announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the select committees mentioned, viz.—

This is a Bill of a technical and complicated nature, and in addition it is rendered more difficult by the fact that it is a consolidating measure. The Bill proposes to repeal 37 Acts at present in force in the four provinces in the Union relating to licensees and the liquor question in South Africa. Then, in addition, it contains nearly two hundred clauses and has five schedules, a few of which are of outstanding importance. In substitution for the Acts proposed to be repealed we have this Bill which is now before us. Under the laws which we propose to repeal there have been built up in South Africa interests of vast importance, and there is no doubt that a large amount of capital has been invested in the liquor trade. I think every hon. member will admit that the present Bill vitally affects the existing order of things. As far as the Cape Province is concerned the whole practice governing the licensing system is changed and new principles are introduced. If we look at this aspect it will be admitted that the House has a very great ta.sk before it in dealing with this very important measure. It is difficult, it is intricate, and I listened the other day to the Prime Minister when he read out to the House the number of other Bills of outstanding importance which he intends to introduce and, if possible, make law this session. I then wondered whether the Prime Minister fully realized the great work that lies before us in this Liquor Bill, and what amount of time would be required by members in order to give this measure that consideration which it deserves. Almost every clause in this Bill requires the most careful scrutiny. I think it is only when we are in committee on this Bill that it will be found how important and how difficult it is. I have no doubt that the Minister of Justice fully realizes the difficult matter which he has in hand, and I am certain that hon. members will not attempt to make his task more difficult, and I am sure that members will not shrink from duly considering this important measure just because it is difficult, because there is no doubt that from the moral and social aspect the country expects that Parliament should give due consideration to this measure and to the proposals contained therein. I hope the Minister will give members every latitude in order to discuss this matter thoroughly. As I look at this measure, the question appears to me whether we are not attempting too much by including all the important principles relating to the liquor trade and to liquor legislation in one Bill. I can assure the Minister that the task is tremendous, and in the course of the session it will prove most exacting. In a second reading debate time is naturally limited, and one can only now refer to a few of the principles which are incorporated in this Bill. The real discussion, as the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) remarked the other day, will really take place in committee, and then we shall have to come to grips with the important points raised in this measure. I personally intend today to deal with this matter from a few aspects. They will be only the practical and material aspects, and my remarks may be somewhat critical. But when we deal with a question like this we ought to face the facts and look at these points as they occur in the Bill and how they would apply in practice. My first point is this, that legislation in South Africa on the liquor question is doubly difficult and important, for the reason that in dealing with such legislation we have to take into account the existence of a very important private industry. I refer, of course, to the wine industry of the Western Province of the Cape. With all due deference, I would impress upon hon. members who are ardent temperance reformers up to the point of prohibition, that it is no good looking askance at this industry, or to look with an eye of contempt upon the industry of the wine farmer, but rather to recognize the existence of it in a broad and tolerant spirit. The wine industry does exist in South Africa, and it is one of the oldest and roost honourable industries. It has the right to claim from Parliament honest and fair dealing in whatever measures are submitted to the House on the liquor question. This is not the occasion to sing the praises of the wine farmer: it is sufficient for me to say that the present wine farmers and their forebears have contributed enormously to the pioneering and civilizing work of the sub-continent of Africa. That is so not only amongst Europeans, but I would say equally so amongst the coloured and native races. I do not claim that liquor reform in South Africa should be entirely subordinated to the interests of the wine farmers, but I do claim that in legislation on the subject proper and fair consideration should be accorded that industry. We must recognize that the wine industry is largely mixed up with and dependent upon the licensing system of South Africa; you cannot separate the one from the other. Our licensing system is the distributing factor for the wine farmer. It appears to me, in the course of this debate, and also in the evidence given before the select committee, that the tot system which applies on the wine farms is used to create not only prejudice against the wine industry, but also against the wine farmer, as a class. That prejudice, I am sorry to say, is clearly reflected in this Bill. Clause 98 practically sweeps away the tot system as it has been recognized and carried out on the wine farms in this country since its inception more than two centuries ago. Under this clause wine is allowed to be given once a day to the labourer in the employ of the wine farmer, but this so-called privilege is a most precarious one. Without assigning any reason a police sergeant can serve a wine farmer with an order that such privilege be cancelled. The only remedy the farmer has, apparently at his own expense, is to appeal to the magistrate, and the opinion of the magistrate on that subject is final. I can quite conceive that great difficulties may arise when you have to deal sometimes with magistrates and police officers who hold extreme views on the liquor question. But between the police officer and the magistrate the question is settled. If the wine farmer escapes the sergeant of police he may still fall into the hands of the Minister, who, under this section, has power to prescribe the class of wine that the farmer can give his labourers on this occasion—I think 4 o’clock in the afternoon. I think it is best called the “4 o’clock tot.” The Minister may further define areas in which this 4 o’clock may be abolished. Legally and apart from this 4 o’clock allowance to the labourer, if this clause becomes law, there will be total prohibition upon all wine farms in the Western Province. My experience of the tot system—and I am proud to say that I was born and grew up on a wine farm—leads me to the conclusion that our wine farmers do not merit this serious interference in the affairs of governing their wine farms. I feel certain that the Minister will experience eventually, if this becomes law, that the wine farmers as a body will resent the interference of police officers and even of Ministers of the Crown in the administration of the business on their farms. The policy underlying Clause 98 in regard to the abolition or the practical abolition of the tot system on the farms discloses a lack of knowledge as to how the business is carried on there. Not only during the pressing season, but practically the whole year through on several farms and in wineries farmers and their workmen are busy in their cellars making, fermenting and maturing wine, and it is during this fermenting stage, which often goes on for days and nights, that the farmers are busy in their cellars working with the wines, and in constant contact with the liquor. It is under such conditions that Clause 98 proposes to impose practically total prohibition under heavy penalties in case of contravention. There is another element in this; the tot can be given only to servants who are under monthly contract—I presume a bona-fide written contract between the master and the servant. Let me tell the Minister as a matter of fact that 90 per cent. of the labourers on wine farms are day labourers. In the afternoon when the farmers and his servants are congregated in the cellars intent on wine making, I presume there will be a signal given for the 4 o’clock tot, or that a bell may be rung. Ten per cent. of the servants will step forward to get the benefit of this tot, and 90 per cent. will not. The Minister knows that such a thing is impossible and impracticable, and cannot be carried out. This will cause discontent and increase the burden of difficulties which the farmers already have to sustain. Has the Minister ever considered the case of the grain farmer who, in the threshing season, has sometimes thirty to forty men engaged for about a fortnight. It is the invariable practice for the grain farmer to give wine to his labourers during that period of heavy toil. Now, however, the grain farmer will be confined to the one tot system, which will practically mean total prohibition so far as the workmen employed by the grain farmers are concerned, as all the men he engages are on the basis of daily servants. I would like to see the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) working on the threshing floor on a hot day to 4 p.m. before he was entitled to any liquid refreshments.

I would much rather have a glass of ginger beer. What is the good of heavy wine on a hot summer’s day.

