to Port Alfred coming from the north, being compelled to break their journey at Grahamstown. I am aware of the reasons advanced for the change, but trust that steps will be taken at the earliest possible moment to remedy those reasons.

I arise in connection with one or two points which have been discussed. The first one was the question of the examination of apprentices. I submit, with the greatest respect to the hon. the Minister, that if a large number stand the examination and only a few pass, it follows that it cannot be that the students are always at fault. A question was put to the hon. the Minister in regard to the papers, and his reply was—I do not say that the reply was his own, as he simply leaves these things to be answered by his officers—that the questions were not of a technical nature, nor anything of that kind. I should like to ask the question, if the person who gave that reply prepared the questions for the examination, and, if so, would he be competent to judge? If he was the person who prepared the questions he is not a fit person to judge. And if it was an outsider who gave the answer, was he competent to judge? It may be remembered that I addressed a question in connection with the matriculation papers to the hon. the Minister of the Interior, but he did not assist me in any way. I submit that the papers went beyond the matriculation standard, and some of them were so long that the pupils were actually allowed 10 per cent. on them. It was also found that there was a mistake in the examination papers.

The hon. member is not dealing with the administration.

I am dealing with the administration, and am giving an illustration of what has taken place, sir. It is quite possible that as a mistake on this occasion, that it has also occurred on other occasions. The hon. the Minister in reply to a question as regards text books said that they should not be named. I submit that if it was an examination generally that might be so, but when the examination dealt with technical subjects, technical books should be named. If these boys are to be examined in technical subjects, no matter what they are as regards education, when technical subjects are set, the text books should be named. It would not be possible to do anything else. I was glad to hear an hon. member say that he would be prepared to pay an extra 5 per cent. for goods manufactured in South Africa, and I am sure so would all tax payers, as it would tend to increase opportunities for the labour of the country. Some talk has taken place about the dining cars. Having travelled a good deal on the trains here, I can say that I have nothing to give to the dining cars but praise; I never had any difficulty in getting tea or coffee at any time I wanted it, but we never drink coffee after 10 o’clock at my home. [An Hon. Member: “At your home; where?”]. Here in South Africa. I am often surprised at the way the work is performed in the dining cars. I say that the man who complains of the dining cars, is a man who has little experience of dining away from his home. I have also to deal with the question of the delay in trains. It is all very well for the man who knows nothing about the difficulty of drawing up the time tables to complain, yet I must confess there is a lot of delay, although the General Manager and those around him take every pains to draw up the time table. I submit to the hon. the Minister that something should be done to avoid these delays. I know that he cannot do it himself, but he might call a meeting of his technical advisers, and have something done in the direction of an improvement. I also emphasise that the employment of the people of this country should be the first consideration of any Government that professes to be patriotic.

Lede aan die ander kant van die Huis het baie te sê gehad oor die klagtes wat van hierdie kant kom en hulle het ons vertel, dat die klagtes onbillik is, maar dis snaaks vir my, hoe hul altemaal begin het om die Minister te prys, maar voordat hulle baie verder gekom het, het hulle self begin te kla. Dis virnamelik die geval gewees met die edele lid vir Bethal (Lt.- Kol. H. S. Grobler). Hy het meer as iemand anders gekla. Ek stem in met ’n paar van die punte wat deur die edele lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers) aangehaal is, virnamelik waar hy gekla het oor die monopolie by die stasies op groentes en vrugte, maar toe hy aan die end van sy pragtige toespraak kom, toe kan ek hom nie volg nie. Gister het ons hier een van die grootste monopolies, wat ooit in Suid-Afrika verleen was, bespreek—gister het die edele lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers) die olifant opgeslik, maar vandag sukkel hy oor ’n klein muis. Ek het maar net ’n paar opmerkings wat ek hier wens op te bring—daar is sommige wat ek elke jaar opgebring het en had gehoop, dat die Minister sou luister na wat ek sê, maar hy het hulle òf vergeet òf hy het hulle nie die moeite werd geoordeel nie. Daar word herhaaldelik klagtes gemaak, en die ander dag het ’n lid van die Parlement self gekla oor die hoë spoorwegvrag wat hy moet betaal vir die vervoer van kraalmis. Die spoorwegvrag is hoër selfs as die prys wat vir die artiekel betaal word, en alhoewel die edele lid vir Liesbeek (de hr. Pearce) dit as ’n soort weelde artiekel beskou, is daar tog ’n groot vraag vir die ding. Dit kan by bykans elke siding verkry word, maar alhoewel die mense hier boë dit wil hê, en die mense daaronder dit kan verskaf, kan hulle dit hier nie kry nie, omdat die spoorwegvrag so hoog is. Dit kos £4 per trok van my afdeling af tot aan Wellington of Paarl—dis die prys waarvoor dit daar verkoop word, Maar dis opmerkelik dat die man wat die mis koop na die stasie ry en dit daar aflaai, 5s. per trok moét betaal, maar die man wat die mis van sy eie plaas bring behoef glad niks te betaal nie. Dis weer iets ten voordele van die ryk man. Ek het hieroor gepraat met die Assistent-Hoofdbestuurder, maar hy sê dat dit ’n ou regulasie is wat nou weer ingeset is. Daar is mense wat selfs tot op 25s. betaal het. Dis ’n skande, en ek meen dat die Minister van Spoorweë die vervoer van die mis soveel moontlik behoor aan te moedig. Ek probeer dit soveel moontlik aan te moedig. Ek wil net daarop wys wat groot ongerief nou veroorsaak word vir die publiek deur die nuwe regulasies wat betref die vervoer van reisigers, ek neem nou maar net die lyn van Beaufort West na Kaapstad. In Beaufort kan ’n mens geen kaartjie kry nie, behalwe net vir die treine wat maar één “coach” het en dis net van die vroeë treine. As jy in Beaufort ’n ticket vra b.v. na Fraserburg Road of Matjesfontein, dan word gesë, dat jy dit nie kan kry nie, dat die trein daar nie gaat stop nie. Dit veroorsaak baie groot ongerief. Die ander dag het ’n vrou met ’n kind van Beaufort na Kruidfontein Stasie wil gaan. Die kind was siek. Toe die trein op Fraserburg aankom, toe het die kondukteur vir haar gesê, dat sy moet afstap, omdat die trein nie by die ander stasies gaan stil hou nie. Sy moet afstap en ook die volgende trein wat kom, stop nie op Kruidfontein nie. Maar die kondukteur van die twede trein het vir myself vertel, dat hy so jammer vir die vrou gekry het wat daar met haar kind gesit het, dat hy haar saamgeneem het. Hy sê, ek moes dit doen, ek kon nie anders nie, al gaan hulle my daarvir uitgooi, dat ek dit doen. Sulke dinge verwek baie ontevredenheid. Ek hoop, die edelagbare die Minister sal die saak nagaan en sien dat daar ’n verandering gemaak word. ’n Ander saak is die omheining van spoorlyne. Daar is van my eie vee al ’n heel boel doodgery en as jy by die Spoorweë vra vir kompensasie, dan kry jy ’n man wat die waarde moet takseer, maar die man wat die waarde kom takseer is ’n hottentot. Hy weet totaal niks daarvan af nie en as jy sy beslissing betwis, dan neem dit jou ’n halwe dag om die saak aan die amptenaar duidelik te maak en vir hom te oortuig, dat die hotnot ongeskik is. As ek dink aan al die vee wat ek verloor het op die manier en waarvir ek kompensasie gekry het, dan sê ek, sal dit byna die rente opbring van die koste om die lyn toe te maak. As die edelagbare die Minister besef, wat dit beteken vir ons as die lyne toegemaak word, dan sal hy seker daartoe oorgaan. Ek glo nie dat die geld so skaars is nie, dat dit nie gedoen kan word nie. Daar word op andere maniere baie geld vermors, maar in hierdie geval sal die geld goed bestee wees. Ek wil net ’n paar aanmerkinge maak oor die antwoorde wat ek die ander dag van die edelagbare die Minister gekry het op ’n paar vraë wat ek hier gestel het. Ek moet sê, dat ek baie teleurgestel is oor die antwoord. Ek het verwag dat die edelagbare die Minister daadlik rondborstig antwoord sou gee, maar hy het geweier om dit te doen. Hy het wel ’n antwoord gegee, maar dis so oppervlakkig en onbevredigend dat ek nie anders as ontevrede kan wees nie. Die edelagbare die Minister het byna uit sy pad gegaan om my teleur te stel. Die vraag was omtrent ’n paar amptenare op Beaufort wat by die laaste prowinsiale eleksie feitelik geageer het as stem-beamptes. Ek sai die vraag wat ek gestel het hier lees en ook die antwoord wat ek gekry het, dan kan die Huis sien wat dit beteken. Alhoewel die vraag op papier gestaan het, het tog miskien edele lede nie geluister nie toe die vraag deur my gestel is. Ek het gevra—

1. (1) Of het ’n feit is dat de heer Percy Kieser, klerk in het kantoor van het Onderhoud Departement en Sam Siyaya, schoonmaker, hoewel niet wettelik aangesteld as elektie agenten toch persoonlik op aktieve wijs de kandidatuur van de Zuid-afrikaanse Partij kandidaat bij de verkiezing voor die Provinsiale Raad te Beaufort West op 14 November 1923 steunden en bevorderden, en indien zo,
2. (2) of het spoorwegdienaren geoorloofd is persoonlik zodanig aktief deel aan zodanige verkiezing te nemen; en indien niet,
3. (3) welke stappen hij voornemens is te nemen dit in de toekomst te verhinderen?

Daarop het ek die antwoord gekry—

1. (1) Ik ben er niet bewust van dat zij zulks gedaan hebben. Kieser erkent dat hij kiezers, afgezien van partij, in zijn motorkar naar de stembus vervoerd heeft. Siyaya zegt dat hij eenvoudig niet-blanke kiezers geraden heeft naar de stembus te gaan om hun stem uit te brengen.
2. (2) & (3) Het is spoorwegdienaren niet geoorloofd aktief deel te nemen aan een verkiezing hetzij door in het publiek te spreken of te schrijven in verband met Parlementaire of Provinciale Raadsverkiezingen en andere werkzaamheden van politieke aard. Er is geen informatieom aan te tonen dat die regulaties geschonden werden in het geval onder be spreking.

Nou wil ek graag die edelagbare die Minister vra of hy nou werkelik self glo wat hy my daar geantwoord het, of hy glo dat die heer Kieser wat nie alleen S.A.P. partyman is nie, maar wat nog erger is, een van die ergste Unioniste is, ooit uit sy pad sal gaan om ’n Nasionalis na die stembus te bring? Die edelagbare die Minister glo dit self nie, waarom wil hy dan my dit laat glo? Ons het hier in die Huis al meer klagte gehoor oor antwoorde wat deur edelagbare Ministers gegee is en ek moet sê, dat die antwoord wat ek gekry het van die edelagbare die Minister baie teleurstellend is gewees. Ek wil graag weet of as ’n Nasionalis in Beaufort hom aan soiets skuldig gemaak sou hê, of die edelagbare die Minister dan ook die saak so oor die hoof gesien sou hê en of hy dan ook so’n antwoord gegee sou hê, as hom daarna gevra sou wórd. Ek is baie bly, dat die edelagbare die Minister sy amptenare beskerm, maar hy moet regverdig handel en as ’n vraag gestel word, dan moet hy met ’n rondborstige antwoord voor die dag kom.

Ek wil net ’n paar punte onder die aandag van die edelagbare die Minister bring in verband met ’n paar vraë wat ek gestel het in die Huis aan dieedelagbare die Minister. Die eerste is, of die Minister instruksies wil gee vir die oorbrugging by Welverdiend Stasie. Die edelagbare die Minister het gesê, dat die tyd daarvir nog nie daar is nie en dat daar geen geld is vir die oorbrugging. Ek wil net weer onder die aandag van die edelagbare die Minister bring die groot ongerief wat die publiek daardeur ondervind, omdat die pad wat hulle moet oorgaan om na die stasie te kom, ’n groot omweg is en net as die voetbrug daar is, dan sal dit nie nodig wees vir hulle om die omweg te maak nie, want dan kan hulle oor die voetbrug gaan. Die twede vraag is die versoek om ’n wagkamer te kry op die midde-platform te Welverdiend stasie vir reisigers wat van Ventersdorp en Lichtenburg kom en daar om moet stap. Die vraag is op papier, maar ek het nog nie ’n antwoord daarop ontvang nie. Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal daar nou antwoord op kan gee. ’n Ander vraag wat ek het is met betrekking tot die reserweer van sitplekke in die trein op Steyns Rust. Die antwoord van die stasiemeester aan die edelagbare die Minister was nie korrek nie. My vrou met haar dogter het met die trein gery en nietteenstaande hulle 4 dage tevore sitplase besproke het, was die daar nie, toe hulle op die stasie gekom het. Sy het moet staan tot Kroonstad toe en het daar moet wag op ’n andere trein. Dis baie teleurstellend as mense op die manier behandel word. Dan hoop ek dat die edelagbare die Minister hom nie sal steur aan die artiekel uit Die Burger wat die edele lid vir Denver (de hr. Nixon) aan die Huis voorgelees het nie. Dis onsin dat die aanleg van die spoorlyne ’n politiek van die Regering is om die Regering op die been te hou. Dis onwaar. Die meeste mense wat aangedring het op die bou van die spoorlyn is Nasionaliste. Dis nie die Sappe alleen wat daar vir vra nie, maar dis beide partye wat aandring op die bou van die spoorlyne. Dis al wat ek onder die aandag van die edelagbare die Minister het wil bring.

