We have not very much work just now, and I think with these new Bills coming forward, hon. members ought to have an opportunity of considering them fully. We have not seen the Bill.

It was published last session.

We do not know whether it is the same Bill.

There is a very slight alteration.

Is this the one we had last session?

Yes, with a slight addition.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

1. (1) All appointments made to the court messenger’s office, Durban, from October. 1924, to 30th September, 1927, and the influences responsible therefor; also any circumstances tending to show whether any such appointments were the subject of an improper bargain, or whether any political party, member of Parliament, attorney, or court messenger was intended to, or did benefit, directly or indirectly, in return for influence exercised to secure for any individual an advantage or an appointment in the Court Messenger’s office, Durban;
2. (2) the alleged receipt of a letter by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) said to have been written by a person in Durban, offering the hon. member one-third of the salary of the post of court messenger, Durban, or of deputy sheriff. Natal, if he would use his influence to secure the appointment of the writer to either of the offices referred to;
3. (3) the administration of the court messenger’s office, Durban, from the 1st January, 1925, to the 30th September, 1927—more particularly in reference to the serious cash deficiencies that occurred in the said office, and other irregularities—also the responsibility of the Department of Justice for the undue delay in the dismissal and prosecution of the person or persons responsible for the deficiencies, and the neglect of the said department to give reasonable attention to the views of the magistrate, Durban, as to the appointments of officials, or their dismissal, or the proper administration of an office attached to his court

I had expected that the Minister of Justice would have anticipated this motion by signifying his acceptance of my request for a select committee, but I can quite well understand and realise his unwillingness to climb upon the Parliamentary operating table for a major operation, when he cannot foresee how far the healing knife may need to extend. In speaking to the motion standing in my name, I wish to bring before this House the grave reasons which make it imperative that a select committee should be appointed to investigate thoroughly the matters outlined in the motion. In the absence of proof to the contrary, the public of South Africa are justified in believing from the disclosures made in the case of Rex versus van Belkum, tried by Judge Matthews in Durban in September last, that a Minister of the Crown and a member of this House had improperly lent themselves to, or become responsible for, the farming out of appointments in the court messenger’s office, Durban, for political or personal ends, with injury of the integrity and efficiency of an important branch of the machinery of the lower Courts of Law in Durban, the court messenger’s office, and secondly, the appointment of incompetent and undesirable officers was facilitated by the Minister through his interfering with, or ignoring, the magistrate as the disciplinary authority over the officers of his court, and that the continuance of improper and dishonest conduct was rendered possible by the same cause. These are matters which this House has a right, indeed a pressing duty, to enquire into, in the interests of the purity of public administration. When I handed in my notice of motion three weeks ago I purposely included in it a considerable amount of detail with the idea of fairness to the other side, but I am sorry to observe that the Minister of Justice with his “certainly not” reply of a fortnight ago and his subsequent refusals to produce papers, prefers to withhold from this House documents which we should be allowed to examine in view of their importance to this motion. I refer, for example, to a telegram sent by the Minister to the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) upon a matter which was one entirely for the magistrate to deal with, but upon which the Minister did not communicate with the magistrate. Secrecy will only serve to accentuate the public conviction that under the regime established in January, 1925, the administration of the Durban court messenger’s office, was a travesty of what it should be, and that it constituted an imposture upon the public. Mr. van Belkum, after being employed for eighteen months in the court messenger’s office, was charged with theft of £586 from the messenger—a cash deficiency of that amount having occurred in the office. He was acquitted at the trial. Whatever I may have to say about Mr. van Belkum, I wish to make it clear to this House at the outset that he was acquitted at the trial, the judge holding that moneys taken by him had not been taken without the knowledge or against the will of the messenger. The messenger came out of the case very badly. At the preparatory examination against van Belkum he had declared that no further shortages occurred after the accused left. At the trial, having had to resign his appointment in the interim, he admitted that there was a shortage of Government funds, and that he knew of it at the time. The judge remarked—

The replay was, “o.” He said he knew the meaning of perjury. His excuse for making the false statement was that he was then in his position and did not want to lose it. He admitted that the deficiency of Government funds was then in the neighbourhood of £1,000 (since proved to be £1,479), and when he was asked, “Who took that?” he replied—

He admitted that he had not reported van Belkum’s alleged theft to the C.I.D., but admitted having induced van Belkum to cede to him his furniture in part restitution of the £586 deficiency, and said he knew what compounding a felony was. He admitted that considerable sums were advanced to the staff, but there was no record in the books of these advances, but there were the I.O.U.’s. He admitted taking £300 in payment for a position in his office, and when asked—

he replied, “Possibly I was.” He also admitted having kept “three slow race horses,” and having been chastised by an irate husband who had an “imaginary grievance” about his wife.

Durban must have been a lively place to live in.

Yes. This was no mean record for a man in an appointment worth £1,500 a year, and specially chosen for it by the combined acumen of the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Umbilo. His admissions came near to incriminating him of perjury, theft, compounding a felony, and extortion, indeed, he confessed to having sold a job for £300. We can imagine these things in connection with the primitive people of the Rehoboth Republic, but we certainly feel that they are a reproach to the administration of the Union of South Africa. These scandals which have been brought to light would never have occurred if the magistrate had not been deprived by the Minister of Justice, of proper control over the messenger and deputy-messengers of the court. It must be remembered that the position of messenger of the court is not that of a public servant. It is governed by the Magistrates Courts Act of 1917, under which the Minister of Justice is empowered to make the appointment. Under this Act the messenger is entitled to appoint his own deputy-messengers, but such appointments must have the “prior approval” of the magistrate. Let us compare the policy of the previous Minister of Justice, with that of the present one in regard to the control of court messengers. The previous Minister, in 1921, established certain salutary conditions governing messengers’ appointments, which provided that if a vacancy occurred the magistrate should put a notice on his notice board for fourteen days inviting applications. It was to be indicated in the notice that certain qualifications in regard to physical health, age, knowledge of official languages, and native languages, and reliable references were desirable, and questions had to be answered about previous convictions and insolvency. The magistrate was required to schedule the applications and forward them with his recommendations. The present Minister, when challenged in this House in 1925, to say why he had swept aside these salutary conditions, replied in characteristic tone—

That was the Minister’s answer. Surely this retort does not completely exhaust the Minister’s reason for so extraordinary a departure. In regard to deputy messengers, who had to have the “prior approval” of the magistrate, the previous Minister never countermanded the decisions of the magistrate. The present Minister was assailed in this House for appointing van Belkum, the very man whose financial difficulties were to give rise to all the trouble and in regard to whom the chief magistrate of Durban had reported adversely, pointing out there were judgments and civil inprisonment orders operating against him and that it was undesirable to have a man in that position if he was in a serious and possibly hopelessly insolvent state. Van Belkum, in addition to that, had also been discharged by the previous messenger for acts of neglect, and had been under civil arrest at the instance of Indian creditors. Scarcely a suitable man, one would think, for a position where he would have to attach the persons of people who were themselves under civil imprisonment, unless it was a case of “fellow feeling makes us wondrous kind.” What was the Minister’s reply on that occasion?—

Will the Minister explain why in this case he overrode the magistrate’s weighty remonstrance? The magistrate wrote, as we know, pointing out this was an undesirable appointment. The Courts Act gives the magistrate statutory discretion in this matter to signify his “prior approval” before the messenger appoints any deputy messenger, but in this case the Minister approved of the deputy messenger’s employment in spite of the magistrate’s virtual refusal to give his “prior approval.” In what way did the Minister protect the Government against loss of its share of the fees? We have occasion to know he did nothing of the kind The glaring discrepancy between the policy of the present Minister, and that of his predecessor, does not end here. The former court messenger’s letter of appointment, issued under the regime of the previous Minister of Justice, emphasized the responsibility of the messenger and deputy, messengers to the magistrate, and laid down that on such grounds as incompetence, misconduct, or neglect of duty, the messenger could be dismissed without notice, and if the magistrate was dissatisfied with any deputy messenger’s work, his services were to be dispensed with worthwith. These provisions covered a wide range of possibilities, and would have served as a check to most of the irregularities that took place under the succeeding regime. The present Minister omitted these grounds of dismissal, and other safeguards and approved of a new appointment under conditions which gave too much licence to the messenger and his deputies, and insufficiently protected the Government and the public, leaving the magistrate no disciplinary power to deal with the irregularities of these officers of his court, excepting for the derelictions of duty specifically mentioned in the Act. In the Van Belkum case, Judge Matthews commented upon the curious fact that, upon the chief magistrate’s evidence it appeared that no copy of this letter of appointment, in which the magistrate was very much concerned, had been sent to him. The magistrate was therefore in the dark as to what the messenger’s duties and obligations were. This letter of appointment contained a remarkable paragraph, which I wish to quote in view of the light it sheds upon the Minister’s other actions—