I now come to the position of the coloured man under the measure. Generally speaking, the coloured man is very bard hit in the Bill, and will be under such very strict control as to amount practically to total prohibition. Although a coloured man may be highly civilized, a registered voter or a large property owner—there are hundreds of them in the Western Province—he is not entitled to take to his home a bottle of wine or beer. No, he must go to the canteen and drink it there. This is certainly not an appreciation of then standard of civilization, nor is it an application of the attractive doctrine of equal rights—economically and politically—for the European and the coloured man. Now I come to the natives in the Cape Province. The Hofmeyr Act at any rate, recognized native citizenship so far as the obtaining of liquor is concerned, but that is abrogated under the Bill. The educated and civilized native with the rest of the natives is now subjected to total prohibition right through the Union. This many of us consider a backward step. With regard to the additional burdens placed on the licensed holders under the Bill I am told that they will amount to £174,000 annually; that is apart from the proposal in Clause 104 regarding white labour which will make the burden still heavier. At present in the Cape Province a bar and hotel licence authorizes sales of liquor both for consumption on and off the premises. Under the Bill these licences will be confined to the sale of liquor tor drinking on the premises only, but as a remedy the Minister proposes that licensees may take out a bottle licence though for this privilege they will have to pay for the first issue of the licence £200 and for any subsequent issue £100. If a person wishes to commence a hotel business de novo he will have to pay licence fees for the first year £350 against the £50 now paid, which includes full privileges. The existing licensee of a hotel will have to pay £175 as against £50. The Minister proposes to give a ten years’ lease of life to separate bar licences apart from hotels, but to increase the licence fee from £45 to £200 and at the same time the Minister takes away the privileges with regard to the sale of liquor for consumption off the premises. For the first year under the Bill the separate bar licensee, if he decides to retain his present privileges, will have to pay £400 and in any subsequent year £300 where he now pays £45. Let us face these facts. I doubt very much whether this is going to make our hotels more popular. All our tourists complain there is no good hotel accommodation and they are much too expensive at present. If schedule 3 becomes law the tourists’ complaints will increase and it will not help to advertise our country. Let us not forget, that by increasing the expenditure of the licensee you thereby make more difficult the distribution of the wine of the wine farmers. I now come to what I consider to be the last point of my remark and what I consider to be a serious aspect of the Bill, and that is, the enormous power conferred upon the Minister. In the Cape Province where the people have enjoyed local option the Minister in certain areas is now substituted for the people and he must first give his consent as to whether a licence should be granted or not in areas outside the municipalities. Whatever the feelings of the people in such areas the authority thus far invested in the people is taken away and now reposes in the Minister and will so repose in future. If I look at Clauses 56 and 59, and I think the Minister will agree with me, it is in the power of the Minister to practically apply total prohibition in the whole of South Africa. I hope hon. members will carefully study these clauses. It can be done by proclamation and not by consulting the people. If I look at this measure as a whole, I consider it a measure eminently a measure for the autocrat and the bureaucrat. Tremendous powers are given to the police and the Minister in this proposed law. I have full confidence this Minister will be a sensible and a benevolent autocrat, but Ministers come and Ministers go, and I would not like to see such a Bill in charge of my hon. friend the member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), or the hon. member for Winberg (Dr. van der Merwe), or of the Minister of the Interior. Very soon we may have total prohibition in South Africa. I say that unqualified powers are placed in the hands of the Minister and before long this country may experience the full blast and the bad effect of these powers now proposed to be conferred in this Bill. I therefore conclude in asking members, irrespective of party—it is not a party measure—to consider it their duty to study closely every clause in the Bill and I can assure the Minister when we come to committee, he will find in many respects its proposals are unworkable and I am sure as a sensible man he will meet the interests of the trade generally and the interests of the wine farmers, and will put through the House such a measure as will be a measure for liquor reform and not a measure which tends in the direction of total prohibition for South Africa.

I am glad the Minister said that the Bill will not be dealt with on party lines. That gives every member the opportunity of expressing his own opinion, and I heartily thank the Minister. In 1926, when the Bill was referred to a select committee for the first time, I clearly expressed my views and mentioned the points upon which the public were most opposed to it. I said that if those points remained in the Bill I could not support it. The first was the extension of the tot system from the Cape to the Free State, and I am glad the Free State is now excluded. The second point was the granting of licences to restaurants. The third point was the canteen system and the fourth that anyone who was in favour of total prohibition could not sit on a licensing court. I am glad that the Minister has introduced a Bill which removes entirely two of the objections of the Free Staters. The tot system will not apply in the Free State. A person favouring prohibition will now also have the right to sit on a licensing court. These two objections have been removed, but unfortunately two remain. The first is the licensing of restaurants. This also has been a little improved, and the provision has been toned down though it still exists The alteration is that licences shall only be issued to restaurants that supply meals, and the Bill defines what an ordinary meal is, namely lunch, and dinner, and it may not cost less than 1s. 6d. per meal. Now I feel that the objection still exists, and it is a serious one. In other words such restaurants continue to be mere canteens, and in my opinion nothing else. Then the Minister has done nothing about bars. The State will carry on kaffir beer canteens in the town, and even in the districts. I am sorry that, whilst removing some of the objections, he has introduced others, namely wine and beer shops. As an old Free Stater I am proud of the Prime Minister’s statement in this House the other day that the best tiling the Free State has ever done was to abolish the bar system. I say “amen” to that. But why should that system be again introduced, and on worse lines than in the past, when it was such an evil? We were thankful in the Free State to he quit of the bars, and they were bars where only Europeans could get drink. No coloured person could obtain liquor. We felt that the system would be the ruin of the country and the people, and consequently it was good that it was abolished. If this Bill is passed as it stands, not only will the old system be re-introduced, but coloured persons will also be able to get wine and beer, and natives will be able to get beer in the kaffir beer shops. I would rather not think of the consequences, but they will be terrible. Surely the Minister sees that himself. If those three points, namely the licences for restaurants, wine and beer canteens, and the kaffir beer shops are not altered, I do not see how I can vote for the second reading. I cannot do it, when I remember what the canteens would mean to the Free State. I am convinced that the Minister means well, and is trying to improve the position, but these measures are vicious. In 1926 I pointed out that the canteens were called “shops.” I then said—“We must call a spade, a spade.” I do not call those establishments shops, but canteens. They have in part been altered, as in some cases canteens are referred to, in some beer halls, and in others shops. However, I do not wish to hinder the efforts of the Minister. We must understand one thing well, viz., that, although we now have Union, the interests of the various parts of the Union still conflict, and what is good for one part may be fatal in another. The Minister is convinced that the bar system is necessary in certain towns and villages, and that those licences ought to be granted. There are three ways of solving the difficulty for the Free State. The first is, I am afraid, perhaps impracticable, but the second is easy. The first way is to remove all the clauses regarding the system—the second is to make the law permissive. That practice formerly prevailed in the Free State, and in this Parliament as well. If there is any objection to it, then there is a further possibility of assisting us by only applying the law to towns and large villages, and then it must be defined what population such a village must have. The Minister must also not overlook that my constituency, and others, are on the border, and if the Bill is passed, as it now reads, in order to assist a few large villages, I say it will ruin the best part of the Free State. I am anxious to co-operate to improve the liquor traffic, and to put a practical measure on the statute book, but I cannot agree to assist certain parts, and ruin others. I do not only express my own opinion, but I have numbers of letters here, and a telegram from Ficksburg Dutch Reformed Church—they know my views—in which they request me to protest. I ask the Minister to accent one of the three proposals to remove the difficulties. As it now reads I cannot vote for the Bill.

After listening to the speeches of the last few speakers it is clearer to me than ever how difficult it will be for the Minister to please everybody. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) wants to create more drunkards.

What!

The hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) wants to reduce them. What policy must be followed to satisfy everybody?

The golden middle way.

I think that would be best, but I want to try to turn the debate on other lines, and to confine myself specially to kaffir beer shops. The use of kaffir beer has much increased in my parts, especially in the Transvaal, and the evil is getting greater every day. The farmers can almost be certain that on Mondays they will have no available workmen, and the work on that day suffers in consequence. In Clause 140 an alteration is made, and the use of beer practically limited to the inhabitants of kraals unless they have special permits from magistrates or native commissioners, which permits are issued gratis. Now it may well be that the drinking of kaffir beer will create more trouble and that the natives will constantly want to go to the villages to obtain permits. The Minister will say that the farmer can refuse a pass, but what about his neighbour? His neighbour will give it, and the result will be that the native will feel insulted, will leave his master and go to his neighbour. I think the Bill does not yet go far enough. I think the Free State law should be extended to the Transvaal, namely that natives should obtain special permits for drinking parties upon payment of £1. Let us bring kaffir beer under a licence. It is getting worse every day, and the powers of the police under section 48 of Act 32 of 1902 should be extended a little, especially on the country side. The powers are only valid for twelve miles from the nearest magistrate’s office. Beyond that special permits have to be obtained from the magistrate. There are many complaints against the police, but the police are innocent; the law is at fault. The law makes the police powerless; they can do nothing. If the native makes beer legally, he cannot be touched. The police have not the power beyond the radius of twelve miles of enquiring whether the beer has actually been legally made. The law lays down that it shall only contain 2 per cent. alcohol. Even 2 per cent. can intoxicate a man, but undoubtedly in recent years kaffir beer has become as strong as brandy. Then there is another good Act, No 32 of 1909 of the Cape Colony, under which the majority of voters in any ward can send in a petition to the Government to prohibit the drinking of kaffir beer in the ward. In the Cape Province this refers to the divisional council wards; there are no divisional councils in the other provinces, but there it can be applied to wards of parliamentary constituencies. Clause 76 (3) contains a peculiar provision It says that a man may not buy too little liquor. He must buy at least a certain quantity, namely, not less than one securely corked pint bottle. This affects the poor man wanting a little liquor for medicine, but who cannot buy so much. I do not know why that alteration has been made. Anyone who is a drinker or consumes liquor will certainly not buy such a small quantity. Provision is indeed made that for smaller quantities permits can be obtained from a doctor, but the doctor must issue them, and he will not do it for fun. It seems to me that the professional men on the commission have looked after their brethren. Nor can it be expected that the doctors should blindly issue certificates, because they will be terribly pestered. I call the Minister’s attention to this. In Clause 104 it is provided that Asiatics, natives, and coloured persons may be prevented from working in hotels, and that Europeans may be introduced. The difficulty will arise that for a certain time Europeans, Asiatics, and coloured persons will have to work on an equality with each other. I do not think this will answer. Perhaps the Minister can classify the hotels, and call hotels of 100, 150 or more rooms first-class, and the other second-class hotels, even if they are just as good as the former, and provide that European servants only shall be employed in the first-class hotels. Nor do I think that the country hotels can afford to employ European servants. I have here a telegram from the Unionist Church in Wakkerstroom in which they protest against the wine and beer shops for natives, coloured persons and Asiatics, and also against the extension of the tot system, the exclusion of local option, and the removal of the clause about treating. I do not wish to go into points one and three. With regard to the tot system I think it has good points, but also its drawbacks, and in the first place one of the latter is that the well-to-do-farmer or other person can afford to give his workpeople wine, while the poor man cannot. The result will be that the native will leave the poor man to go and work for the farmer who gives the tot. I foresee many difficulties in the border districts. The tot system will not be applied in Natal. I fear that the farmers on the border of Natal will lose their workers, who will go to the Transvaal to get tots from the farmers. Then a few words about the treating clause. Here I agree with the Church, and I do not see how anybody can be in favour of that system as it creates drunkards Young people go to a bar and if there are five or six, and one of them treats, then the others feel that they also must take their turn. It is an evil, and something must be done. The Minister said that drunkenness was decreasing. If it has decreased here in Cape Town, then I wonder what the previous state must have been.