Dit spyt my, dat ek nie net soos die edele lid vir Bethal (Lt.-Kol. H. S. Grobler) so tevrede kan wees met die politiek van die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorweë nie, miskien is dit, omdat ek nie so in die guns van die edelagbare die Minister is nie. Maar ek het maar tamelik baie griewe. Een van die grootste griewe wat ek het, is die dat waar aan mense verlof verleen word, dat dan hulle plekke word ingeneem deur naturelle. Dit het nie alleen plaas gevind op Maquassi in my kiesafdeling nie, maar die edele lid vir Klerksdorp (de hr. Smit) het my verseker, dat dit daar ook plaas gevind het. Die edelagbare die Minister in sy antwoord op ’n vraag wat ek hom gestel het, het gesê, dat dit slegs in sommige gevalle plaas gevind het, weens gebrek aan huise, waar die mense in kon woon en dat daarom hulle vervang is deur naturelle. Ek wil vra of dit ’n ekskuus is vir die edelagbare die Minister om die naturelle tussen die witmense wat daar werk, te sit. Ek hoop dat die edelagbare die Minister daarna sal sien dat soiets in die toekoms nie meer kan plaas vind nie. Dit mag in sommige gevalle ’n ekskuus kan wees, maar tog nie op plase soos Klerksdorp en Maquassi nie. Daar is tog seker huise genoeg te kry en as daar nie genoeg huise is, dan behoor die edelagbare die Minister huise te bou, al was dit maar “tinsheds” vir die mense. Dis die Minister se plig. Maar ons moet nie heengaan en die naturel set in die plase van wit mense wat met verlof gaan nie. Verder wil ek ’n paar woorde sê omtrent die omheining van spoorweë. Daar word grond onteien, die spoorlyn word oor die boer se plaas gelê en dit veroorsaak baie skade. Neem die geval van die lyn van Poedimoe na Schweizer Reneke. Daar word baie skade gely deur die mense as gevolg van die aanleg van die spoorlyn en die mense kry geen vergoeding of kompensasie. Die boer kan tog nie elke dag gaan kyk, as dit ’n uitgestrekte plaas is of daar vee doodgery word nie. Nou ek hoop, dat die edelagbare die Minister, waar hy deur besuiniging so’n groot surplus het, dat hy die geld sal gebruik om verbeteringe aan die spoorweg aan te bring en dat die mense wie se grond tog al onteien is nie nog meer ongerief sal hê, sodat hulle altoos moet oppassers hê vir die vee nie. Die ekskuus van die edelagbare die Minister is “tekort aan geld,” maar hy moet sorg, dat as die spoorweë aangelê word, dat daar vir omheining gesorg word, dis onbillik teenoor die eienaars van die grond, as die spoorweg nie beskerm is nie. Ek sou verder graag wil weet hoekom dat op die lyn van Ermelo na Glencoe, wat verleng is vanaf Machadodorp, dat die deel van Glencoe na Ermelo beskou word as taklyn, terwyl die ander deel beskou word as hooflyn. Ek dink dis die verlenging van een lyn van Johannesburg af. Dit werk baie nadelig vir die vervoer van wol na Durban en ek dink die hele lyn behoor beskou te word as hooflyn. Dan is daar nog baie ongerief en klagte met betrekking tot vervoer op die spoorweë. Ek het ’n geval waar ’n trok op Ermelo getrok is op 13 Desember en toe na Vryheid verder gestuur is, waar die eers op die 16de van die maand aangekom het. ’n Ander trok No. 2824 het 9 dae onderweg gewees na Vryheid. Nou, wanneer sal die trok in Durban aankom? Dis heeltemaal moontlik dat as die daar aankom na 9 dage, dat die wolmark dan heeltemaal geval het. Die troks word eenvoudig op ’n dooie spoor in ’n hoek geset en moet daar maar wag, voor die verder gaan. Daar is verskillende andere troks, b.v. 55821 vertrek op die 20ste Desember van Ermelo en kom die 26ste te Vryheid aan.

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

Ek was besig om aan te toon, hoe onbillik dit is, dat goed van die boer, wat na die mark gestuur word so lank op die pad bly, en ek het die nummers van die troks opgegee. Soms duur dit 10, 13 en 20 dae vir wol om van Ermelo af Durban te bereik, en dit moet tog vir die edelagbare die Minister duidelik wees, dat in die tyd kan die mark val, sodat die boer byna niks vir sy produk kry nie. Ek vertrou daarom dat die edelagbare die Minister sal toesien, dat wol so spoedig molik op die plaas van bestemming afgelewer word, opdat dit verkoop kan word. Ek wens nog te wys op die herstel van masjienerie. Ek het gevra hoe lank dit neem om ’n lokomotief reg te maak, en die antwoord was 95 dae; maar daar is die lokomotief No. 766, wat in Suidafrika vervaardig is, en dit het byna twee jaar geneem om hom te herstel teenoor 95 dae vir ’n ingevoerde. Ek breng dit net onder die aandag, want ek reken, dat die tyd gekom het, dat dinge wat hier vervaardig kan word, nie van die buiteland af ingevoer moet word nie, veral sulke dinge as masjienerie. Daar is die kwessie dat as goed op ’n stasie aankom, en daar meer as ’n bepaalde aantal dae bly, voordat dit afgehaal word, dan word daar ekstra voor gechargeer. Die geval is dikwels, dat die geadresseerde ’n boer is, wat ver van die spoor af woon en teen hy die kennisgewing kry, is daar al ’n aantal dae verstryk en moet daar ’n sekere “demurrage” op betaal word. Wanneer die myne dergelike dinge bestel, steenkool b.v. dan moet hulle “demurrage” betaal, maar word dikwyls afgeskryf. Kan die edelagbare die Minister sê hoeveel daar vir die myne afgeskryf is, teenoor die boer? Vir die boer word niks afgeslaan nie, maar vir die myne en die mense in die dorpe veel—vir die boer is daar geen genade nie. My laaste punt is die cartage kontrakte vir die vervoer van goedere van die stasies op die verskillende dorpe. Nou gebeur dit, dat die boer goed breng, dit self aflaai en op die trein sit, sonder hulp van die kontraktant hoegenaamd, maar tog word by die vrag 4s. of 5s. per ton bygereken vir vervoer. Dit is onbillik, dat vir die soort dinge ekstra betaal moet word vir werk, wat daar nie aan gedaan is nie. Ek spreek onder korreksie, want die dinge is onder my aandag gebreng.

The Railway traffic revenue returns published for the last nine months shows £1,092,515 over the estimates. It was estimated that the revenue would be £228,000 a week, and that estimate has been exceeded by some £25,000 per week. Now this does not seem as though great care was taken in connection with the preparation of these estimates, and I am very much afraid that a sufficient staff has not been kept to deal with this increase of traffic. It may have been unforseen, but there is no doubt about this increase of traffic. The staff has really been inadequate to deal with it, and very great hardships have been imposed. There is no doubt that many of the stationmasters and foremen at small but busy stations are at the present time working anything up to 12, 14, 15 hours a day. There is a general complaint that these men have to work very long hours. We find on the Reef that the ticket-examiners are now called upon to perform duties they were not called upon to perform previously. Where men used only to work long-distance trains they have now to make short trips before they start on their through trains. Some have to go from Park Station to Germiston and back, in connection with their duties before they start on trains, say, to Klerksdorp and such other places. This is really overdoing it. I think the railwaymen are not being treated fairly. When their representatives came down here last year and put it to the hon. the Minister that their increments should not be interfered with, especially seeing that an increase of traffic was in sight, the hon. the Minister said he did not anticipate an increase of revenue, nor that the railways would pay in the near future, and that he was going forward with his policy of cutting off the increments. Certainly, he agreed eventually to spread the cut over a period of years instead of making it in one year, but after all he made the cut, and now these men are not being paid as well as they should be. When we come down to bed-rock, we find that they are not being paid as well as they were in 1914. The fourth report of the Public Service Commission increased their emoluments by 30 per cent. The last information I have from the Census Department shows that in a great many towns the cost of living at the present time is from 32 per cent. up to 42 per cent. higher than it was in 1914, so that the men are at any rate no better off now than they were then. Again, take the offices where a great many of these men have to work in—take the booking offices at Park Station, for instance—they are miserable, little, pokey offices. The men’s health is not studied much when they are called on to do their work in such offices as those at Park Station. In connection with the parcels traffic, there the men have to work in most uncomfortable offices—tin shanties, that is all one can call them. I hope that what the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) said in connection with Park Station will induce the hon. the Minister to give us a straight answer about his intentions in regard to a new station. I was glad also to hear the same hon. member mention the question of the Live Stock Commission’s report. The members of that Commission unanimously asked the hon. the Minister to appoint an official specially to look after the transit of live stock. I was a member of a departmental railway commission many years ago, long before the great war, and I was also a member of this last Commission, and I saw a great many things happening still which were condemned by that first Commission. Stock is still being conveyed in open trucks; stock is still left standing on sidings for hours and hours in order to pick up a connection. They are shunted about because of some regulation which says that trucks have to be put on to trains in the order of the stations they are going to, and very often trucks of live stock are kept attached to the engines during shunting operations which should be detached and picked up after. This seems to be unnecessary cruelty. I have seen, while serving on both of those Commissions, live stock suffering the pangs of thirst. There are men I know who say that cattle and sheep will not drink in transit; I can tell you what I have seen myself over and over again. I have seen these poor wretched animals when they were let out of the trucks, rush the water troughs. I saw here at Maitland cattle struggling and straining to get through into the next pens to get to the water troughs; some of them had their bodies half-way through the fences, stuck there in their endeavour to get to the water. This is the sort of thing we want the special officer to deal with, because when it is left to the general service, no one is particularly responsible for seeing that animals do not suffer undue and avoidable cruelty. It is not a matter of one or two of the Commission holding this opinion: the whole Commission was unanimous, and recommended the appointment of an official to see that live stock was properly treated en route and not allowed to suffer unnecessarily. I saw at Braamfontein and at Maitland stock left standing in trucks for hours and hours. It was reported to us that animals arriving at Maitland about 5 o’clock in the afternoon were often kept in the trucks the whole night, some of them coming from South-West Africa, and which had not been watered since they left Upington. Because they arrived after 5 o’clock in the evening, they were kept in the trucks at Maitland all night, and not watered till next morning, and I myself saw those poor animals fighting to get at the water troughs. Such cruelty should never be allowed to happen. The Railway Administration should determine who is responsible for this delay. It is not a matter to fight with the municipality over as to who is responsible. When the animals are suffering from thirst, I hold that it is the duty of the Railway Department to see that they get water. This Commission said that no stock should be allowed to remain in trucks for more than 48 hours without water, and in the case of pigs that they should be watered every 12 hours, and yet I received a letter within the last few days from the head office which shows that cattle are still allowed to go 52 hours without water, when 48 was the recommendation of the Commission, and I feel that unless the hon. the Minister does appoint an official who is responsible for seeing that live stock is transported over our railways with the minimum of cruelty, then the hon. the Minister is at fault. It was the consensus of opinion that this should be done. When witnesses came before the Commission they very often said it would be an excellent thing if more inspections were carried out on the railways in connection with the transport of live stock. I was very disappointed when the hon. the Minister said recently that it was not his intention to appoint this officer. In connection with our passenger traffic, if a train is five minutes late it is reported to an official at headquarters, who deals with the matter at once, and yet a stock train can run hours and hours late, and there is no one specially responsible to see that such delays are minimized. There are many other things that require the attention of a special officer in connection with the transport of livestock on our railways. I hope we have seen the last of cattle and sheen travelling in open trucks. There is not the slightest doubt that a lot of cruelty is inflicted on animals which travel through the heat of the day and through the cold winds of the night, often through snow and rain in these open trucks, and then many of our trucks are far too small for large stock. There are many improvements that could be made by an official specially delegated to look after this work. The commissioners were asked to deal with a certain matter, and then it was withdrawn from the terms of reference. They were asked to express their opinion in regard to the advantages of inland slaughter. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will not alter the existing ratio between the livestock and dead meat rates. I would like to see the rates lowered for both, but I am very much afraid that if the hon. the Minister carries into effect the opinion he gave expression to yesterday that there is only one hope for the stock farmer of this country, and that is to hand him over body and soul as it were, to the tender mercies of the big meat companies, capitalistic concerns, such as the Imperial Cold Storage, the stock farmer is doomed. He seemed to think that that was the only way out. Well, I say that he will play right into the hands of the meat companies if he lowers the rates on meat and does not correspondingly lower the rates on livestock, and the cattle will then be slaughtered right up on our borders, and perhaps beyond, and we will have our Union markets flooded with meat from outside our borders. This is a thing which will have to be watched very carefully. I felt secure until I heard the hon. the Minister speak yesterday, because I thought he would be one to protect the primary producers using the railways from falling into the hands of these concerns, especially as he himself brought in a law, as the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) reminded us, to control these trusts and combines in regard to their dealings in meat. He introduced it himself into the old Cape Parliament. He seems to have got into very bad company lately when he will now come here and say that the only hope for the stock farmer lies in the hands of these people. I sincerely hope the hon. Minister will not alter the ratio in regard to these rates. We want him to lower the rates, for we believe that the railways will pay better as rates are reduced to a certain payable point. Naturally, you cannot reduce them below that point, but now traffic is increasing you can safely reduce your rates. Now I do not wish to labour this point, but I do wish to tell the hon. the Minister that I feel very strongly about this matter of importation of meat from outside the Union. If we are not very careful we will have first the producer forced into the hands of these trusts and combines, and then the consumers’ turn will come very soon afterwards. We have an object lesson in Johannesburg and Cape Town in connection with ice. What has happened in connection with ice will happen in regard to meat, as soon as the producer gets into the hands of these combines. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will be very watchful, and see to it that the farmers are allowed a free choice of markets in connection with the sale of their livestock, and that they are not forced into the hands of any combine or trust through the incidence of railway rates.