By this clause the Minister virtually supersedes the magistrate’s statutory discretion to reject any unsuitable candidate for a deputy messengership of his court. We know what attitude the Minister took up when the magistrate objected to the appointment of van Belkum. This clause gives to the Minister all patronage in the messenger’s office, and takes away the messenger’s statutory right to appoint his deputy messengers though he must still pay them. I want to touch on the state of efficiency that previously existed in the court messenger’s office at Durban. When the present Government came into power it cannot be denied that the office was being carried on by the then court messenger, Mr. Sandys, in a thoroughly efficient manner. At the conclusion of his term of office the chief magistrate wrote to him paying a high tribute to the value of his services both to the department and the public, and the majority of the members of the legal profession signed a memorial for his re-appointment. The present Minister of Justice gave as his reason for dispensing with Mr. Sandys’ services the fact that his earnings under the tariff of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1917, were exclusive, but he caused him to be notified that new conditions as to remuneration would be communicated to the magistrate in due course and Mr. Sandys would then be at liberty to apply for the post. New conditions of remuneration were laid down by the Minister under which the messenger was to retain £1,500 per annum from the fees paid, and to surrender the surplus to the Receiver of Revenue, but neither the magistrate nor Mr. Sandys were ever notified as promised. It soon became evident that political influence, instead of the efficient service of the public, was to dominate the affairs of the court messenger’s office, in other words, “Satan entered in.” It is possibly undesirable that I should indicate who personified that sinister figure, but perhaps I may leave it to you, Mr. Speaker, to have two guesses. When we remember that the court messenger’s office is the clearing house for Durban debts recoverable at law, and that roughly £20,000 per annum passes through that office, or is collected through that medium, it will be clear to the House that a knowledge of accounts and office administration were among the chief essentials for the proper management of this important office. The story unfolded in the van Belkum case in Durban revealed to the public disquieting facts about the appointment of an incompetent and untrustworthy man as head of this office. A Mr. Spargo, whose own admissions in court were that he knew nothing of bookkeeping (as a matter of fact he had been a bicycle mechanic), that none of his staff (whose appointments were approved of by the Minister, in some instances against the chief magistrate’s recommendations) had had administrative experience. He confessed that they had had “bookkeeping trouble” at the start, and he went on to say that it took some time “to evolve a good system.” This system, from the Minister’s own replies in this House, resulted in a cash deficiency of £1,479 of Government funds and £586 of the messenger’s money. There was sworn evidence in the court case to show that Spargo’s appointment was the subject of a bargain between himself and Mr. van Belkum, who was known to have influence with the Minister of Justice. The bargain was that if van Belkum would refrain from using his political influence—this was given on oath in court—to secure the court messengership for himself, and would support the appointment of Spargo by writing to the Minister or interviewing him in Pretoria, then Spargo would pay his expenses and accompany him to Pretoria, which he did, and he would agree to employ him as assistant at £60 a month, as long as he remained as court messenger at Durban, and he would pay van Belkum’s debts up to £200. The evidence showed that subsequently the political influence of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) was also used in support of Spargo’s appointment, and that actually a certain attorney in Durban was the medium through whom the appointment was offered to Spargo. The Courts Act lays down very clearly the undesirability of a messenger being in any way under an obligation to, or under the influence of, an attorney, but in this case he came under an obligation to this particular gentleman The measure of Mr. Spargo’s obligation to these three gentlemen, the attorney, the hon. member for Umbilo and Mr. van Belkum, and the resulting embarrassment to himself, are subjects I propose to deal with in their turn. Let me first show what connection the hon. member for Umbilo had with the appointment of Mr. Spargo and what he had to do with subsequent events, and his somewhat equivocal attitude from time to time. Judge Matthews, who tried the van Belkum case, declared, as a fact, that Spargo had no knowledge of his work. The appointment was criticised in this House in 1925, but no-one, except the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Umbilo, knew why the appointment had been made, and they evidently “wouldn’t tell.” The only admission we could get from the hon. member for Umbilo of his complicity was made when he was speaking of the replacement of the former messenger, Mr. Sandys. He then said—

This was his modest reference to his support of Spargo—

At that time, in 1925, the hon. member for Umbilo was evidently disinclined to admit any close connection with Spargo’s appointment. Indeed he went to great pains to explain away the still unexplained fact, that Spargo’s letter of appointment was sent to his care. The hon. member for Durban (Central) had commented on the fact that the Minister had sent an “intimation to Mr. Reyburn, and entirely ignored the magistrate.” To this the hon. member for Umbilo indignantly replied—

What reason had the hon. member for making a statement so obviously incorrect? The dismissal of Spargo by Sandys, when Sandys learned he was being superseded by Spargo, is shown by records, to have taken place on the 18th of October, 1924, yet the hon. member would have us believe that the letter sent to his care on the 15th of October was so addressed because of what was yet to happen three days later. Since that time the attitude of the hon. member as to his part in Spargo’s appointment has undergone a complete change, which seems to have been brought about very largely by the disclosures made in the van Belkum case as to the hon. member’s close connection with appointments in the court messenger’s office. When Spargo was under cross-examination he was asked—

His reply was—

Questioned as to whether he had received instructions from Mr. Reyburn to get rid of Tomlinson, deputy messenger, who was talking too much to people, Spargo replied—

He was asked—

The reply was—

Questioned as to how the telegram from the Minister of Justice dispensing with the services of van Belkum had been disposed of, Spargo said—

He was asked: “To whom was it addressed?” and the reply was:“To Reyburn.” Here then was a telegram of such moment as to involve the dismissal of the chief man of the office, and this was sent to the hon. member by the Minister himself.

Not to the magistrate?

The magistrate was completely ignored. The question was asked, Why did it come to him?” The reply was—

Where was the magistrate and where was his authority?

Why didn’t he report it?

If the hon. member knew what was going on in that office he would not ask such a question.

It was his duty to report it.

His functions were usurped by the hon. member for Umbilo. Spargo also admitted that he had made a report on the cash deficiency to Mr. Reyburn before mentioning it to the magistrate. Evidence was given to show that after van Belkum was induced by Spargo to admit responsibility for a cash deficiency of £586, a conference between the Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Umbilo and Mr. Spargo and Mr. van Belkum, took place in the messenger’s office. This was also before any report was made to the magistrate. I should have asked the Minister of Labour had he been present now what particular connection he had with the matter. It was common report in Durban that the Minister assisted Spargo very considerably, and I had hoped the Minister would have been here to give some explanation of the connection he had with the matter, and to tell us why he did not report the facts about the admitted deficiency of funds before the prosecution took place. Because of the publicity given to these statements and to others of a more serious kind, with which I shall deal later, the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) held a meeting in the town gardens in Durban, where he now made for the first time a fuller statement as to his responsibility for Spargo’s appointment. It was difficult to hear owing to the noises of passing trams, but the press report of his speech states that the hon. member explained that on the court messenger’s appointment becoming vacant, Mr. Roos wired to him to find a suitable man, having told the then messenger, let us remember, that he would have an opportunity of applying for the appointment. “At that time,” the hon. member said—

What are you reading from?

From a report which appeared in the press.

Which paper?

A more reliable paper than the “Guardian.” I know the hon. member’s usual gibe is that all papers except the “Guardian” are liars. The report went on—

The hon. member also said—

I want to put to the House, what kind of an explanation is this for the appointment of an incompetent man to a post worth £1,500 per annum? The hon. member virtually tells us that he took one approving look at the strange Mr. Spargo, hurried to the nearest telegraph office and wired his approval to Mr. Roos, and the Minister without any question and without any reference, accepted the hon. member’s recommendation. The hon. member stated that he went to the messenger’s office to inquire about Spargo, but I have the authority of Mr. Sandys for saying that the hon. member was never seen at the office, and whatever information he gleaned about Spargo was from an entirely unauthorised and apparently unreliable source. The Minister on the one hand assured Mr. Sandys that he would have an opportunity of applying for the post, while he wired to the hon. member for Umbilo to find him a suitable man. The hon. member for Umbilo visits the office of Mr. Sandys on this errand, and on the flimsiest grounds recommends that Mr. Sandys be superseded by Mr. Spargo. The point to remember is that throughout the whole of these proceedings the official who could have been entrusted to safeguard the public interest—the chief magistrate—was completely ignored. The customary consultation of the magistrate would have prevented what was subsequently to happen. We have seen from the evidence that the hon. member for Umbilo was recognised by Spargo as having been responsible for his appointment, and the hon. member himself, after the disclosures, reluctantly admitted it. Spargo also admitted in evidence that if the hon. member for Umbilo had given him instructions to dismiss a subordinate, he would have complied. This recognition of the hon. member’s right to some considerable control in the court messenger’s office was not only present in Spargo’s mind—he acted upon it, and it was acquiesced in and rendered effective by the Minister himself. Take the case of van Belkum, Judge Matthews accepted as proved, the fact that when Spargo induced van Belkum to sign an admission that he was solely responsible for the shortage of £586, he was led to believe that it was to be used to get Spargo’s father to make good a deficiency for which the complicity of his son was concealed. Spargo did not think of reporting the existence of this document to the magistrate, who would doubtless have held an inquiry, but went instead to the hon. member for Umbilo, who, without asking van Belkum for any explanation, reported to the Minister, and received a telegram in reply, which resulted in van Belkum’s dismissal, without any reference whatsoever to the magistrate or any enquiry. The Minister has kept secret the correspondence exchanged at this time with the hon. member for Umbilo. He has said in this House that the hon. member gave him—

but he has not satisfied the public as to what close interest or concern the hon. member for Umbilo had in the control of the court messenger’s office for two years. I think it is fair to assume that the appointment of the hon. member’s (Mr. Reyburn’s) father-in-law to Spargo’s staff was due to Spargo’s sense of obligation. In the van Belkum case the most serious statement in so far as this House is concerned, was the one made to the effect that Spargo told Tomlinson, the deputy messenger, that he had to pay a large share of his salary to the hon. member for Umbilo.

Do you believe that is true?

I want an inquiry.

You want more muck?

The hon. member is scarcely complimentary to his colleague, the hon. member for Umbilo, whose connection with this matter would be one of the subjects of the enquiry. I suspend judgment as to whether the statements quoted is true. Tomlinson was well known to Spargo.

Was Tomlinson S.A.P.?