I support the Bill. It is rather singular that it is opposed both by anti-liquor persons and by pro-liquor interests, which proves to me that it is the first effort which has been embodied in a Bill to do justice to the people generally. This is not the first time I have seen anti-liquor and pro-liquor people combined. It is rather usual in the Peninsula at election times. I am not surprised at the attitude the anti-liquor people have taken up in opposition to this Bill. There are certain amendments I will deal with in committee, but generally speaking it is an honest effort to bring about finality in a matter which has caused not only this House to waste a tremendous amount of time, but has meant waste of effort for all concerned. Ideals are all right, but we are in a practical world, and must deal with practical matters. Not only have the temperance people been discussing ideals, but the brewers and the liquor interests have also looked in and looked after their own personal interests from a financial point of view. We have had hotels, especially in the country areas, which have gradually abolished all accommodation for travellers, and it is utterly impossible not only to get sleeping accommodation but to get meals at a large number of these so-called hotels. While the political parties have been discussing anti-liquor and pro-liquor legislation, we have had on the one hand the temperance people agitating for ideals which are impracticable, and on the other hand the liquor interests looking after their own selfish ends. In the past we have had the brewers developing gigantic trusts. We have had a large number of speeches in this House pointing out what brought about prohibition in the United States. I have gone into the matter, and come to the conclusion that the, reason why prohibition was carried by a large majority there, was because the brewers had for years worked quietly until they created a gigantic trust which dominated the situation, not only from the financial, but also from the moral, point of view. In the United States there were very few free houses. It would be wrong for me to inflict a speech on the House on tied houses. If hon. members read the speeches made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) in 1926 they will find that these deal quite fully with the power of the trusts in this country. This Bill, if carried into effect—not as it is printed, but with the amendments which will be moved in committee—will do a great deal to bring about sobriety in this country. It will also put the trade on an honest basis, where hotels will be carried on in the true interests of the people, and not as at the present time by trusts for the mere creation of wealth for certain individuals. In committee I shall move amendments to do away with the trusts. As we find out, there are parallel instances in Australia and other countries where only one company or person is entitled to have a licence. Realizing also to a great extent we are servants of our environment, if a licensee is not controlled by trusts he will do his business on a better basis than at the present time. When a man is found guilty of a serious crime in regard to liquor matters, not only should the licence be taken away, but the premises should also lose the licence. If that were done people would realize that unless a bar were properly conducted not only would the licence holder himself lose his licence but the landlord also would lose the licence. That would force licence holders to carry on their trade in accordance with the law. With that and other amendments I am certain that the Bill will be a step in the right direction, and put a stop once and for all to the abominable agitation which is going on both sides.

I wish to congratulate the Minister of Justice on taking up this very complicated and contentious subject, but he might have shortened the debate if in his second reading speech he had given some explanation of the very drastic innovations he wishes to make in the liquor laws. There are big principles involved which he said nothing about. My object is to call attention to a few matters in the hope that the Minister will think them over before we go into committee on the Bill. Clause 5 lays it down that railway refreshment rooms and bars and railway dining cars shall not be subject to the provisions of the Act, except in regard to certain details such as the prohibition of the supply of liquor to natives. I fail to see why railway refreshment rooms and dining cars and bars should not be subjected to the same hours as other licensed premises are. A railway refreshment bar in a busy centre might keep open all night, although just across the road there might be licensed premises which must shut at 10 p.m. or 10.30 p.m. In Clause 59 the Minister takes power to prohibit the sale of liquor in areas which may be defined in a proclamation and in such areas liquor may be supplied only to persons having a permit from a police officer, but should a police officer refuse a permit a person may appeal to the commissioner of police. In all probability the Minister will have acted already on the recommendation of the police, and that being so I do not think the commissioner of police is the proper person to act as an appellate body. Why not empower the local magistrate to deal with these appeals? Again, why should not an hotel-keeper be allowed to continue the sale of tobacco, cigars, cigarettes or matches? Under the Bill a club will not be allowed to sell a packet of cigarettes, only the holder of a wholesale or bottle licence may do so. I think there must be some mistake in the drafting of this clause. Clause 91 lays it down that any occupier or owner of land may obtain a permit from the magistrate and by complying with the excise law make and sell liquor from fruit or other produce grown on his land. There was an agitation in the Transvaal about 15 years ago when the late Gen. Botha was asked to permit farmers to make spirits from maize, barley or other grain. Gen. Botha set his face against that proposal, but according to clause 91 of the Bill a farmer may make alcohol and call it whisky and may sell it to any licence holder or drink it himself. I think that is very dangerous, but I see no reason at all for preventing a wine farmer from making wine or brandy as heretofore. Why should not this matter go before the licensing board? I am against the tot system, for I do not see why a farmer, any more than any other employer of labour, should be permitted to supply his workmen with a tot, whether of spirits or wine. In this way a native may acquire a liking for alcohol, but when he leaves the employment of a wine farmer the result infallibly will be that he will obtain liquor illicitly. The clause is dangerous, and I shall oppose it as it stands. Then I am told that the progressive farmers in the Cape, where it has been the law, find no difficulty in getting all the labour they require without tempting men to work for a tot of brandy or a bottle of wine. I have spoken to several progressive farmers and that is what they assured me on that point. In the Western Province the tot system has led to a great deal of drunkenness. One of the Minister’s objects, in introducing this Bill, is to reduce drunkenness, which is very bad in the Western Province, and it is the consensus of opinion that drunkenness is largely the result of the tot system. I would like to say a few words with reference to Clause 104 dealt with by my hon. friend on the left (Mr. Duncan). I must say I was amused to hear the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) say the object of this clause was to widen the avenue of white employment. The clause does nothing of the sort. It simply says that no distiller, brewer or licensee shall employ either natives or Asiatics in the manufacture, sale or delivery of liquor. Coloured men may be employed, and nothing is said whatever that it is only Europeans who shall be employed. If this clause is passed it will displace a great many natives and Asiatics from employment and will mean the substitution of coloured men. White men will not take their place, except perhaps in a few places in the Transvaal where they hold a strong opinion of this matter, you might here and there find a white waiter taking the place of a native or Asiatic. It is particularly hard on the Asiatics. They are the best waiters in the world, and I must say I cannot see any good reason why they should be debarred from carrying on their work, and I am also very much surprised that the Minister of the Interior has said nothing about this clause. He was invited to do so on several occasions in the course of this debate. He was the man mainsly responsible on the Government side for arriving at the agreement with the Indian Government fully a year ago. He then said the stigma on Asiatics had been removed, and that he was going in for uplifting the Asiatics in this country and putting them on a higher pedestal. It is certainly curious that the Minister of Justice should now come along and seek to prevent these men earning an honest living He has said we might modify the clause and allow the Asiatics at present carrying on the work to continue to do so, but why may not other Asiatics engage on this work? It is honest work for which they are fitted, and they give satisfaction to the employers as well as to the public. It will not have the effect of driving them from the country. The hon. member for Troyeville said they could start work on the sugar fields. Of course they could, but if the hon. member for Troyeville found Troyeville unhealthy and stood for Zululand, we could imagine him telling the European workers in Zululand how he objected to the Indian working in the sugar fields, and promising that he would promote a Bill to prevent them working in the sugar fields. This clause should be dropped altogether. It is not fair and is not in keeping with the promise and spirit of the agreement made with the Indian Government. It is grossly unfair to the Indians. The Minister proposes that if these Asiatics are kept on in some of the provinces double the licences shall be paid by the employers. To begin with the licences are very heavy. For a new bottle licence the Minister proposes the payment shall be £200, and for renewal £100, but if the bottle licence holder employs an Asiatic he must pay £400 for a new licence and £200 for renewal. That seems to be quite unreasonable, and it is unnecessary to put this burden on hotel keepers and licensees, and I hope the Minister will not insist on it. The last point I would like to mention is the omission of any system of local option. Generally speaking, the community of South Africa is getting more sober. We can certainly say that with regard to the European population. During the 44 or 45 years I have lived in South Africa I have noticed a great change amongst the European population for the better. All the same, the public in any particular district, apart from anything the licensing board may do, should be in the position to say whether liquor licences should be granted or not in that area. Whether it should be done by memorial, as is the custom in the Cape, or by vote, as is the practice in Natal, I do not know, for the reason that I do not know sufficient about the memorial system to say which is the better system, but I do think a fair majority, not a bare majority, say 60 or 65 per cent. majority of the householders in the district should, if opposed to a liquor licence in the district, prevail, and the licensing board should take notice of that in what they might decide on the matter. I hope the Minister will adhere to his intention of making all the clauses in this Bill non-party. He was urged very strongly to make Clause 104 a party question, and I was rather amused at the hon. member who suggested it, because he said that when a question became a party question commonsense flew out of the window, and now he wants commonsense to fly out of the window and expects the Minister to whip up his followers. I am glad the Minister has no intention of doing that.