I was very pleased to hear the hon. member for Turffontein (Maj. Hunt) raise that point with regard to Park Station, Johannesburg. I should like to see the Johannesburg members in this House, irrespective of party, coming together on a local matter like this in the same way as we see the Cape Peninsula people, and I also say this, that it should not only be a matter of a deputation or an occasional reminder, but on every possible occasion the Johannesburg people and their representatives in this House, should tell the hon. the Minister that they are tired of the treatment they are receiving as far as the present station in Johannesburg is concerned. There is a little agitation at the present time about Monument Station, Cape Town. Probably hon. members who have not seen Park Station, Johannesburg, will be surprised to know that the Park Station, Johannesburg, is just an enlargement of Monument Station, with this difference, that the refreshment buildings in the Park Station, Johannesburg, are fairly well built, and I can understand that, because they are making a comfortable profit out of the refreshment portion of that station, a profit which would provide sufficient interest to build a bigger station. If they are not making that profit then they are missing a good opportunity, because that class of business in Johannesburg pays very well.

They give you a good meal.

I would ask the hon. the Minister to definitely tell this House what his plans are in regard to Park Station, and when I say that, I appeal to every representative of Johannesburg in this House to follow this up. When one considers the spasmodic agitation which the Johannesburg press gives this matter, compared with the consistent support that the Cape Town people would get from their press down here, it shows how spasmodic is the enthusiasm that takes place in Johannesburg. I hope the Johannesburg members will keep on persistently hammering the hon. the Minister on this matter in the hope that something will be done. I attended the deputation from Johannesburg when they met the hon. the Minister in regard to the construction of a subway, and the hon. the Minister definitely stated that the department would pay two-thirds, if the Johannesburg municipality would pay one-third of the cost of the sub-way. I would like to carry the same position to the Denver crossing. My friend the hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon) and myself saw Sir William Hoy in Johannesburg with regard to the Denver crossing, but the position was not very clear to us. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what was the position in regard to the Denver crossing, in so far as his department is concerned. This matter has been hanging fire for a good many years. Some say it is the municipality’s fault, and the municipality blames the administration. I think a statement in this House on the subject would be very acceptable. Another point is this question of examinations. It might seem a very small matter, but for these boys it is a very serious matter indeed. I cannot help but feel with the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Brown) that there is something wrong with these examinations, and that a little expression of opinion from an outside source, or what I may say an unbiassed source, might be to the advantage of the examiner and the candidate. Unless you specify a certain curriculum or certain text books upon which you will build up your examination paper, instead of putting in catch questions, and unless you lay down text books for these candidates, you will be in the position that our clever Minister of Finance is in, and be unable to answer them. I do not think the hon. the Minister of Railways, or any member of this House, could answer them either. But if you mention a definite curriculum or text book, from which you will take your questions, it will give the boys a chance. I think this ought to begiven careful consideration, as it will remove a great deal of feeling in this matter. I hope these points, particularly the one in regard to the Johannesburg Station, will be taken up by the hon. the Minister.

Ek wil net maar ’n paar punte aanhaal In my kiesafdeling is dit heeltemaal onmoontlik om alles te weet en om te weet wat aangaan en om te weet waiter griewe die mense het tensy hulle my alles vertel. En dit lyk vir my dat as die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorweë nie vertel word van griewe en onreëlmatighede nie, dan kan hy ook nie weet nie wat die posiesie is. Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal sy aandag gee aan die sake wat nou voor hom gebring word. Die kwessie wat hier opgebring is, deur die edele lid vir Fauresmith (de hr. Havenga) oor die vasstel van verskillende tariewe vir die taklyne, is ’n ernstige grief. Ek kan verstaan dat daar ’n verskil is in die tarief vir die hoofdlyn, en vir die taklyn—alhoewel daar volgens my opinie nie ’n verskil behoor te wees nie—maar dis ongehoord om verskillende tariewe vas te stel vir verskillende taklyne en ’n verkeerde beginsel. Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal sy ernstige aandag aan hierdie punt gee. Dan is daar ’n ander punt; party maal as ’n man dinge stuur om per goedere trein verstuur te word, dan vind ons dat dit duurder uitkom dan as die goed per passagiers trein verstuur word. Daar is ’n taklyn in my afdeling, en die goedere trein en die passagiers trein is dieselfde—dis ’n gemengde trein, maar as ’n mens goed per passagiers trein verstuur, dan vind ons dikwels dat dit goedkoper uitkom dan as ons dit per goedere trein verstuur. Daar is ’n minimum tarief vir goedere, wat dom lyk en dit vang ons, want die boere weet dit nie en hulle moet duurder betaal as nodig is. Dis een en dieselfde trein wat die dinge vervoer en die dinge kom op dieselfde tyd aan op die markt. Ek meen, dat die soort van dinge gepubliseer behoor te word sodat mense kan weet wat die posiesie is en sodat hulle die kanse kan geniet wat daar is. Dan is daar die kwessie van die oponthoud op die spoorweë. As ons op die platteland om een of ander artiekel moet stuur, dan skroom ons soms om dit te doen, omdat die spoorweë die dinge so lank ophou, veral as ons op ’n taklyn is. Die dinge word eers oor die hoofdlyn verstuur en dan, moet hulle op die taklyn verder gaan, maar as hulle van die hoofdlyn afkom dan bly hulle so lank in die loodse lê dat party maal weke verloop voordat ons die goed kry; ons bly ver van die stasies en ons moet lang afstande stuur, soms 20, 25 of 30 myl van die stasie af, en dikwels moet ons die waëns stuur om die goed te haal, en as die waëns dan daar kom, dan is die goed nog nie daar nie, en dit veroorsaak ergernis. Dis iets waarop gelet behoor te word, en goedere wat oor die hoofdlyn na die taklyn gestuur word, behoor dadelik van die hoofdlyn op die taklyn oorgelaai te word. Dan het die edele lid vir Barberton (Lt.-Kol. J. C. Fourie) ’n saak opgebring wat ek wens te ondersteun; dis omtrent die ekspres treine wat nou loop. Ons wens van daardie treine gebruik te maak, maar ons kan nie. Ons kan nie verwag nie, dat die ekspres trein in verbinding met elke taklyn sal loop, en veral nie waar daar groot verskil is tusse die tyd van vertrek van die taklyn treine en die ekspres treine, maar as daar maar weinig verskil is, soos drie kwartier, wat die geval is met my trein, daar behoor iets gedoen te word. Vandag moet ek meer as ’n dag op Bloemfontein oorbly omdat die taklyn trein drie kwartier voor die aankoms van die ekspres trein vertrek. Daar behoor iets gedaan te word. Dan is daar ’n ander punt—die konsessie kaartjies. In die verlede het die edelagbare die Minister altyd geweier om konsessie kaartjies te gee, maar later het hy daar tog in toegestem om konsessie kaartjies te laat uitgee; hy het gevind dat dit nodig was om ook konsessie kaartjies na die binneland te verleen. Hy het ook konsessie kaartjies toegestaan vir die skoolkinders— kaartjies van af die huis na die skool en terug. Ek hoop, dat die edelagbare die Minister nou verder sal gaan en ons op die platteland, wat ons kinders na die skole moet stuur, sal tegemoet kom. Die kinders moet hulle retoer kaartjies vir drie maande hou; ek wil die edelagbare die Minister vra om toe te staan, dat daar konsessie kaartjies vir die kinders toegestaan sal word, sodat hulle nie net allenig na hul huis sal kan gaan nie, maar dat hulle ook ander plekke kan gaan besoek. Dit is leersaam en opvoedkundig, en ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal ons hier tegemoet kom.

Die edele lid vir Port Elizabeth (Zuid-West) (Sir William Macintosh) het oor die reisiger vervoer tussen Port Elizabeth, Nauwpoort en Kimberley en ander dele gepraat, en daar wat ek wil sê in verband daarmee is, sal ek dit vanaand sê en nie wag nie tot die Algemene Begroting. Daar was ’n sneltrein deur die Vrystaat, en mense wat in die Vrystaat en die Oostelike Provinsies woon het dit handig gevind om die sneltrein te gebruik na Kaapstad. Maar die trein is nou afgeskaf. Daar is een sneltrein ingevoer om Durban tegemoet te kom, maar ek is bang dat seker dele vergeet is, die mense van die Vrystaat, hierdie kant van Bloemfontein, Norvalspont en die Oostelike Provinsies is heeltemaal vergeet. Hulle is vergeet en hulle sneltrein is afgeskaf, en daar is niks gedaan nie om hulle tegemoet te kom. As die edelagbare die Minister dink oor wat die edele lid vir Port Elizabeth (Zuid-West) (Sir William Macintosh) gesê het, dan hoop ek dat hy ook sal dink aan die mense wat aan hierdie kant van Bloemfontein woon en in die Oostelike Provinsies. Daar is nog ’n punt waaroor ek iets wens te sê. Ons het gehoor dat verskeidene lede, en vernamelik die wat van die Rand kom, gepraat het oor, en gepleit het voor, ’n nuwe stasie, en hulle wil ’n groot stasie en ’n kosbaar stasie kry. Ek meen dat as daar een fout in die Unie gemaak is, dan is dit dat ons te veel geld bestee het aan groot en kosbaar geboue, poskantore, stasies, geregshowe en ander dinge. As mens amptenare wilopsoek, dan kry mens hulle dikwels in ’n groot kamer—hulle sit daar alleen, en as mens dink wat die kamer alleen kos, dan sal mens sien dat dit dikwels genoeg is om ’n woonhuis vir ’n gewone familie te bou, en die amptenaar bring nie meer as 6 of 8 uur per dag in die kamer deur, en daarna dien die kamer vir niks meer nie; en wanneer ek lede van die Rand hoor praat dat hulle so’n paleis wil hê in Johannesburg, dan is ek bang, dat as niemand sy stem daarteen uitbring dat die Minister miskien sal dink, dat dit die opinie van die Huis is en hy sal miskien beloftes gaan maak. Ek weet die Minister is ’n praktiese man, en ek weet dat hy nie skroom nie om so te sê as hy dink, dat daar iets verkeerd is, maar omdat hy so’n man is, wil ek sê dat ek meen, dat ons versigtig moet handel. Ons moet oppas dat ons nie nog meer geld verloor in groot en kosbaar geboue. Wat is ’n stasie—reisigers kom daar op die elfde uur, en gaat in die trein en vertrek, en wanneer hulle aan ’n stasie aankom, dan trek hulle so snel moontlik weer weg. Ek hoop dat die Minister homself nie sal laat ompraat nie deur lede van die Rand. Ons hoor so dikwels dat die myne maar net ’n kort bestaan het, maar net ’n korte leeftyd het en dat hulle dan uitgewerk sal wees.

Nee, moe nie glo nie.

Wel, dis wat ons hoor. Waarom sou ons dan sulk kostbare geboue opset? Ek hoop dat die Minister nie beloftes sal maak nie, om sulk kostbare stasies op te stel waaroor ons later jammer sal wees.

The hon. the Minister is asking for a little contribution of £8,000,000 on account of the Estimates, the returns of which will be gone into at a later date. If we were assured that this amount would be judiciously spent, there would not be any difficulty in voting him the amount. Everybody in this House acknowledges he has put up a good case, and that he is entitled to get the £8,000,000 if it was to be judiciously spent and if we get that assurance. I feel, however, that the hon. the Minister is on a wrong track. One of the principal items on which the money is going to be spent is on corn elevators, and he will remember a little chat which I had with him in his office with regard to this very question, and I pointed out to him the difficulty which we have to carry out this great elevator system, and the wrong conception the hon. the Minister had when he initiated the new scheme. I am touching on the great elevator system introduced by the hon. the Minister at the present time. I want to refer the hon. the Minister to the reported estimate put forward with regard to the elevator scheme, and he will see that it was estimated that the two main elevators, and 37 little elevators, would cost £1,700,000. That is what appeared in the report. It is not the scheme that the hon. the Minister now proposes in the new scale, namely, two main elevators and 31 district elevators, leaving the rest out. Under that scheme we feel that the general productiveness in each individual district, and on this question of productiveness I had tried to convince the hon. the Minister, that the scheme was doomed to failure. The scheme as it exists to-day is a chain without shackles in between. At Vredefort it was the original intention to build three elevators for the district, as it produced more grain than the adjoining districts, the closest being Kroonstad, Heidelberg, and where we accumulate wheat and mealies, and kill the rodents about which we heard so much the other night from the hon. the Minister of the Interior, whom I have to congratulate on the expeditious manner in which he has worked. The original scheme as put forward— the scheme of the two main elevators at the two ports, and 34 elevators at the different stations —I want to point out to the Minister that without intermediate elevators connecting these up with the main distributing station, the scheme is doomed to failure. The hon. the Minister unfortunately is always thinking towards Cape Town, and wants to attract everything in connection with grain towards Cape Town. I want to put to him the other aspect, the consumption of our internal mealies, which we have to distribute, and I want to put this to him, that these elevators are not only to serve for export purposes but as our storage, until such time as our maize can be realized during the next season. The hon. the Minister gets up and tells us that until this Parliament authorizes him, he has to continue the scheme, that is to construct two main and 34 small elevators, he could not put up any elevators between. That is where the hon. the Minister is wrong. If one has a chain, one would have “voorketting, agterketting and middelketting,” one must have a shackle in between. So far as our grain elevator scheme is concerned, we are anxious to help the hon. the Minister, as we recognize the necessity and importance of these elevators to the farmers in the Union of South Africa, and we want to assist him, but when we offer him advice he reminds us that Parliament has said that he can only erect 2 main elevators and 34 others, and that the scheme would cost £1,700,000. If by some accident or error of judgment they have absorbed more than they expected on these elevators, we in the small districts should not be penalized, and the whole agreement wrecked because something has gone wrong with the construction of other elevators. I hope the hon. the Minister will see his way clear before he comes to his main estimates, to adopt some scheme which is going to make the whole elevator scheme effective. In the main estimates we will be in a position to discuss the whole question. The intentions of the hon. the Minister are good in the main, he is doing his best, and we are prepared to assist him when there is a good scheme. The hon. the Minister has often told us of the troubles he has had in carrying on the branch lines. He has always told us that we were running these lines at a loss, and that if we cut them off, we would be running the railways on a sound business principle, and that the main lines would pay. I cannot see that that is correct. The question arises, if you cut off your branch lines would the main lines pay? If we cut off our branch lines you would probably find that the main line to Cape Town would never run. We have a little line running to Parys. This little line was built in 1905. It was built on an economic policy, which was then the accepted policy, that in times of distress or times of financial trouble, the Government should employ white labour to build any scheme inside of that district, which they could judiciously and economically exploit to advantage, so far as the district was concerned; and the Parys line was built, as the hon. the Minister will tell you, at a cost very much higher than if they had considered the question from a working point of view, and simply taken a hard and fast £ s. d. principle, and given it out on contract. But there was sufficient imagination in 1905 to recognize that that was a time of ample white labour, and they built this line to Parys. Well, now this little line at the present time is in this position, that they have created a large amount of traffic from Johannesburg and these other places, and, next to Bloemfonten, I believe that line has the largest amount of traffic along any individual line, as a branch line, outside the main line to Bloemfontein. Yet, we cannot even get a coat of paint for the station. They are still working in the same old tin shanty that they ran then, and as for the station, in ordinary inclement weather there is no station at all; it is one of those ancient old ramshackle things, and the public have a right to ask for a new station building. We are trying to encourage traffic to Parys as a beauty spot of South Africa, I was almost going to say the future capital, but I will not divert so far. The trouble is that the hon. the Minister put up placards all over the place on the platforms “Beautiful Parys.” He even puts them on the station platform, and when one gets there one has to stand under this unfortunate tin shanty, where, if there are two people together, they cannot both get out of the rain. I ask the hon. the Minister to give us that little bit of assistance to make this line a paying concern, and to attract the passenger traffic from Johannesburg, and make this station a station which Parys deserves. I think Parys deserves better treatment than the hon. the Minister is giving it at the present time.