I do not know. But I do know that Mr. van Belkum, the chairman of the Durban Nationalist party, was the first man to mention or hint at this matter. Tomlinson was well-known to Spargo with whom he had served as deputy-messenger under Sandys, former court messenger. By those who know him well he is regarded as a reliable and generally truthful man. Tomlinson served from January, 1925, to May, 1927, and Spargo borrowed from him £500 which he could not fully repay. Van Belkum in his evidence on oath made a statement about Spargo’s salary and his own—

Who was receiving it then? Spargo in court denied having made the alleged statement to Tomlinson, but as the suggested sharing of Spargo’s salary was not relevant to the issue in the case the matter was carried no further. In matters that were relevant, however, where Spargo had given denials to the case for the defence, the court gave credence to the witnesses for the defence; among them were van Belkum and Tomlinson. The hon. member for Umbilo at his meeting in the Durban Town Gardens gave an emphatic denial to the statement of Tomlinson that Spargo ever paid him a share of his salary and quoted a letter from Spargo in his support. He also challenged Tomlinson and Mr. Renaud, counsel for van Belkum, to repeat any such statements on an unprivileged occasion, and suggested that they had been inspired by a political conspiracy to discredit him. On that point hon. members need to be reminded that the first hint of anything of this kind came from Mr. van Belkum, who had certainly been in Spargo’s close confidence—but who happens to be the chairman in Durban of the Nationalist party, to which the hon. member is allied. I maintain, sir, this is not a subject for political recrimination. It matters little whether the hon. member carries with him the few readers of the “New Guardian” in his view that he has removed all suspicion from the public mind, by what he has said by way of denial. I suggested to him through the Press that his proper course was, on his own initiative to move in this House for select committee—and I quoted to him a precedent set by one of his Labour colleagues in the Transvaal Provincial Council on the 7th May, 1918, when Mr. Steer moved as an unopposed motion, seconded by Mr. Delport—

There are other precedents in the House of Commons in 1888, and the Cape House of Assembly in 1902, when the right of members to move for a parliamentary enquiry into charges affecting their honour or that of their party was upheld, even when they had not exhausted their legal remedy. Paragraph 2 of the motion refers to a letter said to have been addressed to the hon. member for Umbilo by a person in Durban, offering the hon. member one-third of the salary of the post of court messenger in Durban, or of the deputy-sheriff, Natal, if he would use his influence to secure the appointment of the writer to either of the offices named. In his meeting at the Town Gardens, Durban, the hon. member stated that he had sought the assistance of the C.I.D., Durban, for the prosecution of the writer of the letter, but no action had been possible as a charge of bribery could not be sustained. He also said that information had been placed in the hands of Mr. Speaker who had found that nothing could be done under the head of parliamentary privilege to have the writer of the letter arrested and punished. Now, sir, I am unable to say whether such a ruling has been given by you, or I should not venture to comment upon it, and as the Minister of Justice has declined to produce the letter—

I have not got the letter.

It is in the custody of the Minister’s department, and the hon. member for Umbilo invited all and sundry to go and see it.

Why didn’t you go?

I thought it advisable not to. I did not want to show any idle curiosity about the hon. member’s affairs. I am unable to judge as to the terms of that letter owing to the secrecy with which the Minister is dealing with this matter. A letter is called for. The custody of that letter is indicated in my question, and the Minister declines to lay it on the Table. We are unable, therefore, to determine the exact terms, but section 10, subsection 4 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, 1911, does seem to me sufficiently wide to apply to the case of a bribe offered to a member of this House to induce him to use his influence towards securing an appointment for a person who offers such a bribe. In any case, I submit that the circumstances under which a letter came to be written should be investigated, so that the public may realise that matters so closely affecting the good name of Parliament will not be lightly passed over. I am informed that the writer of this letter formerly served as a deputy-messenger when Tomlinson and van Belkum were similarly employed under Sandys. According to Tomlinson the statement by Spargo as to his being obliged to pay a portion of his salary to the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) was made early in 1925; the date of the letter which is said to have been submitted to Mr. Speaker is understood to be May, 1925. There is a further point to be considered, that the Labour party holds views on this question which give currency to the idea that beneficiaries are obliged to pay their benefactors a share of the spoil. At a Labour party congress in Natal Mr. S. J. Smith, the Natal organiser of the party, moved the following—

We must regard this proposal as a benign and gentle paraphrase in the diction of the Natal Labour organiser of the old command to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” but who shall say whether Caesar, as represented by the Labour organiser, would be more correctly spelt with a “C” or an “s.” According to the press report the hon. member for Umbilo characterised the proposed seizing of salaries as a “vicious principle.” I want to conclude with some further remarks on the Minister’s action. We have seen something of the calculated and cynical methods by which the Minister eliminated the authority of the magistrate and allowed it to be replaced by a system of political bossism. I am indebted to the Minister of Defence for this phrase. Since the disclosures of the position to the public I have heard it said that in the political world, as well as the mining world, the underground manager and the shift boss are particularly useful men. There is a definite impression amongst the public that the Minister was a party to the weakening of proper control over the court messenger’s office, because political considerations proved stronger than public interest. On the 25th June, 1925, the Minister granted an interview to Mr. van Belkum at Pretoria on the subject of the necessity for a floating loan in connection with the court messenger’s transactions in Durban and he left for Durban fully believing that he enjoyed the Minister’s confidence—

I did not have an interview with him.

Mr. van Belkum says so. I suggest we should have an enquiry into that.

Is the hon. member suggesting an enquiry as to whether I am speaking the truth when sitting here. If he does I say it is an impertinence.

It is a rule of the House that an hon. member should accept the word of another hon. member.

I do accept it. I merely say that van Belkum definitely stated that. He certainly visited the Minister’s department and made representations in regard to the court messenger getting a floating loan of £500 to finance his department from month to month, and he returned to Durban under the impression that he fully enjoyed the Minister’s or the department’s confidence and that the Minister approved of the loan. Within a week of that time the Minister, without facing van Belkum with the charges brought against him, sent a telegram to the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) which resulted in van Belkum’s dismissal. In December, 1926, Mr. Davies, who had been wrongfully dismissed by Spargo, appealed to the chief magistrate and asked for a departmental enquiry to deal with the irregularities in the court messenger’s office. That letter reached the Minister. It was forwarded by the magistrate. No enquiry was held. Had it been held Spargo would have been exposed and peculation of Government funds would have been avoided. On both occasions the Minister was at fault and the public got the impression he was wilfully closing his eyes to a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. The Minister has refused, in this House, to produce the telegram he sent to the hon. member for Umbilo and I can understand his reluctance to lay it on the table, because I am informed it contained a paragraph stating that the prosecution was left in the hands of Spargo.

Spargo cannot prosecute; he can merely complain. We have no personal prosecutors here.

I know that perfectly well. My contention is that the Minister, being aware that a crime had been committed, deliberately shelved the matter by sending a wire to the hon. member for Umbilo, saying—

I sent no such wire.

If the Minister will produce the wire it will settle the phraseology.

I will give the contents.

That is my information.

And it is extremely bad information.

Well, what justification can the Minister give for his action in this case where he was faced with prima facie evidence that a crime had been committed and he sent a wire to the hon. member for Umbilo that the prosecution had to be left in the hands of Spargo. Spargo found it impossible to prosecute van Belkum, for reasons which we can guess at. He went into court and on the first appearance the public prosecutor remarked to the court—

The Minister, through sending the matter to the hon. member for Umbilo was responsible for the dilatoriness of this prosecution. At no time did he direct or indicate that any prosecution should take place, although there was evidence of a considerable shortage of cash amounting to over £580, which was before him, and there can be no doubt that the distinct impression on his mind was that a crime had been committed. The Minister remained absolutely passive right through the matter, and the arrest of Mr. van Belkum took place from other sources outside his influence and beyond his knowledge.

That is a wrong statement.

This is a matter where the public have the impression—

Yes, in Durban.

Where the facts are known best. I want the House to remember that the Minister is himself in head control of public prosecutions, when he introduced the Act to give himself the power, he declared that the Minister of Justice would be the authority to be assailed in this House upon any irregularities in prosecutions. But for the action of the Attorney-General, on his own initiative, no prosecution would have taken place and the Minister remained passive from start to finish. The Minister has refrained throughout from giving his help in this matter. He refrained from laying papers on the Table and he is unable to dispel the public conviction that all has not been well in the control of this office and that the disciplinary methods adopted were designedly apart from the magistrate and without consultation with him. The magistrate only came into the case when van Belkum’s dismissal took place through the medium of the telegram sent by the Minister to the hon. member for Umbilo. Throughout the Minister has lent colour, by his action, to the definite conviction of the public that a scandal exists in the background and the only method to have it dispelled is by having witnesses in a place where they will be able to tell the truth without fear, favour or affection. One of the principles of the Courts Act is that the court messenger shall be under no obligation to an attorney. If a select committee enquiry is granted evidence will be produced to show that complaints were made to the court messenger that his deputies were touting for business on behalf of an attorney to whom Spargo was under an obligation. These are amongst the grounds which make it imperative this matter should be gone into. Spargo admitted himself, on oath, that at one and the same time he owed £300 to one firm of attorneys, £500 to another and £300 to a third. Surely the Minister will realise that this state of affairs constitutes a scandal deserving the earliest investigation and such action as will satisfy the public that these things are not done with the approval or subsequent condonation of the Minister. In addition we find the messenger borrowed £750 from a firm of auctioneers, and he said on oath he would not deny that the reason for transferring the messenger’s auction business to that firm of auctioneers was because of that accommodation. He admitted that he was influenced in his actions towards people to whom he had placed himself under obligation. The Minister’s defence is one we have heard before. He will come forward and say there were heavy fees earned by the court messenger and that these fees are now recovered for the State. The very instrument of recovery of these fees to the State, a letter to Mr. Spargo, was so defective that Mr. Spargo, having robbed the Government of £1,479, was able to laugh at us and get off scot free. The Minister so wrote the letter that there was no offence—

You cannot place an offence on a man by writing a letter.