There is one point in the Bill which, in the interests of the majority of my constituents, I must bring to the Minister’s notice. It is Clause 6 (2) (b), which says that the wine farmers must only sell their produce to licence holders, and to no one else. Fifty thousand gallons of brandy are annually distilled in my district from grapes, mostly by small farmers, and when it comes to selling it, then they will be entirely in the hands of the licence holders. The farmers, after deduction of the excise, only make 1s. 6d. on a bottle of brandy. In the part of which I am speaking, the ground is suitable only for viticulture, and this provision causes great inconvenience, and will do the people there considerable damage. I do not hesitate to bring it to the Minister’s notice, because he told the people in my presence that they would still be free to sell their produce under the new law. Why has this clause been put in the Bill? Is it to protect the licensees? According to the Bill, the wine farmers are allowed to sell their wine to private persons, but not brandy. The Minister will ask, why then the farmers do not produce brandy instead of wine? The reason is that the rain comes there at harvest time, and the grapes are then so watery that it is impossible to convert them into wine. I hope the Minister will provide for this difficulty, because a large area along the Vaal River is interested. I hope the Minister will allow a licence for the sale of brandy to private individuals. What I ask is the legalization of what would otherwise be done illegally, as the people depend on it for their living. We all know that the wine farmers in any case allow strong drink to be got by private people. I do not, of course, say this openly to the people—

You allow them to read it.

Yes, they can read it. Some members have said that the wine farmers are decent people, and I agree. That referred to the Western Province, but I do not think that it is confined to the Western Province of the Cape. Why must the occupation of those people be so insulted? Why must the wine farmer be so maligned? Is he not respectable? Then there is another thing which in the interests of the inhabitants of the Western Transvaal I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. I understood that the diggings will come in the prohibited areas. Here we have another instance of a class of people who are not weak, a class of people who are far superior to those of the slums, and to others in the big cities, and therefore a good class of people. They are now prohibited from having bars in their areas. I want to ask the Minister to reconsider this. Places for light wine are now being permitted to coloured people. Are the people on the diggings then inferior to coloured people? Why should not bars he allowed on the diggings under Government supervision? Why cannot it be stated in the Bill that in certain areas light wines, and possibly also something stronger, can he sold under Government supervision?

Then we shall have much more trouble.

We cannot have more trouble than there is to-day. I only ask the Minister to legalize what is going on to-day illegally. The Minister will never be able to watch all the people on the diggings, even if he gets unlimited police. I want the Minister to have the power to allow bars to continue in certain areas under Government supervision. If it can be done elsewhere, it can be introduced on the diggings. It is difficult for me to speak in favour of the tot system, because I belong to the class of people who are opposed to it. I see no harm, however, in allowing the Transvaal what is already the custom in the Free State, and in the Cape. What occurs in one part of the country ought also, in the name of right and justice, to be allowed in the other parts. It is easy for people who sit in armchairs in offices to say that we should give our servants nothing, but when the servants work hard, and earn their bread by the sweat of their brow, and want a drink, there is no harm in it at all. I come from a part where it has always been the custom to give a servant a tot. I come from the Caledon district, and there we have always done so. I say the harm is not in giving the tot on the farms, but in the canteen, where the farm labourers go on Saturday, and spend all their money on drink. The farmer is not to blame. What farmer would be so foolish as to give his servants so much drink as to make them incapable? The farmer is on the whole a highly respectable man, and we must not cast a slur on his reputation, and prevent him from giving his labourers a tot through fear of his giving them too much. I cannot see why the giving of tots should only apply to servants under contract. Most formers now and then have casual workmen in their service, and why should they get nothing? Can we not leave it to the farmer to give his casual workers a drink as well? I do not know whether it is the custom among our farmers to give a tot as a part of the wages. If it is so, then it is a great evil. But I have never seen it. My experience is different. The farmer who employs people should be entitled to give his servants a tot, not only at 4 o’clock in the afternoon, but now and then in the course of the day to make the man stronger, and to encourage him. It is surely a fact that the moderate use of drink is not an evil. In this connection we must go by the Bible. The Bible does not prohibit the moderate use of drink. Whatever the churches may say to-day, the Bible will not do so, it is not Christianity. Christianity is not against the use of drink. Wine is used in Holy Communion. To get out of the difficulty, it will be said that that is a different kind of wine. It is not a different wine, it is an intoxicating wine, and nothing else. People do not come to communion to get drunk, but they use it as a symbol. If it can be used as a symbol, then the Scriptures do not prohibit it, and if Paul could recommend Timothy to drink a little wine to strengthen himself, then we surely cannot say that the use of drink is forbidden in the Bible. I should like the Minister to consider that point a little, not to allow the Bill merely to provide something about workmen under contract, but to allow farmers more discretion. I am not in favour of unreasonable interference with the sale of liquor by the liquor industry, which is doubtless a respectable business. I come to Clause 104 and the employment of coloured people and natives. I do not think that those who object that white men will replace Indians are much concerned about the Indians. They favour probably the desirability of the hotel keepers further exploiting the Indian. We know that the Asiatics were introduced into the country in the past as cheap labourers for our sugar industry. People talk on the one hand of the desirability of putting the Asiatics out of the country, and, on the other, they advocate their employment as waiters in hotels. One hotel in Pretoria, the Grand Hotel, made an experiment with European girls as waitresses. They introduced white labour into the hotel, and from what the manager tells me, it is a success. We must, as much as possible, find fields of employment for our people. As long as we have an Asiatic here, we do not grudge him his living, but we must give the first opportunity to our own Europeans. I want to add that if the Minister is not going to stick to the provision that the liquor producers may sell their drink to anybody, and not merely to licensees, he will have much trouble from my constituency for not keeping his word. This is not a threat, but a warning. The Minister must not forget that liquor sellers must keep their brandy for three years before they sell. This is a great obstacle to people who live from hand to mouth, but the Minister must not go further, and prohibit the sale to anyone other than a licensee. This will cause the small brandy farmers in my district great trouble, and make it almost impossible for them to earn a living.