Daar is hier vandag al gepraat oor die ekskursie geriewe wat die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorweë aan die publiek verskaf het. Ek wil sê, dat die hele publiek baie dankbaar is dat die ekskursie tariewe weer ingevoer is, maar die Spoorwegdepartement doen partykeer sulke domme dinge, tenminste dit skyn vir my so, so vreselik dom. Miskien kan die edelagbare die Minister my wat inligtinge gee. As jy daar in die onderveld woon omtrent 1200 myl hier vandaan, dan kan jy ’n kaartjie kry na Kaapstad, net hiernatoe. Die edele lid vir Vredefort (de hr. Munnik) het al gesê, dat die edelagbare die Minister skerm altoos so met Kaapstad. Ek weet van ’n konkrete geval, waar ’n man van my distrik na Kaapstad gekom het. Hy wil op Prince Albert afklim en hy het bereid gewees al die ekstra onkoste te betaal. Hy het ag daë daar wil bly en dan weer op Prince Albert opklim, maar die stasiemeester het hom dit nie wil toestaan nie, hulle het dit nie kan doen nie. Hy moes eers weer na Kaapstad terug gaan en dan van Kaapstad weer huistoe gaan. Dis ’n baie groot ongerief. Die publiek is tog nie gemaak vir Kaapstad, maar Kaapstad vir die publiek. Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal daar verandering in aanbring, dat ekskursies verkrygbaar is vanaf enige plek na ’n andere plek van sê 500 myl of meer. Dan sal die ekskursie tariewe baie meer populêr wees, dan sal die edelagbare die Minister dit baie meer aantrekkelik maak. Dan wil ek nog iets sê oor die spoorweg politiek. Ek het dit vroeër al gesê en die hele land dring daarop aan, dat as daar weer ’n vakature op die Spoorwegraad kom, dat dan ’n prominente boer aangestel word in die Raad, want die belange van die boere is altoos maar op die agterkant geset deur die Administrasie, ek wil nie sê moedwillig nie, maar hulle is onbekend met die omstandighede, hulle weet nie wat ons daar buite nodig het nie. Daar is verskillende dinge waar hulle geen verstand van het nie. As jy ’n sak mielies na Kaapstad wil vervoer, dan betaal jy 3s. 6d. daarvoor, maar vir ’n sak groen boontjies betaal ’n mens 4s. 6d. Dis twee landbouprodukte, hulle kom van dieselfde plaas, vir die een betaal jy 3s. 6d. en vir die ander 4s. 6d. per saik. Dan ’n ander geval, ’n Man het van ons af ’n kassie druiwe wil wegstuur. Hy gaan na die stasie en vra wat dit sal kos aan vrag. 9s. word gesê. Dis te veel sê hy, ek gaan ’n ander plan maak. Hy maak drie klein kassies en stuur die as “parcel-post” en bring die na die pos toe, die pos set die druiwe op die spoor en die man betaal 3s. Dis wat ek nie kan verstaan nie. As dit die edelagbare die Minister betaal die goedkope tarief met die pos, waarom dan nie die boere ook die goedkoper tariewe op vrugte toestaan nie? Daar is hier vanmiddag al gesê, dat dit soms iets goedkoper is om iets met die passagiertrein as met dit goederetrein te stuur. Dit kom voor en dit maak die boer teleurgestel en wonderlik in die war. Nog ’n ander ding in verband met die spoorvrag op ons vrugte en groente, wat vandag nog so hoog is. Die kompetiesie is so sterk, dat mense nie meer weet wat met hulle groente en vrugte te doen nie. Hulle sê, die spoorweë maak hulle dood. En dan, daar is vanmiddag al op gewys, die edelagbare die Minister sorg nie vir voldoende hulp met betrekking tot vrugte op spoorwegstasies. Mense kom in Bloemfontein en De Aar op die stasie en wil vrugte koop en die monopolie is net in hande van een koelie en hulle moet ontsettend hoë pryse betaal.

Waar is dat?

Op De Aar en Kimberley en Worcester en Beaufort West. Die Spoorweg Departement moet ons help om dit gemakkelik vir ons te maak om ons goed te kan verkoop. Selfs vir die vrugte wat ’n mens binne in die treine wil koop, moet jy enorm hoë pryse betaal. Dan nog ’n ander punt wat aangehaal is deur die edele lid vir Cradock (de hr. I. P. van Heerden). Ek is bly en ons is dankbaar, dat die edelagbare die Minister die uitvoer van mielies wil aanmoedig, maar aan die ander kant sê die groot ekonome weer vir jou: “Hou jou landbouprodukte soveel jy kan,” en die edelagbare die Minister neem ook die standpunt in, dat ons die voer in ons beeste moet steek. Maar hy maak dit onmoontlik om die produkte in die vee te steek. As ek ’n sak mielies na Kaapstad stuur vir uitvoer na Duitsland of enige andere land, dan betaal ek 1s. 6d. per sak, maar as ek dit binnelands na Parys wil stuur, dan kos dit 2s. 7d. per sak. Waarom? Nou kan die edelagbare die Minister miskien sê, dat vir hom 2 of 3 sakkies te vervoer te veel moeite is, en nie betaal nie, maar maak die tariewe vir truks dan so laag en die boer sal gou genoeg by mekaar kom en truks vol stuur. Die soort van dinge hoop ek sal die edelagbare die Minister nagaan. Ek glo nie dat ons boere heeltemaal tot hulle regte kom, so lank daar nie ’n boer-verteenwoordiger in die Spoorwegraad is nie. Ek hoop dat as daar ’n nuwe Regering kom, dat dit een van die eerste dinge is wat hy sal doen. Die edele lid vir Turffontein (Maj. Hunt) het ook ’n paar aanmerkinge van belang gemaak, en ek hoop dat die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou die nou by die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorweë tuis sal bring, dat dit ’n verkeerde politiek is wat ingevoer is met betrekking tot die vleis-industrie, dat vir geslagte beesvleis ’n hoër. tarief op die spoorweë bestaat dan vir lewende hawe. Vandag steek die Trust al sy kloue uit ha die hele vleishandel in Suidafrika, en as ons nog daardie konsessie gaan gee dan is dit klaar praat vir ons almaal. Die edelagbare die Minister het ’n groot handelsinsig, en ek dink hy gaan elke keer na Somerset Oos om te sien hoe groot die balans is van wat hy verloor op die boerdery daar, maar die edelagbare die Minister moet ons soveel moontlik help met die bees industrie en met die mielie industrie. Wat taklyne betref, so wil ek ook oor die hoë tariewe kla. Neem nou net ’n klein stasie soos Nylstroom, waar vandag ook die hoë taklyn tariewe betaal moet word. Ek dink dis die bes betalende taklyn, die van Pretoria na Pietersburg, van die hele Unie. Nou koop ons baie van ons goedere in Johannesburg, en wat doen hulle? Hulle stuur die goed aan ons, en dit word na Pretoria gestuur, en daar afgelaai en dan word gewag tot ’n truk vol is, en dan word dit aan ons gestuur. Ek dink dis ’n ongehoorde iets. As ons ’n stuk ploeg order, of ’n ploegskaar wat ons dringend nodig het, dan lê dit op Pretoria tot die truk vol is. Wat doen motor-mense? As ’n man se motor stuk is, dan telegrafeer hy na Johannesburg en met die eerste passagierstrein kry hy wat hy nodig het, dis ’n spesiale konsessie wat die edelagbare die Minister gemaak het vir motorkarre. Ek wil sê dat hulle wel goed is vir die land, die motorkarre, maar hulle staan tog nog ver agter by landbouwerktuie vir ons boere, by ’n ploeg of ander werktuie. Ons wil die Huis nie lang ophou nie en ons sal later nog ’n kans kry om oor die Begroting te praat. Daarom wil ek nou nie meer praat nie.

Ek wil nie lang die Huis ophou nie, want ek weet dat die edelagbare die Minister angstig is om te antwoord, en ons wil nie graag die heel nag sit nie. Die edelagbare die Minister is bekend met die toestand waaroor ek wil praat, want die is al eerder onder sy aandag gebring, dit is die ongereeldhede wat plaas gevind het by die konstruksie van die spoorlyn van Petrus Steyn na Heilbron. Ek het by die edelagbare die Minister gewees, en ek is baie bly dat die Minister ’n kommissie daarheen gestuur het, en ek vertrou dat die toestand vandag beter is. Maar met die oog op die toekoms wil ek dit weer onder die aandag bring. Daar is onreelmatighede gewees. Die kommissie wat daarheen gegaan het sal seker ook van die gevalle gekry het. Die mense het hard gewerk, hulle het van soggends 5 tot 8 uur in die aand gewerk op stukwerk, maar wat die betaling betref is hulle nie korrek behandel nie. Ek het hier die syfers van verdienste, wat net bevestig wat ek vroeër al gesê het. In September was hulle daaglikse verdienste tot 10s. 5d. per dag, en toe was die mense nuut in die werk, hulle het nie die werk verstaan nie, in Oktober het dit tot 9s. 9d. gewees, dus minder as die eerste maand, daarna in November 9s. 11d. en in Desember 7s. 3d. Bevestig dit nie wat ek gesê het, dat die mense nie behoorlike betaling gekry het nie? Laat ek dit sê dat die mense wat aan die lyn gewerk het was van die beste families, arm mense, wat hard gewerk het en die betaling wat hulle gekry het, blyk nou is nie reg gewees nie. Die ingenieurs of die betaalmeester het nie die geregtigde aandeel uitbetaal nie. Ek is dankbaar dat die edelagbare die Minister aan my versoek voldoen het en ’n kommissie daarnatoe gestuur het om dinge reg te maak, maar ek wil er op aandring, dat in die toekoms by sulke werke noukeurig die oog daaroor gehou sal word, en die dinge nie weer plaas sal vind nie. Die mense werk hard, dis arm mense, en ek glo nie dat daar andere gevalle is waar mense van 5 uur in die oggend tot 8 uur in die aand werk nie en daar is duidelik bewys dat die blanke arbeid betaal goed. Ek dink nie dat die Minister weet van ’n spoorlyn wat gouer gebou is as die spoorlyn daar. En terwyl ek tog op die punt is, wil ek nog ’n paar woorde sê oor die verplaatsing van blanke arbeid van die taklyne na die hooflyne. Die ekskuus word altoos gebruik, dat die taklyne nie betaal nie. My kontensie is, dat blanke arbeid altoos beter betaal as gekleurde arbeid en ek is daarteen dat die blanke arbeid verdring word van die arbeidsveld. Ek hoop, dat die edelagbare die Minister na al die aandring van hierdie kant van die Huis op sal hou met die mense te verplaas van die taklyne na die hooflyne, dit meen met andere woorde, hy kan dit maar liewers duidelik doen: “Ek ontslaan jou.” Die edelagbare die Minister weet net so goed as ek, dat per slot van rekening betaal blanke arbeid. Daar is nog ’n paar andere puntjies. Ek stem volkome saam met die edele lid vir Vredefort (de hr. Munnik) dat daardie distrik onbillik is behandel met betrekking tot graansuigers. Daardie distrik grens aan my kiesafdeling en ek is daar goed bekend. Dis een van die grootste mielie produserende distrikte, maar die onreg is aangedaan, dat dit verdeel is in 3 kleinere dele en toe was hulle nie geregtig op ’n graansuiger nie, maar as hulle gekombineer gewees sou het ineen, dan sou Vredefort reg gehad het op ’n groot graansuiger. Die edele lid vir Namaqualand (de hr. Mostert) het ook ’n puntjie aangehaal, wat ek dink van baie groot belang is, al lyk dit maar ’n klein dingetjie. Hy het gesê, dat wanneer jy reis, en jy gaan na die eetsalon, dan kan jy nie op alle tye van die dag tee of koffie kry nie. Die kan jy maar net op sekere tye kry, maar sterke drank kan jy altoos kry. As jy nou jong vriende saam neem om koffie of tee te gaan drink en jy kan dit nie kry nie, dan bied jy uit hoffelikheid hulle drank aan en die gevolg is, dat die jong mense geleer word sterke drank te drink. ’n Ander ding wil ek ook nog noem. Onlangs was ek op ’n Sondag in die trein en tot my grote teleurstelling moet ek dit sê, het ek in die trein toe jong manne gesien, wat te veel gedrink het. In die stad en in die dorp kan hulle op Sondag nie drank kry nie. Nou wil ek die edelagbare die Minister vra of dit reg is, dat die eetsalon word oopgestel vir die publiek om op Sondag daar te drink?