The Minister was at fault and the department was at fault regarding the fidelity bond entered into with regard to Spar go’s appointment. The company that guaranteed Spargo’s fidelity is able to get off scot free and the bond is a scrap of paper. Those are among the actions of the Minister for which he is responsible, and for which one would desire to have him before the select committee. We have also the general attitude of the Minister in regard to the whole series of happenings in Durban. Not one word of condemnation, every word of excuse is used by him to facilitate the escape of Mr. Spargo. We have the position in which no attempt is made against Mr. Spargo, not even a civil claim. He is well known to have had influential backing in the past.

If you guarantee the costs I will bring an action tomorrow.

I will not guarantee the costs, but I shall be very surprised if the Minister will bring an action against Mr. Spargo, and so will the public.

I will do so.

I shall be very glad to hear it.

But I want that guarantee of the costs.

We should then be able to judge perhaps of some of the revelations Mr. Spargo will make when his back is against the wall. The attitude of the Minister on this case has been entirely unsatisfactory. It meets with the wholehearted condemnation of the public.

In Durban.

The public regard the whole situation as one which is undermined by disorder of the gravest kind. Nothing but the most complete inquiry will satisfy them, and I can only hope that the Minister will consent to that inquiry in order to remove the damaging suspicion which exists in the public mind at this moment in regard to the series of affairs which have taken place in the court messenger’s office at Durban. May I say with Scottish caution that when that select committee does take place, which I hope will be soon, I trust I shall be spared to be there to ask the Minister a few questions.

seconded the motion.

I wish to deal with this matter at once. I quite understand that as far as this motion is concerned, it is largely a motion of no confidence in me. It is partly also a motion of no confidence in the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn). I am accustomed to these motions of no confidence. They happen every session. On account of its being a motion of no confidence, I certainly do not accept it. When appointments were made in the first instance they were made in pursuance of a general policy that I had in regard to a portion of the fees of the messenger’s office being paid into the Government. I was not concerned so much with the incumbents of those positions, but what I wanted was the policy to be adopted which had been initiated in Johannesburg. With regard to the question of the fidelity bond, I admit at once that I should have gone into the form of the fidelity bond, because there I admit that I erred. I gave notice in regard to the big places that in future only the sum of £1,500 of the fees, all of which belonged to the messenger, should be retained by him. The rest of those fees which belonged to him properly by law are his property, but, by contract between myself and those messengers, the portion of that property over and above £1,500 was to be paid over to the State. That is the matter that was before my mind more than anything else. At that time I did not know Durban, or, at any rate, very little about Durban. As hon. members know, most of one’s troubles in this world arise from Durban, or other places in Natal. We have no trouble in regard to other parts of the country in which messengers have been appointed. I must admit in favour of Durban that the most lucrative office we have, apart from the Johannesburg office, has been Durban. There are only two occasions on which the hon. member for Umbilo enters into the matter as far as I am concerned. The first occasion was when I consulted him as a member of Parliament as to whether the second in command in that office, Mr. Spargo, was a fit man to be made messenger. I see to-day that I ought to have sent somebody from the Transvaal down to Durban, because then I would have had none of the trouble that we have had. I might also have sent somebody down from the Free State or from the Cape. I can understand now that hon. members here may say that that was a wrong thing to do, although I cannot understand why members of Parliament should object to a member of this House being consulted. The other occasion on which the hon. member for Umbilo entered into the matter was when he sent to me, privately, a telegram to tell me that offences had been committed by van Belkum in that office. My reply to him was that that information should at once be placed by the messenger before the magistrate there. I understand that that was the great point made by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), that that information should have been placed before the magistrate.

Are you speaking from memory?

Yes.

I thought so.

What is more, that report was made to the magistrate at Durban. I thought I also said in that wire—I am certain it would be said—that it would be a good thing to dismiss the man at once.

I never questioned that.

I thought it was questioned. Dealing with the question of prosecution, I entirely share the view that a man who has committed thefts by which the Department of Justice has suffered, should be apprehended. I would say that a man who does anything against my department—well, hanging is too good for him. I assure the hon. gentleman that I am more jealous, as far as any misfeasance against my department is concerned, than anybody else could possibly be. The next step I took was when it had been brought to my notice by my department that no steps had been taken after the complaint had been laid before the magistrate. When that took place I at once instructed the department to send a notification to the Attorney-General to inquire into the matter. Hon. members will see at once that your difficulty is this—that where a person complains about thefts against him—in this case the messenger complained about thefts by the deputy against him—that man must make an affidavit, and his evidence must be reliable. The Attorney-General, as soon as the matter was reported to him, started taking steps at once, and from the beginning he told us that the big difficulty was that he could not get any proper statement out of the complainant, Mr. Spargo. That was done, and that caused the whole proceedings against van Belkum to be hampered from time to time and resulted in the end in his acquittal, and the acquittal took place on the basis that Spargo had allowed van Belkum to take the money. Being money belonging to Spargo, if he says van Belkum can take the money obviously there is no liability except a civil liability between the two parties. I wish to assure the House there was nothing dilatory whatever as far as the Department of Justice or I myself are concerned. As far as I can remember I never even saw the correspondence in regard to Mr. Davis. I think I gave a full answer, and I think that answer shows the department acted rightly in connection with the complaint.

Why did it take over twelve months to prosecute van Belkum?

I was informing the hon. member that steps were taken at once. As soon as we heard at a later stage that no steps had been taken on the report, the Attorney-General acted at once, but his difficulty was that he could not get the evidence and he complained that he might even be compelled to drop the proceedings because of this Obviously, I am going to refer to the figures because if you want a greater justification than that provided by the figures, I should be glad to know where you could find it. Between January, 1925, and the 30th of June, 1927, the Durban messenger’s office has paid to the Government £7,534 6s. 8d. The Pretoria office has paid £2,537 8s. 1d., and the Cape Town office £3,175. I will say at once that I doubt very much whether it can be stated that an office that can pay over this large amount of money is run as badly as has been stated. I saw Spargo for the first time about twelve months after his appointment. I visited the magistrate’s court, and I also looked over the messenger’s office. I also asked the magistrate how that office was functioning, and he told me it was functioning very well indeed. I say that these figures justify the policy. During that period of 2½ years the State has received from these messengers’ offices £13,000. Before I started this policy the State did not have a single penny from these fees.

Are you aware that the fees are now on the European mileage scale?

I am dealing with the money derived by the State from these offices that has never been derived before. This discussion would never have taken place if the old policy had been followed. Under the old policy a messenger of the court took his £5,000 a year. If you take into account the amount not accounted for and the salary, the Durban messenger is getting £5,200 per annum. Under my predecessor the messenger would take the whole of that money, whereas, under the present administration, he can only take £1,500.

But this is a question of the carrying out of that policy.

But the change of policy has brought about this discussion. That policy was assailed in connection with the last debate on this subject. It was Contended that the messenger was not earning enormous sums.

It is contended even now.

My statement before was not based on figures. My information has been justified by the actual practical experience the department has had.

The fees are on double the scale.

The fees are not. There are white people also sued in Durban; at least I am so informed, although it seems to be a very prosperous community.

That is not the point before the House, is it?

I have been trying to find out what the point was, because, as far as the point is concerned, it is said in one clause—

The cash deficiencies are made out both in this motion and in the way the hon. member has dealt with it as being moneys of which the Government has been robbed. The Government has not been robbed of a single penny as far as that office is concerned. The position is that the State should have all the money over and above £1,500. We should have got the sum of £1,400, and there I have admitted I was in error in not checking the fidelity bond used before, but there I could plead the fact of that bond being used before. The tariff is laid down in Act 32 of 1917. That tariff cannot be altered except by amendments to that Act.

The Indian mileage rate is totally different from the European rate.

The tariff is there for everyone to see. I am asked why Spargo is not prosecuted. One of the reasons is that the Attorney-General has declined to prosecute, and I, as a lawyer, am unable to say he is wrong. I agree entirely with that decision of the Attorney-General, so I do not see how on earth I can prosecute Spargo. I am also told that van Belkum used influence with me. Van Belkum never has had and has not to-day, any influence with me. I have never at any time even seen van Belkum in connection with this matter. I have heard van Belkum was in Pretoria at certain times. He may have seen officials in my department, but no report has been made to me as to any conversations taking place. I saw Spargo for the first time a year after his appointment, and at that time the office seemed to be well managed. I am asked why the telegram was sent to the hon. member for Umbilo. It was sent to him because he sent me a wire about the matter. These are the only two occasions on which anything was done between myself and the hon. member. The first occasion was when I wanted to know whether the second in command was the right person to be appointed, and the other was when this telegram was sent.

Why should privilege be claimed for that correspondence?

There is no privilege claimed except that this is private correspondence between him and myself. I did not dismiss anybody—the hon. gentleman has not found out yet what the position is. My telegram to the hon. member for Umbilo was to the effect that under those circumstances it is the duty of the messenger to dismiss, if that is the true state of affairs. We again have that misconception that your messenger’s office is a portion of the administration of the Department of Justice. It is an office in which the messenger fixes upon the persons he employs: they are his employees; when they are once taken into employment by him I have nothing further to do with it. The principal thing into which my department can enquire is not the question what they are when taken into employment, but the very substantial question of not swelling the roll of salaries unduly as far as they are concerned, because a messenger has no interest in the emoluments further than £1,500 per annum. There is nothing to prevent his swelling the salary roll, and, therefore, it is essential to check the amount of that salary roll. All over the country in the different offices from which we derive revenue there are always endeavours made to extend that salary roll—efforts always resisted by our department. We see that messengers do not earn extravagant emoluments. The whole of the letter of appointment is of the same type that has been used in every one of these cases. It lays down clearly that the matter is largely placed in the hands of the magistrate. There is also a misstatement; the magistrate is in error in the court below, so I am not accusing the hon. member; a copy of the appointment was sent to the magistrate on the same day as it went to Mr. Spargo.

When were the conditions of the appointment sent to the magistrate?