The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) the other night spoke to the House on this Bill for more than sixty minutes. His speech was no doubt prepared with great pains and delivered with great care. He gave us a large amount of statistical information, and quoted a large number of figures. I am not going to traverse those statistics, but there is one point upon which I must join issue with him. He, however, first indicated that in wine drinking countries there was not so much drunkenness as in spirit drinking countries. I am not prepared to either dispute that or admit it, but I can bring plenty of proof to show that alcoholism is very rife in wine drinking countries also. The point on which I wish particularly to join issue with him is his statement that the moderate use of alcohol is beneficial, and indeed tends to longevity. He mentioned the experience which an English life insurance office had; he gave different periods of age, and claimed that there was a difference of less than one per cent. in favour of the man who took alcohol in moderation. If there is one thing incontestably and uncontrovertibly established, it is that the use of alcohol, other things being equal, tends to shorten life, and that the man who abstains reaches greater longevity. I rely, not so much on medical opinion, but on something far more reliable—not that I wish to disparage medical opinion, but it goes wrong sometimes. I rely on the actual experience of life insurance offices, extending over a long period of years. I have here a book which I recommend hon. members to read. It is entitled “The Drink Problem of To-day.” It is not a temperance work, or that of a partisan; it deals with the subject from its scientific side, and has contributions from the most eminent authorities of the day. The book deals, i.e., with the biology and psychology of alcohol, the medico-legal relations of alcoholism, and so forth. I wish to refer to the chapter which deals with alcohol and life insurance. Three questions are asked, the first of which is, “Does the excessive use of alcohol tend to shorten life?” The answer to this is that it is the universal experience of offices that the excessive use of alcohol undoubtedly shortens life. The second question is, “Does alcohol, taken in moderation, shorten the probability of the length of life?” The answer is that an increasing number of statistics over an increasing number of years show that only a moderate amount of alcohol, habitually taken, tends to shorten life. The third question is, “Do total abstainers show greater longevity?” The answer is in the affirmative. In 1840 a Quaker named Robert Warner applied to a London life insurance company to have his life insured. As he was a total abstainer, which was something unusual in those days, he was informed that he would have to pay an additional premium. Warner demurred to this, as he believed his life to be a superior one in consequence of his abstinence, and started a life insurance institution named the United Kingdom Temperance and General Provident Institution. This association’s actuarial statistics from 1866 to 1914 are before me, that is, for 49 years. They show that in the general section for this period the number of expected deaths are 91.72 per cent., and in the temperance section 69.45 per cent., or an excess of the former of about 22 per cent. in favour of the temperance section. Another company, the Sceptre Life Association, with an experience for 31 years, shows the expected deaths in the general section are 79.04 per cent., and 50.99 per cent. in the temperance section; other companies give figures of 66 and 46 per cent. respectively, and there are still others mentioned here with similar experience. So recognized has this truism become, that abstainers live longer than non-abstainers, that you find insurance companies which give lower rates to abstainers; for instance, the British Equitable gives a reduction of 5 per cent. on whole life policies, and another a rebate of 5 per cent. The Royal London, 5 per cent., the Sun Life 5 per cent. to abstainers. The Yorkshire has instituted a special section for abstainers. By this arrangement, the latter have received a substantially larger bonus than has gone to non-abstainers. When a total abstainer insures in an ordinary life office, owing to his greater longevity, he contributes to the amounts received by the non-abstainers. My advice to abstainers is that they should insure with companies which give reduced terms to abstainers. I hope we shall hear no more of the fallacy that the moderate use of alcohol tends to the lengthening of life. There is no doubt that liquor reform is badly wanted in South Africa. Our annual drink bill is a colossal one—I think it is about £11,000,000. The Western Province is drenched, nay, sodden, with liquor; the towns are wet, the countryside is still slightly moist, and the only place in the Union which is absolutely dry is Alberton, a small suburb of Johannesburg. Reform of the liquor laws during the years I have been a member has frequently been urged, but nothing has been done. We have had several commissions, including the Rooth and Baxter commissions, to enquire into aspects of the subject. The latter sat in 1918, and urged many useful reforms, but nothing has been done during all this time. I must express admiration of the Minister in having tackled the question, and congratulate him on his earnest desire to bring about an improved position. He is entitled to every assistance from the House. Unfortunately, any reference to the tot system is construed as an attack on the wine farmers. I know a good many of them. They are honourable and upright gentlemen. The Baxter commission included wine farmers and representatives of all political parties, and their unanimous finding will be found on page 15 of the commission’s report. Some of the farmers alleged before the commission that in order to secure labour, it was necessary to continue the system, but others said it was wholly unnecessary. The commission came to the conclusion that the giving of liquor in part payment of wages should he prohibited. Some of the amendments suggested by the commission are included in the Bill. Some years ago, with Senator Tucker, I visited the beautiful district of Montagu, and we saw the usual week-end spectacle presented by drunken, degraded, debauched and debased coloured people. I met a Mr. Barry, a producer and vendor of alcohol, and he volunteered the information that liquor undermined the constitutions of the coloured people, who died from tubercular disease like flies, he said, and in three generations they would die out. One cannot denounce too strongly the attempt of the Minister to extend this tot system to other parts of the Union. I am a Rand pioneer, and shall never forget the terrible sights witnessed on the Rand when liquor was easily obtainable by natives. I hope the Government will, above all things, keep out of the liquor business. A good deal has been said about Clause 104, the object of which is to drive the native and Indian out of the liquor trade altogether. I can only describe action of that sort as deplorable. We are driving the Indian and the native out of his job because we are afraid he is too good for us. A great deal has been said about the Indian side of the question, but what about the native? Has he no rights? Surely he has a right to employment. I have been for over 20 years on the committee of management of one of the biggest clubs in the country, and my experience was that where liquor was tampered with and filched, the man who drank the club’s property was not the native, but invariably the white man. The native, who in his work is a gentleman, and clean in his habits, does not touch the white man’s alcohol. I hope the Minister is determined to put this legislation through, because the present position is introducing uncertainty into the country. There should be some finality. The ideal position I have always considered is prohibition for both white and black, but one realizes that is a counsel of perfection which cannot be brought about at once. Whilst we want improved liquor legislation, above all we want example. I think we are paying too dear for this form of indulgence. It is not necessary for a man’s health, and we have to pay heavily for the gaols, the upkeep of police and hospitals, and in addition it lowers the efficiency of the people. There is no doubt, the people of this country would do far better and far more work if less alcohol was consumed, and in regard to this an example might be set by the European population. Alcohol causes crimes of the most ghastly character, and is recognized by competent authorities as the most fruitful source of crime. Unfortunately, a section of the people are driven by stern necessity—I don’t excuse it—to selling liquor to the natives, from which greater crimes result. The responsibility rests upon us to raise these people to a higher plane. The responsibility rests upon us to give an example to the rest of the population. Many men, and there are some in this House, who I have heard talk “dry,” but live “wet.” It is quite easy to talk about the curse of alcohol and the harm it does, and to be content with saving that so long as it is to be had to say. “I shall have my tot,.” I claim to he an authority on this subject, because I have been through both phases. I was a pioneer on the Rand, and I have often been in a bar when a man has asked what’s your “poison.” He does not know how near the truth he is. A poison undoubtedly it is. And when he says—

he does not know how near he is to the truth again. It certainly will be shorter; I cannot say anything for its merriness. I shall close my remarks with a quotation which will appeal to most of the members of this House and to the public outside. It reads—

We have been told that this is a good Bill because our friends say it pleases neither side. I think that is rather a dangerous idea. As far as I am concerned, there are many good things in this Bill, and there are many bad things, and, therefore, one can understand my friend, the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) when he asked why it is the “drys” and the “wets” and the half-drys and the half-wets are united against this Bill. The sale of yeast is a dangerous thing, and in that respect, therefore, it is a good Bill. There are a tremendous number of hotels in South Africa where the sale of liquor is the primary consideration, and, in many cases, the only consideration. If one travels through this country, especially the outlying towns, what does he find? He finds beautiful bars with every comfort and convenience for those people who come to drink liquor, but if he comes for the food and bedroom accommodation, it is a disgrace to any country. In connection with this Bill I want to say frankly I am not yet convinced. I hold no brief for Government canteens, or the nationalization of the liquor traffic, and I am not yet convinced if the municipality or the State was conducting this particular trade it would not be an improvement upon the present system. Therefore, in the committee stage, I am not prepared to oppose this particular clause. If the State or the municipality acted from the right point of view, I think it would be an improvement, because they would act for the good of the community, and they would take every step possible to supply pure liquor, and they would refuse to supply any person who had had enough. The basis of the State or municipality should be “service and not profit,” but the question is whether the municipality or the State would follow this policy. If they, like the hotel-keeper to-day, considered the sale of liquor and the making of profits as the primary consideration, it would be no improvement on the present position. I hope during the committee stage the Minister will be prepared to agree to amend Clause 13. I notice he makes provision for a certain number of councillors to be on the local licensing board. I feel that we have the evil now of the vested liquor interest in our Parliamentary elections, and we do not want to see that evil extended to the municipal elections. It would be one of the worst things that could happen in the municipal life of South Africa to see members of a town council becoming members of a board for issuing licences. If that is done it simply means that instead of the citizens electing people for the purpose of improving their town, the whole force of the liquor trade of South Africa will be thrown into the election to secure their nominees on the public body. That is going to be to the detriment of South Africa. My experience leads me to this conclusion that you would have far cleaner and far better administration in connection with the issue of liquor licences in this country if the board were to consist of three magistrates and you eliminated outsiders altogether.