Where was that?

Naby Kimberley. As die edelagbare die Minister so ver gaan en sê, dat in die eetsalon by die eetmaal drank te kry is, dan wil ek my nie so groot daarteen verset nie, maar dis nie reg dat op Sondag mense drank verskaf word en dan nog so, dat jong seuns wat ’n klein endjie met die trein ry te veel kan drink. Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal op die saak ingaan. Ek dink ons kan nie genoeg nadruk daarop lê op die groot ongerief wat die publiek ly op die taklyne. Ek dink die edelagbare die Minister is by hierdie tyd ook daarvan oortuig en as hy my net die versekering wil gee, dat hy gevolg sal gee aan ons wense, dan praat ek geen woord verder nie. Op die taklyne ly die publiek die grootste ongrief. Op die platteland het ons bodien nie al die geriewe wat die groot stede het nie. En ek wil die edelagbare die Minister vra of al die klein taklyntjies hier by Kaapstad betaal? Ek sê, dat nie verwag word, dat die klein taklyntjie direk betaal nie, maar indirek betaal die tog wel. Ek dink die edelagbare die Minister het baie gedoen om die spoorweg administratie uit die modder te trek en wanneer ons aanmerkinge maak, dan verseker ek hom, dat dit nie is om kritiek uit te oefen nie, maar ons wil hom help om dinge reg to kry in die belang van die land.

Ek wil graag die edelagbare die Minister bedank vir die lorries, die motorlorries wat hy toegestaan het aan die distrik Pietersburg en ek is seker daarvan, dat die Minister self nou ook oortuig daarvan is, dat dit ’n goeie ding is en dat dit ook betaal. Dis van groot belang vir die boere vir die vervoer van room, maar ongelukkig het ons laaste seisoen nie voldoende lorries gehad nie. Die boere het daarop gereken dat daar voldoende lorries sou wees, hulle het die room gestuur na die ontvangsplekke en toe was daar ongelukkig nie genoeg lorries nie. Die gevolg was dat die room daar moes bly staan, soms vir twee of drie daë en baie room is op die manier bederwe en verloor gegaan. Ek hoop dat die edelagbare die Minister sal sorg, dat daar in die toekoms voldoende lorries sal wees en ek hoop ook dat hy die stelsel sal uitbrei, as hy dink dat dit betalend is, vernaamlik ook in die rigting van Malitsdrift. Dan sal hy ook kan uitvind dat ’n behoorlike spoorweg daar mettertyd sal betaal, miskien sal die lorries oorsaak wees om die feite in hande te kry. Ek wil nou nog iets sê in verband met die Messina myn. Die edele lid vir Bethal (Lt.-Kol. H. S. Grobler) het al ’n vraag daaromtrent gestel, maar ek moet sê, dat ek baie bly is dat die subsidie aan daardie myn toegestaan is, maar waar die geld voorgeskiet is deur die Staat, behoor die edelagbare die Minister, en hy het die reg daartoe, toe te sien dat blanke persone daar geëmployeer sal word, waar voorheen blanke persone werksaam was. My informasie gaan daarheen, dat naturelle daar werk doen wat voorheen deur blanke gedoen is. Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal toe sien dat die blanke persone daar gebruik sal word, en dat die nie vervang word deur naturelle. Daar is nog een kwessie, waar al die aandag op bepaal is vanmiddag, maar ek dink ons kan nie genoeg daarop aandring, en dit is die skoolkwessie. In die noordelike Transvaal, vernaamlik die oostelike deel, is sleg om daar te woon, dis absoluut noodsakelik dat die mense daar die konsessies moet kry om die kinders na die kus te kan stuur, en dan sal die edelagbare die Minister ook sien dat dit die spoorweë sal betaal om die konsessie te gee. Dis absoluut noodsakelik vir die mense in die noordelike Transvaal, want anders kom die kinders daar nooit weg nie. Dis van groot belang vir die toekoms van die geslag daar. Dan kom ek by die kwessie van die onomheinde spoorweë. In ons distrik is daar lange streke spoorweë, wat nie omhein is nie. Destyds is die ekskuus gebruik, dat die pryse vir omheining te hoog was, maar vandag kan die omheiningsmateriaal teen goedkope pryse gekry word en ek hoop dat die Departement daartoe sal oorgaan om die spoorweg te omhein. As jou vee dood gery is, dan word gesê jy kan skadevergoeding kry, maar in die meeste gevalle kom daar niks van tereg nie. Hulle probeer hulle altyd te onttrek aan die regmatige eise en alleen as jy na ’n prokereur gaan en gaan dreig met dagvaarding, dan word ’n sekere bedrag uitbetaal. Al die moeilikhede kan vermy word as die Spoorweg Administrasie daartoe sal oorgaan om die spoorweë te omhein. Dan is daar ’n geval wat onder my persoonlike aandag gekom het. Edele lede is hulle miskien nie bewus daarvan en die publiek seker nie dat daar in die regulasies wat bestaan vir die passasiervervoer ’n baie grote onbillikheid is. As passasiergoed vervoer word na Transvaal van Kaapstad of waar vandaan ook en die goed gaan verloor en jy stuur jou eis in vir kompensasie en daar word uitgevind dat daar sy (silk) in die pakket is, dan betaal hulle nie alleen nie vir die sy nie, maar ook nie vir die pakket nie. Ek weet nie waarom dit so is nie. Die publiek is hom seker daar nie van bewus nie. Dames wat bagasie het sal amper altyd sy rokke of ander sy goedere in die bagasie hê en dan kry hulle nie alleen nie vir die sy, maar ook nie vir die pakket betaal nie. Die bepaling moet herroep word. Dan is daar nog net een kwessie wat ek wil aanhaal. Ek het dit al vroeër aangehaal, maar ek wil dit weer aanhaal en dit is die ongelukkige fooitjies stelsel, wat helaas aldag sterker word in ons land. Ek is daarvoor dat persone behoorlike salarisse kry en dat hulle nie moet afhang van fooitjies nie. Ek praat nie, asof ek persoonlik daar soveel las van het, om af en toe ’n fooitjie te betaal nie, maar ek dink dis ’n verkeerde beginsel. Die edelagbare die Minister het gesê dat die portiers en kruiers sal net so goed help vir mense wat nie tips gee nie. Ek glo dit, ek wil dit aanneem, maar ek wens die edelagbare die Minister sal net ’n bietjie op die stasie kyk of daar ooit ’n portier na die tweede klas sal gaan om te help. Nee, hulle gaan meteens na die eerste klas, hulle weet dat hulle daar fooitjies kan verwag. Ek neem dit die mense ook nie kwalik nie. Die mense is van die fooitjies afhankelik, hulle kry nie ’n behoorlike salaris nie, maar met die fooitjies saam reken hulle genoeg te verdien. Dis onbillik teenoor die arme publiek. Ek kla daar nie vir my persoonlik oor nie, maar ek dink dis onbillik teenoor die arme klas mense. As jy b.v. na die Germiston stasie gaan, dan sal jy kan sien dat daar dames is met hulle bagasie en die kruiers sit daar en wag net tot daar die een of andere heer kom, van wie hulle ’n fooitjie kan verwag. Ek dink dat dit iets is wat afgekeur moet word en ek hoop, dat die edelagbare die Minister daar ’n verandering sai aanbring. As hy maar net sal sê dat dit op moet hou en sal toesien dat die mense ’n behoorlike salaris kry, dan sal dit nie verder nodig wees om fooitjies te gee nie.

I do not know, sir, whether I will be able to answer most of the smaller questions, but there are several big questions which have been raised on both sides of the House, and by more than one hon. member. I will try and deal with these first. The matter of a sinking fund has been raised many times, and a complaint has been raised that we have no sinking fund for the railway debt. Let me point out that we are expressly barred by the Act of Union from having a sinking fund. When we framed the Act of Union we had a big discussion on this question of whether we should have a sinking fund. The Transvaal and the Free State were opposed to it, although we had been accustomed to one in the Cape Province and Natal. It was held that, so far as we maintain the line of railways in good running condition, it was not necessary to have a sinking fund, and that to maintain the line in first-class condition we should maintain a renewal fund or depreciation fund, and that we have always done. We have contributed to the sinking fund since Union out of the railways something like 20 million. It has been largely spent in renewals, and we have contributed to the betterment fund something over three million. These funds have been spent to keep the railways up to the highest possible standard. I do not think you will find any railways in a better condition in any country in the world. I do not know myself of any private railway company which maintains a sinking fund, they maintain a depreciation fund, but not a sinking fund, and I do not think it is necessary here in South Africa. We maintain a renewal fund on a liberal scale. We spend over £1,000,000 a year in maintaining a high standard, and so long as we keep the railways at the highest possible standard it is not necessary to maintain a sinking fund. I would also like to point out if we have a sinking fund we have to set aside a certain amount of money out of railway receipts It further means that the present generation will have to pay more than their proportion of rates.

No.

And the coming generation will have the full benefit. It is not a fair proposition. From some points of view it might be sound enough, but as long as we maintain our railways at the highest possible standard there is nothing to complain of. I personally intend to follow that policy. Our railways to-day are in a good solid position. We have spent over £20,000,000 out of renewal funds during the last 14 years, and over £3,000,000 out of the betterment fund. There is no question of solvency, and of the sound position of our railways. Coming to another point in the matter mentioned here—the manufacturing in South Africa of our plant, it has been the policy of the Government up to now, and I think the wisest policy, to give the cheapest possible transportation we can in South Africa, because we consider that cheap railway transportation is the best stimulant for the production and development of the country. This has always been our policy. I would like to point out that there is no profit in this concern, no private profit—no profit or surplus, because it goes back into the pockets of the people who are using the railways. [An Hon. Member: “It goes to the money lenders”]. I ask any hon. member how they could expect to get money without paying interest. If we refused to pay interest we would have no railway extension at all. As I have said, we have no surplus—we have to pay our deficit and give the rest back to the users of the railways in the way of reduced fares and rates. That is a sound policy, the policy to try and cut down our rates consistent with fair pay to the men, carrying at the lowest possible charges and stimulating production in this country. It has been said we ought to go in for manufacturing in this country. How can we do that if we cannot find the money. During the last six months or rather more, perhaps 12 months, the Government has gone carefully into the matter—we have had an expert from Great Britain who has also gone into the matter of manufacturing in South Africa. In the first place we would have to erect another shop. Our shops as constituted are mostly repair shops. We can make 50 per cent. of the coaches and 25 per cent. of the trucks, but broadly speaking these shops are for repairs. If we come to the manufacturing of engines we should have to start another shop altogether, even that plan we have discussed, the establishment of a big railway shop, and the estimated cost is £5,000,000. From all the information we can get we find we cannot manufacture engines as cheaply in South Africa as we can buy them overseas. I do not deny that engines can be made here, but at an expense which would have to come out of the pockets of the people who use the railways in the shape of increased rates. One cannot have the lowest possible rates and make the engines here at present. If we like to pay for them we can do so, but we will not get the present rate on the railway. The only engines that are now being made for the department overseas are the 78 electrical engines and 20 engines of Garrett type. A good deal has been said about this manufacturing. If there is one country which has ups and downs, busy times and slack times, booms and depression, it is South Africa. That has always been my experience. During the time of depression we have sent very few orders overseas, and the consequence is a slackness has fallen on the manufacturers overseas. If we were doing the manufacturing here and a slack time ensued, we would have to get rid of hundreds of men, nay of thousands, because the demand for trucks and engines had fallen off. During the last three years we have sent very few orders overseas, very little indeed, simply because we did not want rolling-stock. We have been accused by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) of closing down works and development. Does my hon. friend know that up to January last we have spent £5,300,000 alone out of loan and renewal funds? Does that look like closing down? And that is apart altogether from the ordinary expenditure of the railways.

Are the Minister’s figures correct?

Let me say this: Anything we can get in this country at a fair and moderate price we always give preference to. During the last 12 months we have stretched the preference even as far as 10 per cent., and when the difference is only 5 per cent. there is no question at all. We have even gone beyond 10 per cent. in order to keep the orders here. The next point is the employment of white and coloured labour on the railways, about which a lot has been said this afternoon. It is perfectly true that for purposes of economy we have removed some white men from the branch lines and taken them on to the main lines. We have not, as far as I am aware, dismissed a single man. Let me deal with the line mentioned by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Du Toit). We have lost £51,000 on that line during the last year. The line is 280 miles long, and we only carried 18,000 tons of stuff on that line last year. That line does not even pay working expenses. In other countries, in the United States, it would possibly have been closed down in these circumstances. Do hon. gentlemen expect the department to keep white men working on the line, such as gangers and others doing the ordinary work of maintenance, and paying them 10s. and 12s. 6d. a day? When we started the system under Mr. Sauer—I supported him—in 1911, these men were paid from 3s. 6d. to 4s. 6d. a day. During the war-time period, when things became inflated, the wages gradually went up to 10s. and 12s. 6d. How can you expect us to make a line like this pay—to employ men at work and at that wage? On those branch lines which are not paying we are compelled to keep expenses down, and there we are employing coloured labour. Naturally, I would prefer to employ white men. I will give hon. members some figures. In March, 1922, we employed in European labourers, 4,745; in March, 1923, we employed 4,865; and in February, 1924, we employed 4,857. That is the position.