I have just stated that they were sent to the magistrate with a covering letter on the same day and the same occasion on which the letter of appointment was sent. The letter says—

The control of the office by the magistrate remains throughout, and I was glad to hear later on that the circumstances in that office were, as far as I was able to judge, in a proper state.

Why should the magistrate go before the judge and say [inaudible].

He made a mistake, I assume. The hon. gentleman does not believe that every word said in a court of law is the truth. There is a large margin of error. I give the hon. gentleman the assurance that the letter was sent down to the magistrate the same day.

Was it not sent to the hon. member for Umbilo?

No, it was not. The only two occasions I had anything to do with the hon. member for Umbilo was with regard to the second in command and the telegram the hon. member sent to me. That is all I know in connection with that office. We afterwards found out what the position was with regard to Spargo, and at once steps were taken in connection with his dismissal—or he resigned to avoid dismissal. I understand from the Secretary for Justice that what happened, seems to me, was that the letter was filed. The one sent to the magistrate was filed without the magistrate being in full cognizance of the contents. There is no doubt about that fact. It possibly would have been better if I had consulted the magistrate at that time. There are several cases in which the same procedure is followed. I do not know that any complaint is made of corruption as far as I am concerned, or I would deal with that. One must make a categorical denial. I say, I know nothing of that office from its inception, but on one occasion I entered that office and from a cursory inspection, things were running favourably, and for the rest things followed their course through the hands of the Department of Justice. I would have liked to see some commendation from some hon. members of the change of policy in connection with this office by which the State has been enriched to this extent.

A good red herring.

It is a good red herring to get £1,300, and there are going to be good fine red herrings for Governments in future. I am certain that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will agree with me that it is a good fine red herring, and the more we have the better for the country. If an hon. member makes a report to me it will always receive very favourable consideration. I am speaking of hon. members generally, and there are hon. members who know I have given great consideration to matters which have been placed before me. As far as this House is concerned, I am going to treat every hon. member as an hon. gentleman until the contrary is proved. That seems to me the right way—and the objection that members of this hon. House should not be consulted and that people outside the House should be consulted, seems rather a reflection on ourselves, does it not? The great objection seems to be that members of this hon. House are consulted.

That is not the point; the point is, do they supersede the magistrate?

They do not supersede the magistrate. The truth is that some hon. gentlemen opposite want the magistrate to supersede me. I do not wish to escape blame where blame is deserved, but as far as the statements in sub-section 3 of the motion are concerned, not one is correct as far as I am concerned. I admit fully, as I have admitted before, that I was negligent in not changing the form of the fidelity bond, and I should have checked the work done before in that department. It may have been that I was wrong, but at that time I was young and green at the business—not, perhaps, as green as I look. When it is necessary for me to envelop myself in a robe of verdure I am quite prepared to do that, too. That is all I have to say, unless the hon. member is pressing a charge of corruption against me. The House must balance my negligence on the one side against the benefits the State has derived on the other side.

What about an enquiry?

Asking for an enquiry is a motion of no confidence in me, and I certainly resist that enquiry. Hon. gentlemen will remember that when we were in opposition there were never these fishing applications to look through files in the departments.

You never had any cause for making such applications.

We might not have had all the sources of information hon. members opposite now have—that is quite possible. I do ask hon. members opposite to believe that as far as we are concerned we are trying to administer the country properly, and it does not assist us when all these petty complaints are made, complaints which are intended to leave a “smack” in the mouths of the public that we are people of no character. I have never cared for any position in this House, either in the Government or on the Opposition benches, but when we are trying according to our lights, to advance matters, it is unpleasant that we should have these abortive discoveries of non-existent scandals. They have filled a considerable part of our life, and they seem only to make headway in Durban. You never hear on platforms in any other part of the Union references made in this small way.

Two of your Durban platform supporters are doing four years’ hard labour in gaol.

I do not know whether the hon. gentleman proposes to present a petition for the remission of their sentences, but I regret it is useless for him to come to me with those petitions. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is trying to support our view that there is something wrong in Durban. There have been some extraordinary things in Durban in connection with the C.I.D. and matters of that kind, which we have not found anywhere else in the country. Hon. members know what the position was.

No, we don’t. Tell us what it was.

That may be the subject of another debate.

You are making suggestions.

I was referring to a prosecution of a member of the C.I.D. who is serving a term of imprisonment. At all events, we hope to clean up Durban in the same way we are cleaning up the rest of the country. In no other part of the country would it be possible for a man who has an opportunity of making £1,500 a year to fling that away, except in the town of the July Handicap. I forgot that Durban was the town of the July Handicap.

It is not the only handicap Durban has.

I heard about these races for the first time when this case was proceeding in Durban, and I am very sorry that hon. members opposite did not let me know about this question of racing, except of course, that none of them frequent the racecourse. I do not think that men who have a salary of £1,500 or £2,000 or £3,000, or whatever the amount is, should go to racecourses, as they have not the money to throw away. I am very glad that the hon. member is not making a charge of corruption against me, but I regret negligence, and promise improvement in the future.

I am afraid that the Minister of Justice has treated this matter with undue flippancy. After all it is a very grave matter. The charge made by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) was a very grave charge and a very serious statement.

What is the charge?

Here it is in the motion—I do not want to read it again. The least the Minister might have done was to treat the matter with due gravity.

I dealt with the whole of the charge.

The Minister dealt with it in a spirit of flippancy.

We cannot help our spirits.

The Minister says that he will not accept the motion because it is one of no confidence in him, but I assure him it is nothing of the kind. The hon. member has set the motion down on his own account; it has nothing to do with the party and nothing to do with me. There was not the least idea of moving a vote of no confidence in the Minister, but if there was ever a case for enquiry it is this one. The Minister has gibed against Durban, but Durban is just like any other town. The facts occurred in Durban, and no doubt Durban would be interested in all the rumours regarding it, as the community has been deeply stirred by the recent trials and disclosures. The Minister, for his own reputation, should have welcomed an enquiry. He holds a great position in this country. Personal charges are flung about, insinuations are made in many places, and the Minister with the good case he has, should have welcomed the enquiry—all the more so because he says it is not possible to prosecute—so that people may not continue to harbour dark suspicions against the ruling order of things. We have made no charges of corruption. I do not think the hon. member who moved this motion dreamt of it. The state of affairs he has disclosed is such as calls for serious enquiry. A couple of years ago we had a debate over these matters in their initial stages in the House, and we warned the Minister. The Minister now ingenuously pleads youth and inexperience, and says he was young and green then, that he has gathered experience since. We want to vindicate his reputation and clear him of any doubt there may be. I do not think the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) need laugh. He especially should welcome an enquiry. Two years ago a debate started here and we warned the Minister. We were not at issue with him over the policy that the enormous fees drawn by the court messengers should be curtailed by some new system. There was no challenge to the policy. The Minister embarked upon a different method of appointment. He cut out the magistrate and started consulting private individuals and members of this House, and landed himself into an infernal mess and as a result in two years’ time the court messenger’s office at Durban has been converted itself into a den of thieves, and there has been a hopeless state of affairs there disclosed. If he had read the evidence in the van Belkum case, he would have seen that the state of affairs there disclosed was the greatest reflection on the administration of justice in this country, and this happened under the changes the Minister has made. Instead of doing what his predecessor has done, that is, make the appointments through the magistrates, he resorts to devious methods and private consultation with members of Parliament and interests over which he has no control, and he appoints people hopelessly incompetent and dishonest. Spargo admitted he knew nothing of the duties, and he was hopelessly unfit for the position. So was van Belkum, and the Minister, whose pride it should be to run the Department above suspicion, has let himself into this state of affairs which is creating a scandal in a great commercial community in South Africa, The court messenger of Durban has a lot to do. We hear of £20,000 passing through the office per annum, and the matter should have been dealt with seriously and with proper decorum by the Minister, He put himself in the hands of other individuals, and to-day, in a certain sense, he has to throw himself on the mercy of the House. We will extend mercy to him, but we want to impress on him that it is a matter for enquiry. He is not doing himself justice, and it is not fair to public opinion in the country to meet this state of affairs in such a flippant manner. He is not doing justice to his reputation by that attitude. I assume he has nothing to fear though there have been mistakes. All the more reason for allaying the suspicion. There is no reason why the position should not be faced, and an impartial enquiry held either through a select committee, or in some other way. The situation brought before us by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) to-day is a serious one, and it is a reflection on the Department of Justice that we should have drifted into such a position. It is a first-class scandal which in former years would have shaken the foundations of Government, but we have not the game sensitiveness now, and people pass them over as a joke. It is a serious matter, and I assure the Minister he is not taking the right course by making this appeal to the House, pleading his own incorruptibility, which we all admit, and by saying nothing can be done. If there could have been a prosecution it would have cleared up the whole matter, but a prosecution is out of the question, therefore it is bare justice to public opinion in the country and to the Minister in the position he occupies to allow an enquiry, either by way of a select committee, or other impartial enquiry. I think the Minister should reconsider the matter. His decision not to admit a select committee was based on a wrong ground. There is no idea of “no confidence” whatever. We never dreamt of it, and the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) is acting on his own initiative in bringing the matter forward, and I think we should have an impartial enquiry to clear up the matter and dissipate the suspicions now felt all over the country.

May I take this opportunity to give a specific denial that I have personally, directly or indirectly, pecuniarily or in any other way benefited by the appointment of Spargo or any other person in Durban. I want to make a point blank denial that I have benefited in any way directly or indirectly in these matters. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) referred to the excellent characters of messengers and deputies in the old days. This man Spargo was appointed as a deputy messenger in the old days, and he supplied the necessary references of character and respectability to the magistrate of Durban and that was the man I found second in command in that office.

He was never second in command.

The hon. member’s statement consists of nine-tenths of statements that are untrue, and one tenth that are half true.

On a point of order, is it not unbecoming and offensive to accuse me of making statements nine-tenths of which are untrue?