Bureaucracy, not democracy!

I do not understand what my hon. friend is getting at. As far as I am concerned the thing that actuates me is to try and avoid on all possible occasions anything in the nature of undue outside influences and my experience is that however good and straightforward a man may be, there is always a tremendous amount of pressure both from members of political organizations and from people and their friends to grant a certain person a licence. I have never yet been approached and asked to use my influence in connection with a magistrate on a licensing board, but I have been approached and asked to use my influence in connection with other persons sitting on the board. The hon. gentleman (the Rev. Mr. Rider) will be able to stand up later on and tell us why he thinks the elected representatives of the people are the best persons to be members of that board. Personally, I think it is going to be an evil day for South Africa when the liquor question intrudes into the municipal elections of South Africa. It seems to me on reading this Bill, in spite of the opinions expressed by some members, that members of a temperance organization are still excluded from serving on a licensing board. The Minister is quite right in my opinion in excluding any man who has any financial interest either in the liquor traffic or in suppressing the liquor traffic. Whether it pays a man one way or the other, we say we cannot get impartial consideration.

I am prepared to exclude all disqualifications. That is the best way out.

Yes, to exclude any person who is financially interested is as far as one can go, but if you are going to exclude the teetotaller you must have a disqualification for the man who drinks too much.

Cut out the whole of Section 15. That will meet everybody.

I would like to come to the extension of the tot system. There is no doubt that the tot system is a part of the truck system and we know in this House that when it came to a question of signing stop orders for the supply of groceries and necessities to some of the men working on the Rand, this House said that it was entirely opposed to the truck system and abolished that system, but it is in favour of the truck system when it comes to the supply of wines and liquors to the native or coloured people in this country. It is an iniquitous system at the best, but I say that this House, being opposed to the truck system, I cannot see how it can agree to the payment of wages in the form of liquor. Take this particular clause. It states that tots shall not be supplied before 4 p.m., and then only in certain quantities and that they must be supplied in the presence of the employer or his European agent. I would like to ask the Minister bow many additional police he is going to employ in South Africa to see that this particular clause is carried out. It would be absolutely impossible to see that this clause is carried out properly. What will be the result? The result will be that instead of getting one tot at 4 o’clock, or after 4 o’clock in the afternoon, as the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has pointed out, there will be tremendous injustice to the man who works from 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. without getting a tot. The result will be that kind-hearted, generous employers, like the hon. member for Caledon, will give the tot at 10 in the morning, as well as one at 4 in the afternoon. Who is going to stop it? If this system is extended there is not the slightest doubt that the law is going to be broken. In the Cape and Natal it will be legal to give the tot in the rural areas, but it will also be legal to give it in the urban areas, while in the Transvaal and Free State it will only be legal to give the tot in the rural areas. With this differentiation between the provinces, I ask what becomes of the great principle of the consolidation of laws in South Africa when we are going to perpetuate this system of having one law in the Cape and Natal and another law up-country. The incentive to work under this system is going to be the amount of liquor that certain individuals can obtain from their employer. The unscrupulous man, the unscrupulous employer, will have a tremendous advantage in securing labour over the scrupulous employer. If a white man in South Africa can work all day in this country, which is supposed to be a black man’s country, if he can work from early morning till late at night—and I have done it on the mines of the Rand—without having his tot handed to him, the native can also do it, and there is no more hardship placed upon the native than there is upon the white man. As a matter of fact, on the mines of the Witwatersrand the men are not allowed to have drink on the premises. The people in the Transvaal do not want an extension of this tot system. There is not the slightest doubt about that. I would like to ask the Minister what becomes of this great principle that the House agreed to a year or so ago, that every employee should receive his wages in cash and not in kind. The Government are now introducing legislation to ex tend the very system they previously condemned. It is a most dangerous proposal and one that every man in this House, whether wet or dry or half-wet or half-dry should oppose. I am not a temperance fanatic. I am entirely opposed to the re-insertion of the non-treating clause, because I do not think we could possibly carry it out. I say quite frankly, that if I felt like having a glass of beer I would go and have one, but it is the abuse of the liquor trade that one wants to see done away with. I am not in favour of prohibition, but I am in favour of local option. I believe by that method we educate the masses of people on the question. Take Observatory; if you go from Observatory on Saturday nights down to one of the neighbouring areas, you will see the advantages of local option at Observatory. You will see the difference in the crowd. Let us come to this question of the employment of whites in this particular industry. I have been told that if I oppose this particular clause, I am likely to be misunderstood; that, if I say a word against it I will be taken as being opposed to the extension of employment for white men, and I will be labelled as wishing the black man employed in preference to the white. Even at the risk of that, I intend to oppose this particular clause, apart from any question of the Indian agreement—and that is of importance, because if we have entered into an agreement, and we intend to carry out that agreement we should do so, and if we do not intend to carry it out, we should not pretend we are going to do so. Let us be honest and frank and straightforward.

Do you say it is contrary to that agreement?

What principle are we fighting for in connection with this clause? In fighting for this clause, can we plead in justification that although we may be doing an injustice to the coloured men or the natives, that we have this justification, that we are fighting for the preservation of the white race? I say no, we cannot plead justification in any circumstances. Can we plead it is in the interests of the safety of life and limb of the people of South Africa? We can in connection with the mining regulations, but in this case we cannot. Can we say it is in the interests of morality? We cannot even plead that. If we were acting in connection with illegal the employment of native houseboys all over South Africa. Can we plead contamination of the food supply? We cannot plead that. If we were acting in connection with bread, or the meat industry or the milk industry, we could say we were out to see that the food supply of the people is not contaminated. We cannot plead that because these men are handling barrels and bottles. Is it to prevent the natives from drinking? We cannot even plead that, because we allow the native behind the bar to wash the glasses and drink the dregs. If you were to attempt to plead that you would be contradicted, because we are extending the tot system throughout the length and breadth of the country, and we are agreeing to Government wine and beer shops to supply Asiatics and natives. I agree with the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) when he said we passed a Colour Bar Bill and we have never yet put it in operation. We are going to employ the white people of South Africa in this industry—and I wish the House to understand that I do not sneer at or look down upon any class of labour in this country—we are going to supply dead-end openings in this particular industry for our children—what for? As errand boys to ride bicycles with beer in a basket. We are going to provide openings for men to roll and handle barrels of beer and for men or girls to wash bottles. We shall open occupations as waiters or waitresses in our hotels. Every one of these is a blind alley occupation. While we are doing that in another department the self same Government are allowing natives to work at drill-sharpening and engine-driving in this country. Here we place the whites on the lowest possible rung of unskilled labour. Yet we leave opportunities where we have the power to extend the field of employment in directions which need more intelligence. We leave those avenues entirely untouched. We drive the natives and Indians out of this particular occupation—where to? They are not going to die. They are going to compete with white people in South Africa in other occupations. So that hon. members who are fighting for this particular clause are going to drive the natives out of an occupation in which we do not wish to see our sons, and driving the natives into better occupations. If we really wish to do anything in this particular industry to provide a higher class of labour, we have the remedy in the Wage Board. At what wages will the whites be employed? What are they going to get as unskilled labourers washing bottles? They are not getting a living wage to-day in our restaurants, if you consider the hours of labour and the work done. This is a transference of the white man to a lower sphere, and the lifting up of the native to a higher sphere—just as we see natives doing painting work and a white man shifting a barrel. This is not the way to tackle the native question. I speak for myself, and I do not intend to speak for my party or for any section of my party on this question; in committee I intend to vote against this particular principle, whether my attitude is understood or misunderstood. I feel that this proposal is not in the best interests of the people of this country. You hear about “Socialism in our time,” “measures not men” and “principles not expediency.” If this is the best you can achieve, I say “God help South Africa.” If this is the best this Government can do for the white people of South Africa, and to open up possibilities for white people, I say that this Government does not come up to expectations. If we are prepared to deal with the native question on right lines let us do so, but if we are to continue having the native living amongst the whites and having his small say and treating him like a white citizen, I feel it is going to be a very sorry day for the white people. Let us tackle the native question on right lines, and let the natives develop in their own territory. This is not the way to develop the white man. I am not in favour of extending the tot system—party whip or no party whip.

It is not a question of the party whip—it is a non-party question.