That includes all the new construction work?

In 1912 the proportion of Europeans to the total employed on the railway was 51.4, and in January, 1924, the proportion was 51.3. Does that show a decrease? I recognize the importance of this matter. We have to keep up the position of the white race if we possibly can, but we must recollect that there is another aspect of this matter. I would like to remind hon. members of this House that the natives and coloured people also have certain rights.

We do not deny that.

Two deputations came down to see me recently, and complained that they had been excluded from railway employment, and made out a very good case. For instance, the other day I had a deputation from the Transvaal. They said that when they travelled on the Rand they only had white porters at Johannesburg and Pretoria, who would not attend to coloured passengers at all. “Won’t you put on a couple of coloured porters, one at Johannesburg and one at Pretoria?” they asked. They have certain rights, but I have the deepest sympathy with this call for the employment, wherever we can, of the white man. We want to reorganize matters more in that direction in the future.

How many white men are there on construction work compared to three years ago?

New construction work?

I cannot say. These are some of the important points that have been raised. I will now deal with some of the smaller ones. The question has been raised by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga), who made a good deal of it, about the fixing of the tariffs. I am perfectly well aware that the fixing of the tariff rests with the hon. the Minister acting on the advice of the Board, and let me say it is a tremendous responsibility. I do not think people really know the responsibility, but we try to do the best we can, and we certainly, I think, are impartial. The hon. member raised the question of the different rates on branch lines. We charge exactly the same rates on branch lines—on all lines, as far as that goes. What we do in this case, in the Fauresmith-Koffyfontein line, is that we split the rate at Fauresmith or Jagersfontein; and one would have thought, from what my hon. friend said, that that was the result of my policy. Does my hon. friend know that this was started in 1915, when the line was first built?

And it should have been stopped long ago. Why the discrimination?

When hon. members come to me in this House with deputations wanting a railway—I do not want to use strong language— they are always very certain that the line is going to pay; when we charge them a little extra, as was done in this case, and in the case of other lines—

Which other lines?

I will tell my hon. friend. It was done on the Ceres line for one, and the Prieska line for another, and other branch lines where it has been done from the first.

Why is it not done on the other branch lines?

I am mentioning only a few that come to my mind. I may mention that the Koffyfontein line is not a very good one, and we lose money on it.

And on the others?

And we charged the others extra as well. Let me explain what this splitting of rates is. We send the goods, we will say, to Fauresmith from Port Elizabeth, at the ordinary rates. As hon. members know on long distances the rate tapers off—the longer the distance is the less per ton per mile the charge is for the last few miles. Instead of giving them the benefit of the long distance from Port Elizabeth to Koffyfontein, we start at Fauresmith again with the ordinary rate. That is what is called splitting the rates. There is no differentiation about it, it is done the world over. There is no preference about it, and it has been done sine 1915. Unfortunately, the line is not paying to-day.

Like all the other branch lines.

Then my hon. friend raised the question about the loss that was made on the line from Prieska to Nakob on the border, in pre-war days. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that that was settled as a part of the general settlement of the lines in South-West Africa.

Not by this House. The Government withdrew the section.

Because that was not necessary. As a matter of fact we got those lines in South-West Africa free, gratis, and for nothing, so far as the first cost was concerned. We only had to pay the accumulated deficit and certain expenses which had been incurred, rather less than half-a-million of money altogether, and it is only fair to say that we made the best bargain possible.

Parliament did not do it. The section was withdrawn.

That was within our powers, and Parliament knew well about it when we did it. I explained the case fully.

Quite right.

There is a question raised by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber). who complains about the rates for coal. I can tell him we are charging now exactly the same rate to the Rand as before the war. The gold-mining industry was one of the few industries that paid nothing extra on coal during the war, in fact, if you take the “cross-over charge” it is about 1d. per ton less. Further, I would point out that in those days, when this charge was made, we paid 4s. l0d. per ton for coal. To-day we pay 5s. 9d. We have not put up the ordinary rates at all. That is the position re coal.

Why was the coal charged on the Witbank line?

We did not charge it on the Witbank line. Nearby traffic always pays more per ton per mile than the long-distance traffic. If we did not do that, especially for coal, we could not carry much coal. We charge, say, .25 of a penny per ton per mile to carry coal down here to Cape Town. If we do not make that low charge, there would be no coal carried. In fact, we charge even less than that for bunker coal, and if we did not do that, we should not carry coal. That is the position. And I do not think my hon. friend has much to complain of. There is another point which the hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon) raised. He held that we were not doing what we ought to do. I would like to point out that we are gradually doing away with the preferential rates, and I hope to do away with more in the near future. Let me point out—I have the returns here of the rate from Johannesburg to certain stations, compared with those from Port Elizabeth to Cape Town. These are what we call distribution rates, which were instituted for the special benefit of the interior towns. That is to say, we charge the full rate from, say, Durban to Johannesburg. Suppose it comes from Johannesburg to another centre, in this case to Kimberley, they get the benefit of the full long-distance rate. At any rate, the rate is no more coming via Johannesburg, than if it came direct without any stoppages at all, except for a small charge of 1s. a ton. Take Springfontein, the distance from Johannesburg is 350 miles, and compare that with Port Elizabeth, which is 712 miles. The rate from Johannesburg to Springfontein is 57d. first class, from Port Elizabeth 116d., second class 43d.; Port Elizabeth, 46d.; third class 66d.; and 4th class 28.55d. These are distribution rates, of which, I say, Johannesburg gets the full benefit, and which the ports do not get the benefit of at all, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth or Durban.

What about sugar?

I cannot give the sugar rate straight away, but I quote these rates for 2nd, 3rd and 4th class goods, because I went into this thing some time ago when my attention was called to it by a manufacturer at Port Elizabeth. He said they were charged much more at Port Elizabeth than they were at Johannesburg, and I went into the matter. It is not the policy of the department to transfer the manufacturer from the interior to the coast, but the reverse, and I would point out that we many times give special rates to manufacturers on the Rand, to enable them to get down to the coast. They say that all the big centres are on the coast, Durban, Port Elizabeth, Cape Town, and so on. I do not think it can be said that we are not honestly trying to carry out what is laid down in the Act of Union, that is to try and develop the interior. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) raised the question of the appointment of a special officer. The question was also raised by the hon. member for Turffontein (Maj. Hunt). Let me say we have gone carefully into this, as into all these recommendations of the Live Stock Commission, and I do sincerely hope and expect, that very considerable improvements will arise in this matter as a result of this Commission. For instance, we hope to have special cattle trains bringing down to such places as Cape Town or Johanneburg, nothing else but cattle. That will do away with a great many of the delays which have taken place in the past, in which a more general service of live stock trains for the particular centres will be brought into operation as a tentative measure, so that some practical result will be obtained from them. As it is scheduled, it is the intention that live stock trains should be run, carrying nothing else. I can assure my hon. friend, we are giving very great attention to this matter Shunting has also been dealt with in the same way and with great improvement. We discussed this matter of a special officer, and came to the conclusion that at present it was not necessary. There is no use in increasing expense. Now the question has been raised about the railway station at Johannesburg. Well, my friend the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) knows very well that I met a deputation here and made them a promise. The promise was this, that if the financial condition of the railways remains satisfactory, I will endeavour next year to put a certain sum on the loan estimates for the starting of a new station. Now the hon. member for Barberton (Lt.-Col. J. C. Fourie) raised the question about the “Union Express” going down to Lourenco Marques. Well, I will have that looked into. The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. de Villiers) raised the question about long hours. Well, it is very difficult in these small stations where there is no very big traffic at any time, to keep more than one foreman, and he has got to see the day through. He gets two hours off for meals, and knowing how sparse is the population and the traffic, I do not think that these men are overworked. [An Hon. Member: “They do night duty.”] Yes, I understand. In regard to the question that excursion tickets are not sufficiently advertised, I may say that in the stations I go through, there are big placards setting forth the rates for excursion tickets, but I will draw the General Manager’s attention to this point. It seems that when people, who do not know about the excursions, take the ordinary tickets, they are not informed about the excursions by booking clerks. I will have this seen into. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) raised the question about the North Coast and the South Coast lines. These lines are fairly good paying lines. If they were not, you would have heard about it by this. He raised the question about rates for sugar. I admit they were raised rather extensively, but I must point out to my hon. friend that before Union the rates for sugar and sugar-cane in Natal were very low compared to what they have been since. They have been raised higher, but the price of sugar has been doubled. But we are at this particular moment going into this matter about rates, and rates for sugar-cane especially. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) raised the question about excursions, which I have dealt with. In regard to his other question, I may say that when we promised these low rates for lucerne to drought-stricken districts, we charged half-rates; 17s. is a very low rate. So I do not think there is anything to complain about. In fact, during this debate, I have been commended upon doing this. Then he mentions the loss of mealies at Durban, but I would remind him that the General Manager appointed a committee to go into this at once and, considering we put over three million bags through that port, such a thing might have happened, but we have not given up searching for the thousand bags that are missing. My hon. friend the member for Hopetown (Capt. P. S. Cilliers) raised the question about the sale of fruit at De Aar Station. I will look into this question. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. J. Henderson) raised the question of derailment in Natal. We are doing the best we can to go into this matter. When the General Manager was down there, we went into the matter, and decided that some steps would be taken. The hon. member raised the question of the railway station at Durban. I know it is getting too small. I admit that. But we have spent a hundred thousand pounds building a store at Cato Creek. The hon. member for East London (Mr. Stewart) raised the question of workmen’s compension and the suspension fund. I will make investigations into the latter, and see what the position is. As regards the workmen’s compensation, I think we work on a liberal line. In the ordinary sense, when a case is reported to an insurance company, it makes inquiries and goes through a lot of preliminaries, but we pay up and say nothing about it. From my experience in these matters of compensation to our men, we always deal on the liberal side. There are one or two questions I should like to answer, which were raised by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow). He raised the question of this 13 million. I think I have dealt with this pretty well every session since I have been in office. As I have said, this matter was carefully examined by a committee of experts, that my hon. friend knows perfectly well, and everything which they said belonged to the railway department was handed over to the railway department, and that amounted to 2½ million. What did not belong to the railway department we paid over. I do not think we can depart from that position. I should like to point out to the hon. member that the railway department pays no taxes. If we had to pay taxes on the same level as the American railways have to, we should pay 1½ million. I do not think these trifling charges go very far.

What taxes?

Corporation taxes and State taxes. Let me tell my hon. friend that the agricultural demonstration train is given gratis. This has been done by private companies in the United States and Canada, and I hope that the result of this train going about will give such an impetus to farmers that we will get more traffic. I believe that is being done. Some hon. members have said we do not pay our railway servants sufficient. The hon. member for Turffontein (Maj. Hunt) made the first charge. Let me say this, here and now, the actual increase over 1914 in the service is 33⅓ per cent., except the artizans, where it is 43½ per cent.

And the cost of living?

About the same. I should like to point out to my hon. friend that other people in the country have had to face the cost of living. He knows how farmers stand in regard to this matter. My hon. friend says we ought to give something back to the staff, and give them a square deal. I believe we have given them a square deal. But I think the time has come when we should also consider the interest of the public and of those who use the railways in this country. The public of this country are still paying 40 per cent. increased rates over 1913-’14, and the fares are 30 per cent. higher than they were in pre-war days. In other words, let me put it so that it can be easily understood. If we had carried the traffic last year at 1913-’14 rates, the public of this country would be better off by £5,000,000. That is what we are charging them extra to-day. And therefore, in my opinion, the first consideration which we should give in these matters is the interest of the public, and that is what we are doing in the interest of the public. I hope that before another month has passed we shall be able to reduce the rates to the extent of £500,000. It is time. But that will not take away the 40 per cent. by a long way; it is only half a million out of five millions. But surely the time has come when the users of the railways, the public, for whom the railways are supposed to be built and run, should also be considered, and that is what we are trying to do at the present time.

Are not the railway servants part of the public?

Yes, exactly, and they will get just as much benefit. I hope we shall be able, as a result of these reductions, to reduce the cost of living. The railway servants will get just as much benefit as anyone else—they will get the full benefit which the public get. Hon. members must have seen this in the General Manager’s report. In l913-’14 of the total expenditure of the railways, 40.27 per cent. went to labour; in 1922-’23 50.23 per cent. went to labour; and for materials, which is another important item, in 1913-’14 cost 10.49 per cent., and now they cost 11.84 per cent. That is only a small increase, and there are many other items which are less. Take locomotive running expenses. In 1913-’14 running expenses were 5.9 per cent., and now 4.75 per cent. only, whereas coal is actually costing us more. Depreciation in 1913-’14 was 10.45 per cent., last year only 4.61 per cent. I mention these figures to show the extent to which our labour has benefited since 1913-’14. And as I say, I think the time has come when we are bound to give some consideration to the users of the lines. Now, the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. C. W. Malan) raised the question of the treatment of the branch lines. Well, let me tell my hon. friend that we credit the branch lines with 10 per cent. of any traffic that emanates from them. For instance, now, let us take Victoria West, the Carnarvon line. Any stuff that comes out of the Carnarvon line, and goes to Port Elizabeth, they get the full receipts, so far as the line down to Hutchinson is concerned, and 10 per cent. from Hutchinson to Port Elizabeth. But we are now going further. I find that in the past the depreciation has been the same on the branch lines as on the main line. Well, that is too much. So we are going to ease off as far as depreciation is concerned on the branch lines, and put more on the main line. But that is as far as we can go. The hon. member may say: “Why do you not grant them 10 per cent. on the traffic brought into them?” But my hon. friend must recollect that there is a certain amount of traffic which emanates from the main lines, for which the branch lines get the benefit. Naturally, if the main line were not there, they would not get the benefit. I think it is fair to give them 10 per cent on their export traffic, on the stuff they send away, and ease off as far as depreciation is concerned.