I understood the hon. member was referring to quotations.

The hon. member said—

May I put it this way? The information the hon. member is giving to this House is based on statements which are untrue. I had heard rumours, and in the case of the State v. van Belkum I was dragged into the case, and the Minister for Labour and the Labour party were drawn into it. I took no notice until I heard the hon. member for Illovo was interviewing a lawyer, and interviewing witnesses in the case.

On a point of order or explanation may I say that there is not a word of truth in that. I never interviewed the solicitor for the defence or the witnesses for the defence

I repeat, I took no notice of these matters until I found that the hon. member for Illovo was interviewing the lawyer for the defence and the witnesses for the defence.

I protest against this. Is the hon. member entitled to re-assert that when I have given an emphatic denial?

The hon. member is not entitled to state that when the hon. member for Illovo denies it.

I won’t insist upon the statement, but when certain information was given to me in connection with the activities of the hon. member for Illovo, I thought it was time, knowing the hon. member for Illovo, to take a little notice of it. I went to the Attorney-General in Natal and I told him that I understood that statements were going to be made to drag my name and the name of the Minister of Labour and certain other men, particularly belonging to the Labour party, into this case. I understood that certain politicians on the S.A. party side were doing this. I asked the Attorney-General if any statement was made by any witness reflecting on my personal character, would he call me as a witness. The Attorney-General assured me that if anything material was said which affected in any way my personal honour, he would call me as a witness. The fact that he did not call me is proof to my mind that he did not consider that any of these allegations upon which the hon. member for Illovo founded his case this afternoon is worthy of any substantial credence whatever. The same day I went to my solicitors in Durban and said I had heard these rumours that I had been given some money for the appointment of Mr. Spargo as messenger and at my request they wrote to Mr. Spargo and asked him whether there was any truth in these rumours. This is the letter received by my solicitors from Mr. Spargo, signed by himself—

Do you rely upon Mr. Spargo’s evidence?

No, I have got further evidence. May I ask the hon. member, does he rely upon Mr. Spargo’s evidence?

Not a bit.

Did not the hon. member found the case which is put up this afternoon upon the evidence given by Mr. Spargo in the courts, while he denies me the right to quote from a letter by Mr. Spargo?

That evidence was given on oath.

I have another authority which I will quote to the hon. member. When this case was on in court the only statement which I considered material at all as affecting me was a statement by a man called Tomlinson, who was one of my most active political opponents in my division and is also a court messenger, to the effect that he had heard Spargo say that he had to give me money for the appointment. The statement was immediately denied in court by Spargo himself on oath. When that statement appeared in the press I tried to get a letter in, but could not. I then tried to get an advertisement in, and could not. The day the case concluded, I published a letter in the “Natal Advertiser” through the courtesy of the editor of that paper, in which I challenged Mr. Tomlinson or Mr. Renard or anyone else to make that statement in an unprivileged place. I said that statement was untrue and if they would make it in an unprivileged place I would prove it. I further stated that at a public meeting on the Friday following in the Durban town gardens, I would deal with the whole case and I did. I had no reply to my challenge. I specially invited these two gentlemen to appear at that meeting to ask me any questions, but they did not appear. At that meeting I read a further letter which had been given to me personally by the father of Mr. Spargo, the court messenger. Mr. Spargo, senior, is an old and respected citizen of Durban, a man who incidentally was for five years a member of the general council of the S.A. Party and who today is not a Labour man or a Nationalist. He wrote a letter to the “Natal Mercury” in connection with this case. That letter was refused publication. Mr. Spargo, senior, handed this letter to me personally, in the course of which he said—

That letter is signed by Mr. A. C. Spargo, the father of the court messenger. At that meeting I dealt with the whole matter. I read that letter and I also read the first letter which I have just quoted to the House, and I asked the people there—there were over 600 present—if they had any further questions to ask. After one or two questions had been asked the people at that public meeting expressed themselves as satisfied. To my mind the matter had been disposed of. Of course, the hon. member for Illovo bobs up again, and by a letter in the paper attempts again to create the suspicion which had been removed from the public mind. I took the further step of offering to any responsible man in Durban—and I specifically excluded the hon. member for Illovo—suggesting that there was any truth whatsoever in this suspicion that I was prepared to place my banking account from the time I entered Parliament until that challenge in the hands of the secretary of the S.A. party in Durban. That offer has been open up till to-day and no one has taken advantage of it. I said if he could find anything shady or corrupt in any transaction I had undertaken I was prepared to resign my seat in this House. I do not know what more a man could do. The Minister of Justice has said he will not grant a select committee. I will grant the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) a select committee if the hon. member who apparently believes there is some truth in this accusation, will make that statement outside the House. I will then grant him that select committee, and I may say, incidentally, that it won’t be at the cost of the country. Let me come to the second case. The second part of the motion deals with “the alleged receipt of a letter by the hon. member for Umbilo said to have been written by a person in Durban”. At that meeting I held in the Town Gardens I read that letter and I gave the name and the address of the person who wrote that letter. I thereby risked, as the hon. member perfectly well knows, a libel action. I will read the letter. It so happens that in May, 1925, I left this House for a week in Durban and I got this letter dated the 4th May, 1925, addressed to myself at the Esplanade Hotel, Durban—

This is one of the pure white lilies of the Sandys’ regime—

I may say incidentally the Labour party have not benefited by one penny—

It is addressed from 314, Berea Road. I do not know who Mr. Siegert is but I read that letter out in the Town Gardens at a public meeting of 600 people and I gave the name and address.

Was this meeting advertised.

A few days later an advertisement appeared in the press from a firm of solicitors in Durban called Fowle and Fowle—in this case it is spelt Fowle—asking anyone who heard this statement regarding the writer of this letter to communicate with them at once. I saw this advertisement in Johannesburg. I came back and I got eight of my friends to communicate with this firm and to tell Messrs. Fowle and Fowle they had heard this statement. Nothing happened, there was not a single writ so I personally wrote to Messrs. Fowle and Fowle and I told them I understood they were having difficulty in getting witnesses to my statement and if that was the case I was prepared to repeat the statement from a public platform in the Durban Town Hall the following Monday night, and they Could bring all the witnesses they wanted and I would find them seats in the front row. I have not to this day heard a word about it. There is no question of “alleged receipt” of this letter. When I got it I went to see the chief magistrate, I said—

He said he did not know what the law was and asked me to see Inspector Hill. I took it over to Inspector Hill and gave it to him. I said—

He said—

I left it with him. That letter travelled to the public prosecutor who thought it was a matter for the Attorney-General, who said that unfortunately there was no law to cover the case. I had a letter from the C.I.D. to that effect. Just after I got this letter I returned to Cape Town, and in Cape Town I got the further letter. I took that letter which repeated the offer of the £500 bribe to Mr. Speaker himself and I asked him whether there was no method under Parliamentary-privilege whereby such a man could be put in gaol or put out of the way, and unfortunately, notwithstanding the ruling given by the hon. member for Illovo, Mr. Speaker could not find a way to do it. What more could I do? I had offered my banking account to the South African party for investigation; I have explained exactly what happened in connection with this appointment and I have read the letter. If the hon. member for Illovo wants a copy I will give it to him. If he wants my personal authority to see the original in the custody of the C.I.D. at Durban I will give it to him. If there are any other facts about which he is still unsatisfied I will give him what answer I can.

Why not have a select committee?

I offered you a select committee. I offered Mr. Siegert a select committee, and I am prepared to read this letter again in public without any talk of privilege whatever. I think Mr. Spargo, who made a fool of himself over the court messengership in Durban and who, at the time of appointment, was a capable man, was very prophetic when he wrote in this letter that such a statement as is suggested in this motion, but not put actually in words, can only be made for political purposes. It is political purposes all the way through. There is nothing against my character and I can assure the Minister of Justice that decent people in Durban do not believe there is, and they are satisfied. It is the people with whom the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) is accustomed to mix, who are not satisfied. It is the people whom he, with his devious methods, has stirred up who are not satisfied. I have a perfectly clear conscience, and I am not afraid of any investigations whatever.

I do not think the hon. member who has just spoken has helped the Minister of Justice very much in connection with this matter. He has, on the contrary, given two very strong reasons why a select committee should be appointed. In the first place, he said he was so anxious to have the whole trouble cleared that he went to the Attorney General with regard to his being called as a witness. Why does he not welcome a select committee to enquire into all the facts? I think there is another reason why a select committee is necessary—to enquire into this letter which the hon. member received promising him one-third of the fees of office if a certain gentleman were appointed as messenger of the court. I do not say it is the fault of the present Government or of any particular individual, but there is no doubt a feeling is abroad that appointments under the Government are to be had by favour and not by merit; and we saw from the resolution adopted by the Labour party in congress that they wished to get a share of the spoils. If any person gets an appointment under the Government he is expected, by some Labour men, at any rate, to hand over some share of the salary to the Labour party. That is the beginning of a very undesirable state of affairs, to think that any man is to get a public appointment oh condition that he hands over a portion of his salary to any political party. I am perfectly satisfied that the Prime Minister for a moment would never countenance such a thing. This letter which has been read shows the necessity for an enquiry into the whole circumstances of the case, so that this growing evil may be nipped in the bud. I quite believe that the hon. member for Umbilo got no money or personal benefit by this appointment, but the mere fact of a letter such as he read, being addressed to a member of Parliament, shows how wrong the Minister of Justice was in going outside the usual channels in making this appointment. The rules laid down by the Minister’s predecessor for these appointments ought to have been observed. It would have been better to conform to these rules than to have communicated with a private member regarding a matter of which he was entirely ignorant. If the hon. member had been an ex-magistrate or connected with the administration of justice, and the Minister of Justice had been dissatisfied with the advice he had got from the magistrate, one could have understood his referring to his hon. friend for advice, but to go to a man entirely ignorant of the duties of the office and of the qualifications required, who, in fact, recommended a man totally unsuited for the appointment, shows a very bad state of affairs. I think a strong case has been made out for an enquiry, because there is no doubt that the impression left in the public mind after reading the disclosures that took place in connection with the van Belkum case, shows as the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said, that the Durban messenger’s office was a den of thieves, and the matter requires to be cleared up. I will certainly support the motion.