One hesitates to occupy any further time in this second reading debate. I should like to mention a few points, and leave the discussion of the clauses to the committee stage. I want to emphasize a few general characteristics of the Bill. I am glad that the Minister introduced it at the beginning of the session. During the recess I heard on all sides of people who boasted that they would see that the Bill did not pass this year. I am therefore glad, and we who are fighting drunkenness will assist him to get a good Bill passed as soon as possible. I hope the House will allow me first of all to make a short statement of a somewhat personal nature. The Minister in his second reading speech referred to what was said in the House last year in connection with the small commission that was dealing with the Liquor Bill, and the impression made by the Minister’s words was that the work of that commission had been spoken of somewhat contemptuously, as if it was not really worth the money that the commission was paid. It looks, unfortunately, from Hansard, as if he referred to words which I used, and therefore I want to make a few remarks to show what I meant. If the Minister will read my words again, he will see that that was not in the least the tendency of my words. On the contrary, I have great reason for thankfulness about the work of the commission. It did much good work, and the small amount of money cannot even be called recompense. If four times as much had been paid, it would not have been sufficient. I have thus no contempt at all for the commission’s work. If the Minister refers to my remarks, he will see my point was quite different. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) time and again in this House made a great show of objecting to members of Parliament sitting on commissions, and he especially jibbed at members of Parliament dawing payment for work on commissions during parliamentary sessions. It was to those views of his that I called attention, and I said that I could hardly understand the mentality of anyone who was so opposed to persons sitting on commissions, and who as members of Parliament perhaps drew extra fees during the session, was yet himself willing to sit and draw fees whilst in his own home, perhaps doing the work at night for which he drew his fees, and his own work during the day. Not that I like making an attack on the hon. member, or am fond of poisonous deductions, but yet it is an argument which one is entitled to use in this House. Perhaps the hon. member can explain his attitude. I do not in any way intend to minimize the work of the commission. I should have been sorry if the hon. member had not been on the commission, and I think that in the course of his ordinary work he has often drawn more fees for work which has not cost him a hundredth part of the time that the work on the commission did. I mention it, however, in connection with criticism which the hon. member made on other members. After this statement I will mention a few points in connection with the Liquor Bill. If has often been said here that the object of the Bill is consolidation, and that it is not the intention to introduce any drastic new principles into our liquor legislation. I want to remind the Minister that so far as I know the pressure from this Bill originally came from the present Prime Minister, who during the first debate on local option tabled a motion to review the liquor laws of the country, and once and for all to make a strong effort to restrict the abuse of liquor. Therefore, it was not only the object to bring about consolidation, but also an attempt to see how far the existing drink evil could be done away with. I admit that the Minister has here made an attempt, but it is one that in many respects does not go far enough. I am sorry that the select committee of 13 members of this House did not have a little more time to go into the matter. It was a representative body, and could have gone into all the details. I think it would have saved a great deal of the time of this House. They had already heard much evidence, and could have gone into the details of systems which had already been tried to see whether anything could be done in our country to put the liquor traffic on such a basis that we could properly control it. Often, in this House, portions of the Liquor Bill have been referred to—I might almost say frivolously—as if the drink evil was not such a very great one. One speaker after the other said that the country was becoming more sober. Whether or not this is true, I do not wish to deal with here, but the abuse of liquor is still a terrible evil. If the House could see during the debate the thousands of families that have been ruined and young, talented people who have been lost to our country, then it would, I think, consider the matter more seriously than it does. I do not say that this or the other remedy is the only true one. On the last occasion I myself introduced a motion for local option, but had little success, but although I think that it is a more powerful remedy in the fighting of the drink evil, I will not say that there are not perhaps others that would answer well. Therefore, we must go into the matter thoroughly. I do not know whether hon. members have taken particular notice of the drastic alterations that have been made in the Bill. It is a known fact that formerly, but especially in the Cape and Transvaal, more local control existed than will be the case under this Bill. The Minister has continuously reduced local control until nothing remains. The petition system in the Cape Province and the Transvaal has been entirely taken away. The quota system does indeed appear in its place, and this is small compensation, but only in part. The people object that the local bodies will have no further voice in the matter of the establishment of canteens. Recently at Bloemfontein, in the Hilton area, we had the case of almost the whole public strongly protesting to the railway authorities, and yet the licensing court granted a licence. The Minister is systematically taking away every bit of local control, and is centralizing everything. There was the system of petitions in the Cape. It may be true that the drink traffic often exercises influence on the nominations, but the public could surely exercise pressure in their own neighbourhood. But the Minister abolishes it, and the municipalities can still have members on the licensing courts, though they do not themselves make the appointments. The Minister will appoint them. I should like to see it provided for the municipalities to have the majority on the courts. Then there are the native territories. There, too, the local authority is to be taken away, and the municipalities will no longer have the right to decide whether they will have canteens or not. The views of the local public will not have expression. I come to another point. I think the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) said that virtual prohibition for coloured people was being introduced. I think it is exactly the opposite. Where there was any prohibition, the Bill now takes it away. Nowhere does it continue except in small areas specially proclaimed. Hitherto we had total prohibition for the native population, and here I want to meet the Minister a little. I can see that conditions cannot continue as they are to-day, viz., total prohibition for a portion of the population, while the other portion can get as much as it wants. Everybody will feel that that is intolerable. If we do not want total prohibition for everybody, then I think we cannot impose prohibition on a section, and in that way bring them into temptation. Then the only thing is that we are making it harder for a man to get liquor for smuggling, and it is so easy to-day. The white population is not ready for total prohibition, and I admit it. We must therefore make the permit system so severe that it is difficult to get hold of drink. And then I see no other means of reducing the temptation than by giving the natives liquor in some way or other. To that extent I agree with the Minister. But we must allow that something to be obtained under strict supervision. As to the tot system, I do not wish to go into details, but want to say that I believe that if the Free State system were applied throughout the whole Union it would not be a great danger to the people. It has been in force there for many years. The master simply gives the natives a tot, and there is no stipulation about its being after 4 o’clock. I do not know whether that is of any importance in any case. It makes no difference to me if a tot is to be given, whether it is given in the morning or the afternoon. The tot system in the Cape Province, however, is a different thing, and I fear the introduction of the Free State system into the Cape Province will cause trouble. Still, I think it will be an advance. Whether the Minister will be able to carry it out here will depend greatly on whether he can resist the heavy pressure which is being put on him. I think that the supporters of the Cape tot system exaggerate a little, and that total abstainers do the same. I think I can say that the quantity which is given here to the workpeople by certain farmers has a bad influence on their moral life. I have taken the trouble to investigate the matter, and to get into touch with the wine farmers. If the Government can do anything to alter the tot system here, it will be a good thing, and I therefore hope that the Minister will remain firm. I do not wish to attack the wine farmers as a class. I am convinced that many of them desire heart and soul to assist us in fighting drunkenness. I need only refer to the speech of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal), who said that wine farmers were in favour of liquor not being sold to coloured people, unless they had a permit from the police. That shows they are willing to co-operate. But the tot system here goes too far. In conclusion. I come to the Government sale of liquor. The State will have a larger share in the drink traffic than before, because an important share was already held by the railway department. I know that many people are opposed to it because they have conscientious objections to being partners in a concern that trades in liquor. But if total prohibition cannot be introduced, and I have to choose between two evils, I should choose the lesser, which is that the State controls the drink traffic, and is taking it over under proper conditions. 1 hope the Minister will see that it comes under proper control, and is not exempted from regulations, and does not occupy a privileged position. They must also specially come under the quota system, except in the case of the railways. The State institutions should be a model, and not degenerate into bad canteens. Much fuss has been made about Clause 104. It does not affect the drink traffic much, but the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said that the Government was breaking faith as to the Indian agreement. I have gone through the agreement again, but I can see nothing of that sort in it. This is practically a continuance of the colour bar, nothing else, and the Indian representatives never objected to the colour bar. Can the hon. member show me how this clause is other than a sequence to the colour bar policy? He uses the argument that it is not fair to Indian waiters, that the flame is not worth the candle, and that it will perhaps make the execution of the agreement less easy; there is perhaps substance in the argument that it is not worth the trouble for the sake of a small group of Europeans to alienate people with whom we have made an agreement. But when the hon. member speaks of a breach of faith, he must prove it. We will assist in placing this Bill, which contains good points, on the statute book as soon as possible.