How is that 10 per cent. arrived at?

It is an arbitrary figure. Can my hon. friend tell me how he would do it?

No.

Of course not, it must be arbitrary.

What is the value of the statistics?

Why publish the statistics?

The statistics are as nearly accurate as they can be.

But the hon. the Minister has said that these figures are arbitrary; what is the value of statistics?

The statistics are all right. We want to show which lines do pay and which do not. It is a guide, particularly to Parliament. Surely hon. members want to know how the lines stand. It is ordinary business. Now, my hon. friend raised the question of sleepers. But so far as I am aware, we buy from Knysna whatever we can; in fact, we have discovered a new wood—I have forgotten the name—it is a good wood to utilize. The Knysna forest, and any other place, as a matter of fact, cannot give us anything like the amount which we use. I am sorry, but they are not there.

The department did not do that in the past.

Of course not, because we were not using sleepers then, but now, with the new construction and the re-sleepering on the main line, we are using tremendous quantities, but definite instructions have been given that we take what we can from Knysna and Storms River.

What about that question of Australia and the branch lines?

40 per cent.? Victoria—yes, but my hon. friend must recollect that Victoria pays any deficit out of the Central Government. We do not do that. 10 per cent. is quite a fair thing. Now, the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. McAlister) raised one or two questions which I want to answer. He said: “Why did we not give special rates for municipal requirements?” We have considered this several times. And I must say, and the department is of the same mind, that we do not see why they should get special rates, why they should get lower rates than the ordinary public? Why should they? The next one would come along and we would have to carry the concrete for the irrigation works at low rates. It is far better to have low rates all along and give the public all the benefit you can. Then the hon. member complains that we do not give the local tenderer a fair chance. If the hon. member will bring specific cases before me, then I will see that he gets a fair chance. I believe that he did bring a case, which I went into and tried to put right. That certainly will be attended to if the hon. member will bring specific cases to my notice. Then the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South-West) (Sir William Macintosh) calls attention to the length of time taken for the journey from Port Elizabeth to Kimberley. I admit it is bad, all these delays. My hon. friend called my attention to it some time ago, and I gave instructions that it should be looked into, but I unfortunately have not got a reply from the General Manager. I think it was mentioned at a meeting of the board some time since, and as far as I remember he said then that it was really the want of passenger traffic coming up from there, which barred him from giving the full facilities. But when I get the report I shall show it to the hon. member. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. P. W. le R. van Niekerk) is not present, so I shall not reply to his question. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) also asked me a question, and if he will give me the paper I shall go into it. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) raised the question of the elevators. Let me point out in the first place, that I cannot claim any credit for having initiated the scheme. They were in the course of erection when I came into office, and we are going on with it, but let me point out to the hon. member that the selection of the sites took place as a result of the enquiries of the consulting engineer and our officials, and they went on the figures of the various stations which were given, as the best places to locate them. There was no influence or other selection. There are these figures of the nearest station as a guide. It would be folly if we should go in for the erection of another 36 elevators before those that we are busy on now have proved themselves. We have two terminal and 34 country elevators, and we must wait until we have seen how these will work. I admit it is a costly business, and I do not think that we would be justified in asking this House to sanction any further expenditure on those elevators until we have had some experience as to how they will work. As regards the Parys station, I will make enquiries into that matter. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) also raised the question of Park Station, Johannesburg, and I have replied about this. He has also mentioned the Denver crossing. If this was built it would be on the same terms as other subways—that is half of the cost should be paid by the municipality of Johannesburg. In regard to another hon. member’s question as to the examination of apprentices in the workshops, I grant him that the nrst papers put out were very stiff indeed. My hon. friend was not much out when he said I could not answer them. I certainly could not answer some of them—and we have done our best to modify them. In reply to certain complaints from Pretoria we have appointed a committee, and they will work in unison with the local trade schools, technical schools, etc., and I hope we will eventually get these on a proper footing. In the first examination on the 31st December, 1923, there were 788 apprentices in the shops and 392 improvers. As the result of two examinations 214 were taken into the service as apprentices. I do not think this is quite so bad, and we are now doing our best to make a practical examination to show the ability of the boys, and not to make it too stiff. In reply to the hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon) I would like to point out that we have at the present time 25 engineers in the service, 20 of these engineers are South African born, and 12 with South African University degrees. They are employed on the new electrification, mechanical work, deviation work, grain elevators, etc. We certainly are anxious to find employment for these young fellows, and I would like to find more than we have. I hope my hon. friend will be satisfied that we are doing the best we can for them. As regards the question of leave, if we give these men leave who went on strike, we would be putting them in a better position than the men who stood loyal. We had an application from the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. McAlister), and we went into the matter—I have a memorandum in connection with this, and it shows that we would be really putting them into a better position if we gave the extra leave, than the men who remained loyal. With regard to the Service Bill, I sincerely hope we will get it through this year. I have had long telegrams from all over the country asking me to push it through, and I am anxious to push it through. There is one important matter in the Bill. If it goes through every man who has got into the service, from the day he joins goes on the pension fund. That would be extremely advantageous, both to them personally, and to the service generally, so I hope sincerely I will be able to get the Bill through. Anyhow I will certainly make a try. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. R. H. Henderson) raised the question about rates. We are at the present moment studying if we can make a reduction amounting to about £500,000. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Fitchat) raised the question about delays and changes. I will have the matter gone into, and see what can be done in regard to it. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) raised the question about the pupils who go to the Household School at Pretoria, not getting excursion tickets. My hon. colleague tells me it is a very good school, and I will make an enquiry to see what can be done. I think I have answered most of the questions which have been raised by hon. members, but there is one point that I should mention, which was raised by the hon. member for Turffontein (Maj. Hunt) about the rates for livestock and dead meat. We have no intention in any shape or form to put farmers or anybody else into the hands of the Imperial Cold Storage. That is absolutely certain. What we did intend to do was to put the rates more on a level, if anything giving the preference, if there was any at all, to the rates for livestock. I see a difficulty, suppose we give preference to dead meat, in that case we would be putting the power into the hands of the Imperial Cold Storage, or any big corporation, who could build cold storages, but if we make the rates the same whether we send down to Maitland live stock or dead meat this objection disappears. No preference is given in any shape or form. There are some people who prefer to slaughter the meat up-country, and to send it down. I hope that the measures we are taking now with the carriage of livestock, that a lot of these happenings will be done away with, and that we will arrive at a broad sound condition here and up-country, and if we are to make a change at all we shall not give any advantage, either to the carriage of dead meat or to livestock. Even to-day with our present rates, it works out cheaper to slaughter sheep up-country than down here. I do not know if my hon. friend is aware of it; I was not until a couple of days ago, but my hon. friend can be quite sure that, so far as the farmers are concerned, it is certainly not our intention to lock them up in the bands of any company in any shape or form.

Die vraag is aangaande sekere klagte, waarop nie geantwoord is nie.

I cannot say myself why those people have been sent to Natal, but my hon. friend must see that in a big corporation like ours, we must have freedom to send our men wherever they are required. I grant it is not always desirable to do that; naturally, a man does not like to leave a district in which he has been brought up, or in which he has lived for a number of years, but I will have the case looked up and see what it was. It seems a pretty hard one.

I want to raise one or two questions here as I did not intervene in the second reading. I have been asked by the trade unions to call the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that the Railway Department have not kept their word to the artizans’ trade unions in the railway service. The following is the contents of a letter I have received on the subject from the secretary of one of the larger unions—

I trust I have made myself clear. In short, the trade union contention is that the adjustment of wages last August, without reasonable notice being given to the unions, was a breach of the undertaking given by the Administration in October, 1920. We hear a great deal of talk whenever the members of any trade union disregard an agreement entered into by their executors, and I hold that this was a distinct breach of the agreement made with those trade unions and one which I very much deprecate. It does not concern me whether it is Mr. Archie Crawford or Mr. John Smith, or anyone else, but I deprecate the action of the Administration towards the unions. We have heard a great deal of the extraordinary facilities given to this gentleman. I am not going to enter into the matter except to say that for the Administration to give special facilities to any one person of teite konsessies en fasiliteite aan die Spoorweg policy. It at once creates an impression, an impression that is very well justified, that the Administration is using such a person somewhat as a stalking-horse for their purposes, and bolstering him up as the representative they would like to see the men choose. The men may be ill-advised or well-advised as to whom they choose to send forward to represent them, but their good judgment or ill judgment is something which they are responsible for, and the Administration should keep their hands off as to guiding the men who should be their representatives. The Building Workers’ Industrial Union have written to me, and they have had correspondence with the hon. the Minister on a subject concerning which I cannot understand the Administration’s attitude. The Public Works Department in the contracts they have set, include a fair wage clause. On what ground does the Railway Administration not insert such a clause in the contracts they use? I say that this is not consistent with the policy of the Government in other departments, and the sooner the railways fall into line the better. I have also heard from Durban on another matter, and have been particularly asked to take it up. I am not sure whether it is to get the work done cheaper that the Department use men in their works, contract or other, who are not craftsmen. All this is in the direction of lowering standards, and it is the sort of thing that the Government should have nothing to do with. I have listened to the hon. the Minister’s reply on his native policy, and the employment of Europeans and non-European in 1912 and 1924. In the previous figures he compared 1922, 1923 and 1924. Why aid he jump so far back as 1912 in his latest comparison?

I had not the figures with me.

The argument the hon. the Minister adduced did not by any means justify the attitude the Administration is taking. If you are going to adjust when you want to make economies, and you substitute civilized labour by cheap native labour, you are not acting in the best interests of the country.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

Ek is deur die Vereniging van Munisipaliteite van Transvaal gevra om ’n paar sake onder die aandag van die edelagbare die Minister te bring. Die eerste is die kwessie van spoorvrag op goedere vir munisipaliteite. De munisipaliteite—publieke liggame—moet die voile spoorvrag betaal op goedere benodigd ten behoewe van die algemene belastingbetaler. Die spoorweë is gereed om boere en andere afslag cp die spoorvrag op dieselfde goedere te gee, b.v. op waterpype, maar die munisipaliteite wat belastingbetalers verteenwoordig, word die afslag onthou, alhoewel daarop herhaaldelik aangedring is. Enige konsessie aan die kant van die spoorweë aan die munisipaliteite word geweier terwyl aan die kant van die munisipaliteite konsessies en falisiteite aan die spoorweg Departement gegee word, wat andere persone nie gegee word nie. Elektriese krag, b.v. word goedkoper verskaf en meer andere dienste verskaf munisipaliteite aan die spoorweg en vir die dienste word die munisipaliteite nie die volle prys betaal nie. ’n Andere kwessie is die konsessie kaartjes wat gegee word aan lede van landbou en godsdienstige liggame, ens., maar wat onthou word aan afgevaardigden van munisipaliteite—publieke liggame wat die algemene belastingbetalers verteenwoordig—wanneer hulle een keer per jaar hulle konferentie hou. Die munisipaliteite vra dieselfde konsessies vir hulle afgevaardigdes.

Ek wens die diskussie nie langer te rek nie, maar net graag een puntjie onder die aandag van die edelagbare die Minister te bring. Daar is al op gewese, dat voetbalspelers en kriketspelers kry halwe pryse, “single fare” kaartjies as hulle ’n wedstryd gaan speel, terwyl mense, verteenwoordigers van die landbou na ’n kongres, die betaal drie-vierde, dus meer as die voetbalspelers en kriketspelers. Kriket en voetbal mag baie belangrik wees en interessant vir baie mense, maar ek glo nie dat mense, verteenwoordigers van ons boere na ’n kongres, agtergestel moet word by die spelers. Die landbou is tog seker meer belangrik en ek wil daarom die edelagbare die Minister in oorweging gee om aan afgevaardigdes na ’n landboukongres dieselfde fasiliteite te gee. Dit sal die landbou te goede kom en ek hoop dat die edelagbare die Minister dit sal doen, want ek sê, dat landbou baie belangriker is as voetbal.

I was pleased to hear the hon. the Minister of Railways, in his reply, state that he was anxious to foster industries in this country. That being so, there must have been one or two incidents which have escaped his notice. One is the question of the Colonial Timbers Company near Benoni. It may surprise the hon. the Minister to hear, because I do not think he knows about it, that this company has a siding. That is not a surprising fact, but that they have to pay the whole cost of the installation of that siding Will the Committee believe it that on top of that they have to pay another siding charge. The Railway Administration actually forces that little struggling company to pay something for the siding, and in order to make doubly sure that they will squeeze everything possible out of them, they have to pay a special charge for shifting the points. I hope that the hon. the Minister will go into that matter, and that he will be prepared to consider it favourably from the point of this struggling industry. The Benoni municipality has considered their case, and has given them a special reduction in the supply of power.

What is the company?