I am sorry the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) is not in the House. One would have expected him to remain after the speech which he has just made. I have read very carefully through the records of the trial in the van Belkum case, and am of opinion that there was no evidence at all on which a reasonable man could come to the conclusion that the hon. member for Umbilo had benefited in any way pecuniarily from the appointment of Mr. Spargo. The only scintilla of evidence is that Mr. van Belkum’s advocate put a question to Spargo that he had made a statement to that effect, which Spargo promptly denied. After the statement the hon. member has made, speaking for myself, I am prepared to believe that he did not receive a penny, directly or indirectly, from that appointment. May I say, by way of criticism, that the hon. member’s statement is sufficient for me, and it does not take the matter further to say that he went to the Attorney-General and asked to be called as a witness in the van Belkum trial—the issues before the court were whether van Belkum was guilty of theft of certain moneys, not whether Mr. Reyburn was guilty of corruption. The only competent method of trying the matter of the personal probity of an hon. member is by a select committee of this House. If there were any real evidence to point to the fact that he had improperly been a party to a bargain, the only thing would be a select committee of this House. Secondly, some of the other asseverations the hon. member made carried the matter but little further. I am not carried to any greater degree of conviction by the statement that Spargo’s father signed, or what Spargo himself said, who seems from the record, to be one of the most consummate scoundrels that ever stood in a witness box in this country. While the hon. member quite successfully disposed of the major charge against him, I am disappointed that the hon. member did not dispose of the other charges made by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), of having used his political influence personally to secure an appointment to the office of the messenger in Durban of a man who is absolutely incompetent, dishonest and of profligate character, and of having acted as a sort of political boss in Durban. Having secured that appointment, he seems to have been in the position of keeping a supervizing eye on that office all through, thanks to his political power and that of his friends. When anything had to be done Spargo went to the hon. member for Umbilo for orders. When van Belkum was dismissed, the fact was notified by a telegram, not to the magistrate of Durban, but to the hon. member for Umbilo. Again and again throughout the picture the hon. member appears as using his political influence in this matter. I repeat, I accept absolutely every word the hon. member for Umbilo said in his speech. I do not believe there is a word of truth in the statement that he pecuniarily benefited by this appointment, but I express my regret that he has not addressed himself to the sworn evidence of the chairman of the Nationalist party in Durban as to the circumstances under which the appointment was made. Van Belkum states that at the end of 1924 he was doing Nationalist party propaganda work. Spargo came to his house and suggested that he had political friends who were prepared to support his appointment, but were rather dubious, and thought that if he, van Belkum, applied for the appointment he would have a better chance if he made use of his political friends in Pretoria. It was agreed, alleged van Belkum, that in the event of his joining Spargo’s staff he would receive £60 a month, the maintenance of a motor-car, and that he should hold the position as long as Spargo remained the messenger of the court. In another statement van Belkum said that Spargo stated that he stood in with the Labour party, particularly with the hon. member for Umbilo and the Minister of Labour, and that they were prepared to push his appointment, but van Belkum had a pull in Pretoria because he was a Nationalist, and there was a Nationalist ministry in power. It was arranged that Spargo, who previously drew £450 a year, was to get the job, which was worth £1,500 a year, and that van Belkum, who was already a member of the Durban Rent Board, was to receive £60 a month if he were to push Spargo’s claim retaining his Rent Board position at £150 a year. It was the influence of the hon. member for Umbilo and the Labour people in Durban that secured the appointment. This is a direct consequence of the policy initiated by the Minister of Justice in regard to the appointment of court messengers. I asked the Minister a question last year if the chief agent of the Nationalist party in Lichtenburg was appointed messenger of that court, and the Minister replied that such was the case. The Minister of Justice has persistently pursued the policy of getting rid of court messengers, and putting in their place the political friends of the present Government. This unsavoury, smelly case is one of the direct consequences of that policy.

Spargo was a Sap.

How is it that the hon. member, when he made his speech this afternoon, contented himself with an impassioned denial of ever having received money, left the major portion of the charges unanswered?

I said it before last year.

Will the hon. member tell us now what his interest was in Spargo, why he procured his appointment, and why he usurped the functions of the chief magistrate of Durban. He quotes Spargo to vindicate his honour; he must also take what Spargo said in the witness box.

I did not appoint Mr. Spargo, but I was asked if he were a suitable man. I asked the legal fraternity of Durban, and they said yes.

How many of them did you ask?

Two. I had never interfered with the administration of Spargo’s office in one jot or tittle.

It is curious that the hon. member is concerned in this at all. The hon. member has convinced me that he has not acted dishonestly and has not taken money, but there is a lot of secret work under this which we shall do no harm whatever in investigating. When you read van Belkum’s own story there can be no doubt whatever that there has been a lot of nepotism, not, however, owing to personal corruption on the part of the Minister or of the hon. member for Umbilo, but of this pernicious “jobs for pals” policy which has been the curse of the present administration and an honest Minister, in the political sense, who has nothing to fear would welcome a select committee such as that proposed by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). Nothing more discreditable, and I say it as a lawyer, in the history of the practice of the courts in this country ever emerged as emerged in the facts that were disclosed in the van Belkum enquiry. The disclosures were shocking. For a messenger to admit in the box that he took £300 from a subordinate for giving him a job, and that he leaves after three years with a deficit of £1,500, which, through the ineptitude of the Minister, cannot be recovered; then you cannot get away from it without a feeling of nausea and a feeling of despair, and it is the direct fruit of the Minister’s policy of using these appointments of messengers and deputy-messengers as the vehicles for giving positions to pals. No more sorry scandal ever existed in this country.

I would like to intervene just for a moment particularly as my name has been mentioned. First of all let me say the only justification for an enquiry into this matter would be if the other side had established a really sound case. The mover of this motion set out with the idea of dragging in the hon. member for Umbilo, in such a manner as would incriminate his character and honesty. He failed, and I am glad the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) entirely acquits the hon. member for Umbilo of these charges. If ever a man acquitted himself or vindicated himself in any charge, innuendo or insinuation brought against him the hon. member for Umbilo has done it. That should be sufficient justification for members on the other side to withdraw the motion unless they want to make party political capital out of the business. Justification for an inquiry would be if a case had been established for enquiry and the whole purpose of the motion has been to try and drag in the hon. member for Umbilo to show he acted in some way not in the interests of the country and in a way which is irregular and dishonest. That point has been completely cleared. The hon. member for Umbilo has cleared his character and proved he acted in a bona fide, honest and straightforward way, and for that reason alone I think the members on the other side should say they are satisfied and agree to withdraw the motion. That is with regard to the action of the hon. member for Umbilo in connection with the supposed corruption and bribery said to have been going on. How was it the hon. member for Umbilo was mixed up with the appointment? If the hon. member for Umbilo had been actuated by any desire to get jobs for pals by influencing political supporters or individuals, he would not have recommended the appointment of the deputy-messenger who had been in the magistrate’s court for a number of years and who was automatically the next man below the messenger. The Minister of Justice has shown why he retired the messenger in order that the country should have the benefit of the large amount of money received and the country is now receiving the benefit of thousands of pounds which originally went to the messenger. When he took the re-organisation step the question was who should get the appointment and, being a Durban representative, he asked the hon. member for Umbilo who he would recommend. The hon. member for Umbilo picked out the deputy-messenger who was actually doing the work, not it is true in the chief position, and even in spite of the fact that he was a political opponent of the hon. member for Umbilo. Where is your jobs for pals, and where is the honesty of your charges? If the member for Umbilo had been actuated by desires which you have suggested he would have gone outside this man and would have recommended someone who was a political friend or supporter. Instead, he takes the man who was the next for the position and recommends him. The second point, therefore, falls completely away. Now, with regard to myself. My name has been mentioned and I can tell you I had very little indeed to do with the whole matter. After the trouble started Mr. van Belkum came to me and said he had been dismissed on a charge of dishonesty, and I asked him if he was guilty and he said “No.” He said he was charged with misappropriating money and he also said—

That came out clearly in the evidence and as a matter of fact the judge himself, in acquitting Mr. van Belkum of the charge of dishonesty, said the fault was more with Mr. Spargo and the way the office was run. I had never met Mr. Spargo up to this point. When Mr. van Belkum told me this I said—

Mr. Reyburn and myself went to the office and we said—

and there was a discussion and I said—

There I began and there I ended. I was satisfied the department had the whole of the information and the matter was in the hands of the department and from that time to this I have not met Mr. Spargo.

Why were you anxious to interfere?

I was not anxious to interfere; Mr. van Belkum came to me and said he was not guilty and I was only too pleased to approach this man as I would have been only too pleased to do for the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) himself or anybody else if they had asked me. I think the main purpose of this resolution has been not on the merits or on the facts that anything wrong has taken place, but the whole circumstances surrounding it show that it was with a view of making political capital. Supposing Mr. Spargo or Mr. van Belkum had carried on their work quite satisfactorily there would never have been any attack or any charge against the hon. member for Umbilo for suggesting that particular man.

We raised it two years ago, before the scandal occurred.

Two years ago? Well, we cannot blame the courts. We are not responsible for that. Whose fault is it?

It was debated in this House.

It was criticised two years ago in this House.