I associate myself with the remarks which the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) made in connection with the appointment of a commission as a select committee to sit on this Bill. The Minister, in his second reading speech, deprecated the attack which was made upon that commission, but, as a matter of fact, there was no attack made upon that commission at all. The attack was made upon the procedure which the Minister thought fit to adopt. This Bill originally was sent to a select committee appointed by the Standing Rules and Orders Committee of this House, consisting of a number of members drawn from all parts of the Union, and thoroughly representative of all shades of opinion in this House. They sat nearly every day, they heard voluminous evidence from all over the Union, they formed certain opinions upon that evidence, and it would have considerably facilitated the discussion in the committee stage in this House if that committee bad been able to sit upon the Bill subsequently and try and lick it into shape before it came before the House. I agree that, there was nothing wrong with sending the Bill to a committee of three lawyers in the Transvaal to make use of their legal knowledge in drafting the various amendments.

Not merely lawyers.

No, they were prohibitionists and exhibitionists as well. Then having amended the Bill and brought it before the House, I consider it is quite unprecedented in our parliamentary procedure for the Minister himself to appoint a select committee of three and ignore all the work done by the previous members who sat on that committee. It was an extraordinary procedure, because this Bill is applicable to all parts of the Union. Instead of having the combined knowledge which that committee possessed in drawing up this Bill, the Minister has forfeited that entirely. He has also lost all the searching examination of the clauses which would have been given by members having such various views on the subject. The Minister urged the urgency of the matter. The fact is, we are still here with this Bill; it was not passed.

It does not look much like passing this year.

Quite so; the Minister has himself largely to blame. If all these various opinions which are now being expressed had been comprised within the four walls of the Bill, perhaps the Minister would have got it through more easily. This is another illustration of the wrong turning we took at Union. We concentrated everything in the hands of the Union Government, and if there is one subject that should have been dealt with by the provincial councils it is our liquor legislation, because the conditions are so varied in the different provinces. Here we are consolidating 47 existing Acts, mostly repealed, all of which grew up under the legislatures of the pre-Union states. They dealt with the existing conditions of the day, and yet we are trying to pass an omnibus Bill to fit in with the whole Union. I want to show in one instance how far astray this committee has gone, and the Minister also. Take the question of country hotels. It is said we are to abolish them—for what reason? We had it from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). He says we must abolish them because we have no local authority to look after them, and they cannot be controlled. What are the facts? We have in Natal townships consisting of a magistracy, police-courts, a gaol, banks, the town-hall, bioscope, any number of shops and two or three hotels with perhaps fifty to sixty rooms without any local authority, and these are country hotels, and you propose in this Bill to get rid of them because, in some parts of the Union, country hotels are quite different. Take one township in my own constituency, which has three large sugar mills producing over a million of wealth every year. It has no local authority.

Why has it not?

That is another question. If the chairman of the commission had known that, perhaps he would not have put this clause in the Bill.

I did know that.

It is on another aspect of the Bill that I would speak. Two years ago I urged upon the Minister, and I do so with all sincerity, the folly of legislating on native matters on side things like this. I think it is a deplorable way we have of bringing Bills before this House—which deal with native affairs handled by different ministers and mixed with something that has nothing to do with native affairs. We had it in the colour bar Bill, and we have it in this Bill. There is nothing in this Bill that could not be legislated for by the Governor-General under the Native Administration Act passed last year—by means of proclamation.

For the towns?

You could not do it for the Cape Province.

It should not be done. I think it is a bad departure to attempt to tinker with native affairs in this divided kind of fashion. I also said two years ago, and the Minister will excuse me if I repeat myself in this again, that the “tot” proposal is a complete reversal of the old native policy established years ago by the old voortrekkers, and is more revolutionary in some of its aspects than the colour bar. It is a direct repudiation of the principles of the various agreements which have been entered into by the various European powers having dominion in Africa. I join issue with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) when he says that the extension of the tot system to the north is justified by its diminution in the Cape. You cannot spread disease anywhere without its going further afield. What I do mourn is our constitutional inability which we seem to possess of seeing anything beyond our borders. We are still standing up for South Africa alone, and that is a distinguishing characteristic of our politics. It is the same in trade, in industry, in native affairs, and much else of our national life; and we are piling folly upon folly. In our expansive moments our ministers go to the Koffie Huis, and under the stimulus they offer there, throw out their chests and talk about South Africa being the guide and guardian of civilization in the continent; they go home, and the curtain of oblivion falls over their minds, and they see nothing beyond their noses. What is the international law to-day on the liquor traffic in Africa? I wonder whether any of the lawyers who sat to consider this Bill considered it. There is a world opinion, growing more strongly every day, regarding the supply of liquor to natives, and that was first given expression to in the Brussels Act of 1890. Later on there was a convention relating to the liquor traffic in Africa, in 1919. It begins—

There are 27 signatures.

What do the Portuguese do?

Nations fall from grace just as individuals do, and it is no excuse because one nation does not act up to the spirit of its signature that we should do the same. South Africa solemnly signed that agreement. The Union, it is true, was exempt from its provisions. Notwithstanding there remained with us the moral obligation to carry out the spirit of that undertaking. Article 22 of the Peace Treaty, which we signed and which we quote as being the first tangible expression of our nationhood, laid an injunction upon us to prohibit the supply of liquor to natives in mandated territories. Are we going to admit that we have to adopt a higher standard in a mandated territory than in our own country? That is what we practically say in the Bill. That signing of the Peace Treaty was the initiation of this country into its nationhood formally recognized by the whole world. But there was something more than that. It was the declaration on our part that in admitting us to the comity of nations of the world we would observe all the conditions and obligations of our new national status. Of all the nations of the world we, sitting at the shank end of this great continent, can least afford to go against our own signature. This matter is constantly exercising the mind of the world, so much so that in July, 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution in which it stated that the Council, conscious of the gravity of the danger to the native population of Central Africa arising from the scourge of alcohol, recommended that the mandatory powers should do everything possible to protect the native population from the danger of liquor and requested the Mandates Commission to investigate the measures adopted by the mandatory powers in this connection. That is the sense of the united world on this matter. Can we, as the only civilized people on this continent, ignore it? Can we, whatever our private interests may be, whatever little party or electoral gain there may be in this matter, afford to ignore the criticism of the whole civilized world? I say we cannot. If South Africa is going to remain true to itself, if it wishes to march in step with Western civilization—if it is to continue to act as the leader of the States on this continent—if it is to realize its destiny as the guardian of the native peoples, it must conform to the standards set forth in that resolution, moved by Vicount Ishii and agreed to by the whole civilized world. I say this tot system must go, whatever hardships it may inflict on any industry of set of people in this country, because it stands in the way of the advance of South Africa. One other point I want to refer to, which was argued very ably by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), that is Clause 104. I am sorry the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), regards this matter so lightly. It is really amusing that he cannot see the difference between this form of colour bar and a colour bar Bill brought in to deal with the mines and machinery. Here we are dealing with unskilled labour, bottle washing and polishing glasses. This is a new form of colour bar, and it affects the Indian agreement. This Indian agreement was entered into without considering Natal in any way. Natal was not consulted. The Government in legislating by decree took care we had no say in the matter, but Natal will have to pay, Natal will have to foot the bill no matter what the Minister has to say. We pay; you don’t pay. The Minister of Finance went to his constituency the other day and took great credit to himself and his Government for entering into the Indian agreement, and after dwelling at great length on his act of statesmanship which had established cordial relationship between South Africa and India, somebody became suspicious and asked: “Are the Indians coming to the Free State!” “Not on your sweet life. They will remain where they are. We have settled the problem of Natal.”

They are your Indians, not the Free State’s.

Yes, that is your idea of Union. We have loyally stood by the Government in the matter. No one in Natal wants to say a word against the agreement for the sake of the honour of South Africa. We have accepted that agreement not because we like it, but because in our external relations we should be one people. What shall we say, however, to a Government entering solemnly into an agreement with a sister state consisting of three hundred and fifty million people and then bringing in legislation to violate the spirit of it, a few months afterwards. If the Government regards its international obligations so lightly, can they expect Natal to remain loyal to it and to the good name of South Africa. I ask the Minister—

I do not accept the position that that is my interpretation of the agreement. I entirely differ from it, it is not a fact

I hope the Minister recognizes the solemness of his own statement now in this House. You are not dealing with a small matter on the Rand, but with a big international question.

I say it is not a fact.

Whatever legal argument the Minister may use—

Whatever legal argument I may deduce it will not convince you?

It is a matter of honesty and good faith.

It is a matter of honesty and good faith, and we believe the honour and good faith of South Africa is not being upheld in this clause. If this clause is not removed we shall be judged as a nation which has broken faith.

On the motion of Dr. van Broekhuizen, the debate was adjourned; to be resumed tomorrow.