Colonial Timbers. I hope the hon. the Minister will look into this with a view to easing the strain off that little concern, and help them to make good. There was another thing I was pleased to hear the hon. the Minister say—and might I congratulate him on the clear, blunt way in which he told the truth. We do not agree with his policy, but it is refreshing to hear the way in which he gives us the truth—it is such a refreshing contrast to what we are accustomed to from the rest of his colleagues. I was pleased to hear that the Railway Administration is always treating compensation cases with liberality. That encourages me to bring before the hon. the Minister a case which must have escaped his notice, because there was no liberality displayed there. The case is one of Petrus Stephanus Venter, who originally joined the railway service on the 31st December, 1909. I shall give the history of the case. He entered the service as a labourer, and after just over 12 months, 18 months to be precise, he was promoted a ganger. He remained there until the 16th March, 1917. He left on his own accord, having been there 8 years. Then he went in for diamond digging. This has nothing to do with the hon. the Minister, of course. He went to the Premier Mine as an overseer. Evidently he was a decent sort of a chap. He was discharged because they were shortening their hands, and his discharge was marked “good.” From there he went to the Modderfontein Company as a shiftboss— he was improving his position all the time. Later on, owing to the strike, there was a tremendous amount of unemployment, and he went on to railway deviation work, and worked so energetically that his average earnings were 11s. 8d. per day, quite an excellent return considering what they had to do for it. And then this unfortunate man met with an accident. It was not his own fault by any means. He drove his pick into some ground in which some unexploded gelatine had been left. As a result of the contact with the pick, the gelatine exploded, and his eyes were seriously injured. He did not loose his sight, but he was so badly injured that the report of a specialist, Dr. E. H. Robinson, was given to the hon. the Minister to the effect that he would never be able to do anything but ordinary manual labour. So the whole of his career was now smashed, due to an accident, neither the Administration’s nor the man’s fault. It was due to the fact that there was some carelessness somewhere, and the law lays it down that the employer is responsible for the carelessness of his workmen, and the man was injured under those circumstances. Now, let us look at the liberality. Under the Workmen’s Compensation Act this man will be entitled to £.270. After a tremendous amount of correspondence, the man was getting into low water—he had a wife and five children—due to economic pressure and lack of cash, he was forced to accept the Administration’s offer of £150. He was prepared to accept that offer anyhow, quite apart from the pressure, provided the Administration was prepared to give him employment. Now he is debarred from having that employment because he cannot pass the medical test, and he cannot pass that because the Administration, through the carelessness of one of its own employees, has practically destroyed his eyesight. No fault can be attached either way for that accident. I want to urge upon the hon. the Minister, if he is still in the same state of mind that he was a moment ago, that he will reconsider his decision in this, and even if he is not prepared to go to £270, at all events let him do something to make employment for this man who is entitled to consideration—

Send me over the papers.

I will do so. It has been brought to my notice that an offer has been made by two ex-policemen, one who received a pension and another a gratuity, to take over the contract for supplying watchmen to the Administration. I want to urge on the hon. the Minister that he should not accept this offer. He has watchmen who are employees of the Administration, and they are not, I suppose, getting too much pay. I do not suppose the hon. the Minister would get them much cheaper through contractors, except they employed sweated labour, and then probably the watchmen would not meet the requirements of the Administration. I urge upon the hon. the Minister to refuse such an offer, and to continue the present system of having watchmen employed by the Administration.

Ek wil net graag weet wat beslote is ten aansien van die stasie op Calitzdorp; onlangs is daar ’n deputasie by die edelagbare die Minister gewees om te verkry, dat daardie Spoorwegadministrasie die stasie ver buitekant die dorp wil bou, dit nader te laat oprig, want die mense voel, dat dit ’n groot ongerief sal wees, as die stasie daar ver van die dorp af staat.

Ons het besluit om dit te bou op die plek, waar die mense dit wil hê.

Ek is bly om dit te hoor. ’n Ander aangeleentheid is wat in ’n brief staan, welke ek vandag gekry het omtrent ’n brief, welke iemand aan ’n publieke ambtenaar geskryf het en die enigste antwoord was: “This is my drawback; I can’t write Dutch.” Ons het uitgevind, dat die man in die begin van Maart daar aangestel is en waarom is daar nie ’n tweetalige man aangestel nie, want nou kan die Afrikaner, nie in sy eie taal bedien word nie. Ons aan hierdie kant wil geen aanstoot gee nie, maar maak daar aanspraak op, dat aan alle seksies billikheid sal geskiede. Dit is ’n aangenome beginsel, dat waar vakatures in die staatsdien ontstaan, tweetalige persone die voorkeur sal kry en hier is ’n geval, dat die eentalige man die voorkeur gekry het, terwyl volgens ek verneem daar twee applikante was, die andereen tweetalig en met die nodige kwalifikasies. Ek sou graag van die edelagbare die Minister antwoord wil ontvang. In die staatsdiens kom mens dikwels teenoor eentalige beambtes te staan en die hollandssprekende publiek verdraag reeds te veel en het reg te verlang, dat mense aangestel sal word, wat hulle antwoord in die taal, waarin hulle aangespreek word.

Dit spyt my om die Komitee sê tyd op to hou, maar ek het enige vrae gestel en die edelagbare die Minister het nie die beleefdheid gehad om daarop te antwoord nie. Die een vraag was oor die witmense, wat op verlof gaan en wie sê plekke dan deur kleurlinge opgevul word; wat ons daarop teen het is, dat dit die standaard van die witman verlaag. Die ekskuus is, dat dit gebrek aan wonings is, maar dit is ’n flou uitvlug en ek vertrou, dat daar maatreëls geneem sal word. Verder was daar die oponthoud van 10 tot 20 dae by die verstuur na die mark van boere sê wol van Ermeío na Durban toe, waardeur baie keer die mark val in die tussentyd en die verlies groot is. Ek vertrou, dat die edelagbare die Minister alsnog die beleefdheid sal hê om hierop te antwoord en te sorg, dat die soort dinge nie meer voorkom nie. Ek het ook aangeroer die vervoerkontrakte en dat dikwels, wanneer ’n boer self sy goed af en oplaai, hy tog moet betaal vir sogenaamde “cartage,” tot 3s. en 4s. per ton. Die edelagbare die Minister ag dit nie van voldoende belang om op te antwoord, maar die boere moe nie so onbillik behandel word nie. Wat van die omheining van die spoorbaan Schweizer Reneke —Poedimoe? Die veediere word doodgery en ’n man kom nie elke dag by sy vee en op al die plekke in die veld om te sien of die vee veilig is nie. Die edelagbare die Minister antwoord nie, maar ek sou graag die informasie kry.

Ek moet my vriend daar darem sê, dat ek reken hy is verkeerd en hy was miskien nie hier, toe die edelagbare die Minister op sy vrae wou antwoord nie, want as daar een Minister is, wat ons, ook aan hierdie kant van die Huis, met die grootste beleefdheid behandel, dan is dit die edelagbare die Minister van Spoorweë. Hy het my ook oor die hoof gesien, maar dit was seker per ongeluk. Ek wou ook weet of daar geen kans was, dat die spoorweg op plekke waar dieselwe nog oop is, toegemaak sal word nie, want die boere ly baie skade deur die afwesigheid van heinings langs die spoorbaan.

In reply to the question about fencing, I must confess that I do not know much about it. I have, however, taken a note of what has been said, and will enquire into the matter. There is a considerable delay in getting from Port Elizabeth to Durban, and I have had some similar complaints. I will see if anything can be done to expedite the service. It certainly ought to be better. As regards cartage, I should imagine that if a farmer thought his stuff to the stations that he should get a refund. We do not pretend to make a cartage charge on stuff brought in by farmers. Probably the farmers are not acquainted with the fact, and it is probably not as generally known as it should be. Then he also raised the question of the charge for demurrage which he said was paid by the farmers and not by the mines. That is not the case. We are pretty lenient, I think myself, in regard to demurrage, though I know it is difficult for the farmers sometimes to know when the stuff is there to fetch. We have rather prolonged the time before the charge accrues, according to the distance the farmer lives from the station, but I must say it is rather difficult. We must have some charge if a farmer leaves his stuff there, because if he does not occupy ground he occupies trucks, and we want to get the trucks away for further use; that is the difficulty. If my hon. friend will give me a specific case I will have it gone into and put right. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) raised the question about Calitzdorp Station. I agreed to that last year. They put up a certain amount of money, and we put up £40, and now the station is going on, on the site selected by the municipality. As regards the speaking of Dutch, I think that most of our staff, about 25 per cent., are able to speak Dutch, but I will make some enquiries in regard to that. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) raised the question about men going on leave, and being replaced without notice. That is extremely difficult. You have not always the white men there to take their place, and it is sometimes a long time that these fellows are away, and we have to try and carry on in the meantime. We cannot always just go on as we like. There is another point raised by the hon. member as regards material for the municipalities, which was also raised by the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Smit). I have dealt with that already. We have a lot of these applications from municipalities, and I do not say we are justified in making reductions. Why should we charge the municipality less than the ordinary public? If we once give way to this, we should have applications from irrigation works to carry cement at a very cheap rate. As I said before, our policy is to get rates down as low as possible, not only for the municipality but for private individuals. As regards concessions for meetings, we have literally thousands of applications. I saw a list last Friday of about 17 applications. At the present moment we give concessions for agricultural meetings, and to some extent for religious meetings, but beyond that we do not go. The difficulty is to be able to get a fixed principle in these matters, so that it would work automatically. But it is a difficult matter sometimes to know where to draw the line. For instance, the Women’s Christian Temperance Union have applied; does that belong to a religious body, or the other side of things? It is difficult; and we are still considering the matter in regard to the delegates. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. P. G. W. Grobler) raised the question about concessions. Well, I think those delegates who have got the ocncessions of 50 per cent. were rather fortunate, as now we make a rule of giving only 25 per cent. off the ordinary fare, and below that we cannot go. We cannot see our way to extend this in any way. There is the question raised by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell). It is, I agree, a very important question, and I would ask him if he would let me have that paper; I will give him the answer later. I did not know of any promise in the first place. It may have been made by my predecessor, but my attention was not drawn to it. If the hon. member will give me the paper, I will have the matter thoroughly gone into, and tell him why these things were not done. As regards the fair wage clause, I will see that he gets a reply within a reasonable time. I am sorry I cannot give him a full reply this evening, but I will see that he gets a reply, and if he is not satisfied he can raise the matter further in the House.

I am obliged to the hon. the Minister, and I have no doubt I will get a reply. But I have very little doubt that unless I can convince the hon. the Minister, I will get a reply which will not be in accordance with the wishes of the members of this union.

Come and see me.

Yes, but the hon. the Minister is in command of the situation. This is the right place to point out to the hon. the Minister the error of his ways. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that by refusing to put a fair wage clause into the contract, you are offering a premium to those firms tendering who will not play the game by the men and pay standard wages, as against those firms who do pay standard wages. I hope the hon. the Minister will convince the Administration that they should do what other departments of the Government do in this regard.

When my hon. friend brought up this question of a fair wage clause I was reminded that my attention had formerly been drawn to the question by certain Durban boat builders who had tendered for a Harbour Department contract for building boats at Durban. The successful tenderer tendered a considerably lower price than they did. They informed me that their contracts contained a fair wage clause and they paid standard wages, but if they had known that the Government were going to accept the lowest tender, then they could have used cheap labour and most likely have got the tender. They stated that the successful tenderer employs the cheapest type of labour. On this basis the competition was most unfair. I hope the hon. the Minister will go into this and see that when tenders are invited, a fair wage clause is insisted on.

The hon. member might give me particulars.

Yes.

Ek is bly met die informasies, wat die edelagbare die Minister ons gegee het, maar tog kom dit my eienaardig voor, dat die edelagbare die Minister nou sê, dat as iemand wol verstuur en hy die 3s. 4d. per 2,000 lbs. “cartage” betaal op sy vrag, hy applikasie kan maak voor restitutie van die bedrag betaal, daar die “cartage” kontrakte daar nie op geregtig is nie; dit is so ’n “red tape” stelsel en waarom moet duisende mense tot die moeite en las gedrywe word om oortollige geld te betaal en dan weer applikasie te maak voor teruggawe na hulle eie geld, en hoeveel ekstra klerke sal weer moet benoem word ver hierdie ekstra werk, waarom in eens die gelde nie laat betaal nie? Dit sou mos moeite en ekstra werk spaar. Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal dit ’n bietjie in oorweging neem en dan hoop ek dat die edelagbare die Minister goed daaroor sal nadink voordat hy as mense met verlof gaan, die mense gaan vervang deur naturelle.

Die edelagbare die Minister kla, dat daar so baie applikasies is en so’n lange lyn van persone en liggame aanspraak maak op konsessie-kaartjies. Ek kan dit goed begryp, want wat is die geval? Konsessie word gegee aan sekere liggame en daar word in die regulasies voorsiening gemaak vir konsessie kaarte vir seker bepaald liggame en genootskappe. So staan die Wet. Die Departement van Spoorweë egter trek sonder opgaaf van rede sulke konsessies weer terug. Met ander woorde sekere lede van kerkgenootskappe kry konsessiekaarte onder die regulasies en dan kry die kerkgenootskap somaar een dag ’n brief dat al die konsessie-kaarte ingetrek is. Ek wil hê, dat as eenmaal konsessie verleen is, dat hulle dan daarby bly staan, en dat die konsessie nie willekeurig teruggetrek word nie. Aan een kerkgenootskap wat geskryf het om uit te vind waarom die kaarte teruggetrek is, is eenvoudig as antwoord gegee, die kaarte is teruggetrek. Is dit een beleefde behandeling?

Clause put and agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 and the Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.

moved—

seconded.

I am not going to oppose the third reading, but I want to say that this is an almost unprecedented proceeding. This House of Assembly to vote £8,000,000 and carry a Bill through all the stages in one sitting, is, I should like to say to the hon. the Minister and the right hon. the Prime Minister, a very bad precedent. The business of the House should be arranged to enable the House to properly discuss it thoroughly, and I hope that this will not be regarded as a precedent, I wish to point out to the right hon. the Prime Minister that if this is done next year, there will be a row about it. That is, if he is in his present place. If he is not, and hon. members on the front opposition bench are there, and they try to follow this precedent, we shall oppose it. This method of rushing through a money Bill must not be allowed to establish a precedent.