No recriminations had been made at that time. What you criticised mostly then was the getting rid of Mr. Sandys. He was a member of the S.A. party. On the principle of looking after one’s friends, I think you got up and protested against Mr. Sandys’ retirement. But the Minister of Justice pointed out that he was doing it in order to save the country thousands a year which had hitherto gone to the messenger. Now the taxpayer gets that money. In the process of reorganisation this trouble has arisen between Mr. Spargo and Mr. van Belkum and that has caused the whole trouble. Nothing has been proved which in my opinion justifies the holding of an enquiry by a select committee of this House. If the hon. member for Illovo believes that the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) is in any way guilty, the hon. member for Umbilo has given him the opportunity of having the matter enquired into if he will be man enough to make the charges outside that he has made in this House.

It was very interesting to hear the explanation and the virtuous indignation of the hon. member for Umbilo but we must remember that every member of this House is privileged to say what he likes so long as he sticks to the rules. It is very interesting to see how the other side fear an enquiry, how they burke it. If the hon. member for Umbilo wished to correct the imputation made against him, it was his duty to ask the Attorney-General to call him as a witness after he had examined Spargo.

That is exactly what I did.

The hon. member never did that. I would like to ask him why he did not do it. I challenge the hon. member to deny that. He never went into the witness box. With regard to the meeting which the hon. member held in the Durban Gardens, where, he says, there were six hundred people present, I must say that the hon. member’s estimate of a crowd is very much exaggerated. If there were 50 people there, it would be about all. I would like to know what interest they had got in an explanation from the hon. member. Why did he not go to those who sent him to Parliament, his constituents in Umbilo, and make a statement or an explanation there? Instead of that he goes to the Town Gardens and he comes to this House and tells us there were 600 people there at an advertised meeting. I appeal to those who represent the Labour party in Natal and ask them whether it is not true that these meetings are never advertised. During the course of this case the judge very pointedly said that the appointment of Spargo had been made through the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn). The chief magistrate at Durban, through whom the appointment should have been made, swore on oath that he had never seen the appointment and had no knowledge of it. Will the hon. member explain, if he had no interest in this appointment, how it comes that his father-in-law (Mr. Turner) a very estimable old gentleman who has not been a success at hotel keeping, has received an appointment as deputy-messenger. Will he also explain how it is that Mr. Nettleton, the rejected Labour candidate at the last election, is also on the staff. It is curious and yet the hon. member says an attempt, politically, has been made to blacken his name. The hon. gentleman successfully did that in his first session when he had to apologies to the “Cape Times” and pay £50 damages. There is a precedent for this case. Some few years ago one van Eyssen made an allegation against Gen. Hertzog, and made a request for a select committee, which was granted. If the hon. member has nothing to fear, if everything is all right, then let him and his friends welcome this motion and have the enquiry to clear the matter up to the satisfaction of everyone, because in the history of this Government we have never had such a scandal as this.

The hon. member says we have not had a case like this for a long time. Not since the time of the “Argentine News.” I am not going to interfere in this. I know nothing about it, but I know as much about it as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). He said he was going to be fair and he proceeded to be most unfair. Surely one of the most unfair things you can do is to read the evidence of a crook like van Belkum and say it is true. He has been proved to be a crook.

He was acquitted.

You know that the case against the hon. member for Umbilo has been based on the evidence of this man. I went to Durban with the Minister of Justice, and the hon. member for Umbilo told me then and there why you must have nothing to do with van Belkum who pretended to be a friend of his, because “he is no good.” The charge has been made that the hon. member for Umbilo is working hand in hand with him; but the hon. member walked on the other side of the street when he met Mr. van Belkum and would have nothing to do with him. The warning was taken to have nothing to do with this man, who has deliberately gone into court with the object of prejudicing the hon. member for Umbilo whom he hates, and who has pulled him up on several occasions. The South African party is so short of powder that they want to make this a big political question; even their right hon. leader does so. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) sees this report and brings this to the attention of the House; but when you make a political question of it, the whole world laughs at you. There are three charges. A member of Parliament influences an appointment—a very wrong thing to do. I say members of Parliament should not influence appointments if they can help it. But has it never been done before? Have members of the South African party never given jobs to pals? I suppose Mr. Enslin was not made chief sheep inspector as a matter of a job for a pal? No, the mistake my hon. friend made was that he was a green and a young member of the House; he got a letter from an important Minister, and instead of keeping it to himself, he told everybody about it. It was published by the “Natal Mercury,” and article after article started with “My dear Reyburn.” This question of Mr. Spargo’s having been appointed did not come out of this case, but was discussed two years ago in this House. The hon. member was asked if he could find anyone suitable for the appointment. He did not know Spargo and, unfortunately, he picked a member of the South African party—his father was a leading member of the South African party, Greenhorn again! If he had only known as much of the South African party as we did, he would not have picked a member of that party. I went with the Minister when he asked the Durban magistrate—not the present magistrate—about this particular matter.

Why did you go?

Surely I had the right to accompany a friend of mine wherever I liked. The Minister was told that the office was all right. This happened at the time of the seamen’s strike at Durban. This unfortunate Spargo, was, I believe, quite a decent fellow, but he did what a good many young fellows do, he went to the racecourse, and when he could not pay his racing debts, started taking other people’s money. When he was appointed he was not a bad chap, but he fell. Durban is getting too delightful for the good old Durban of Wesleyan days is passing away. Are you going to blame the hon. member for Umbilo because this man stole money? He recommended for the appointment a decent young fellow whom he did not know, but who had a good certificate from the magistrate. The Minister accepted the recommendation in good faith, and everything went all right until they all started putting in promissory notes and taking out money. Many members of Parliament have recommended men to Ministers for appointment—some have turned out right, and some wrong. So that charge is not a grave one. The second charge is that the hon. member for Umbilo did receive a letter. He has read that letter. He brought it to me as an official of the House, and I asked him to see Mr. Speaker. The third charge is that Spargo paid the hon. member, but is there a man in this House who honestly believes that the hon. member made a penny out of this transaction? If hon. members knew as much of the hon. member for Umbilo’s (Mr. Reyburn) finances as I do, they would know he is a poor man, so poor that he cannot bring his wife and family down here and he has always lived the life of a poor man. It is an unfair charge which has been made. If we are going to fight let us fight cleanly and this is not a clean fight. It is an attack on the Labour party in Natal and it will fail just as the Flag Bill attack failed. That is not the way to fight the Labour party because they will gather round the hon. member for Umbilo and he will get hundreds of workers more than he ever got before. The hon. member will come cleaner and stronger out of the fight than before. I am glad the Government has refused the select committee. I do not blame the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) because I think it is the duty of members of Parliament to bring these matters up, but after the answer has been given … [inaudible]. Take no notice of this. It is not the serious matter the hon. member for Standerton (General Smuts) thinks it is. The press will hardly notice it. The charge has been made and has been answered by the hon. member’s speech and if the S.A. party are sportsmen they will accept the speech. The hon. member has been tried and found not guilty and he has left the court a bigger man than when he came in.

I have one or two words to say in reply to the statement of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn). He thought fit to state in the House that he had proof that before the van Belkum trial came on I was in communication with the counsel for the defence and interviewing witnesses. I can say without any hesitation that I had not spoken to Mr. Renaud, who defended van Belkum, for three years, until the other day I travelled in the same train with him as far as Maritzburg, and that was after this case had finished. Prior to that the only communication I ever had with him was in court. The only law case I have ever instituted was one in which Mr. Renaud was engaged on the other side, and he subjected me to as gruelling a cross examination as any man ever went through. I have only had a nodding acquaintance with Mr. Renaud, but I know he would be the last man to lend himself to being made a weapon for a political attack. I give the lie direct to the suggestion made that any such thing took place. As for the witnesses I had never seen or had communication with any one of them. As far as the hon. member is concerned, I should be glad if he would mention a single man who suggested this idea to him. All he has done is to read the letter from Mr. Spargo.

It is true.

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umbilo keeps repeating “It is true” in spite of the categorical denial of the hon. member.

Has the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) made that statement?

The hon. member kept on saying “It is true.”

Yes, I said in the corner here, “It is true.”

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw.

The hon. member also saw fit to suggest by name the person who was responsible for making a political attack upon him in the manner he described. He waxed rather boastful in saying that the only select committee he would offer me would be the opportunity of uttering these things outside, so that he could take his remedy against me. He himself has had the opportunity of stating outside the House what he has seen fit to say about me here to-day, and I wish to point out that when he made his speech in the Town Gardens in Durban he made this very careful reference. He said—

He was very careful, on that occasion, to say nothing libellous. As far as I was concerned, I was absolutely oblivious of the fact that I was even referred to. He was careful to guard himself against the possibility of my taking redress. Why should we as members of Parliament be obliged to go out of the proper tribunal for hearing these things into the market place and the highway and to court what he promises, a law suit, for the sake of protecting the good name of this House? Is it right that hon. members should, as he has done, simply have resort to threats in regard to this matter? My own attitude is that the whole of this ease reeks with an undesirable atmosphere, and to dispel that atmosphere the only cure and the proper cure ordained by the rules of this House, is to have an investigation. The Minister has seen fit to say that this is a vote of no confidence. I deny that. The whole of the procedure, not only in this House, but in the Mother of Parliaments and the Cape House shows that on such questions as these political differences do not matter. A proposition for a select committee raised on one side of the House is almost invariably seconded on the other, for the sake of the good name of the House. There is only one more point, and that is in regard to the great point made by the Minister of Justice as to the earnings in Durban. Mr. Sandys, who is still in Durban, has written to me on this question, and he says—

I have never defended the high charges, and I have never defended the principle under which a messenger received, in the large centres, all the fees. I commend this motion to the consideration of the House.

Motion put and Mr. Marwick called for a division.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—40.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, R.

Blackwell, L

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Close, R. W.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz, D.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

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

Noes—62.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal. J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le Roux.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

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

Motion accordingly negatived.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

May I ask if hon. members on select committees fail to turn up to-morrow or the day after, will they be fined £6?

That will be the position.

Motion put and agreed to.