announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged Dr. D. G. Conradie from service on the Select Committee on Native Affairs and appointed Mr. Terreblanche in his stead: and had also discharged Messrs. Basson and Bergh from service on the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities and appointed Messrs. Vosloo and Brink respectively in their stead.

I think that all of us in the House deeply appreciate the great importance of the Bill now under discussion. Everyone, and especially those who served on the select committee, feels the great importance to our people of the solving of the liquor question once for all. We feel that the uniformity which is being striven for is a very difficult matter, inasmuch as the interests of the north and the south of the Union are very conflicting. I have listened attentively to a number of speeches, and read others in the papers, and I have studied the criticism made. I am very glad that the Minister has not made a party question of the liquor problem, because we are not here for the interests of one or other of the parties, but of our people. The criticism so far made was, in most cases, not particularly constructive, but destructive, and I think we ought to give the Minister of Justice and the men who assisted in drafting the Bill constructive criticism. One of the hon. members, the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), called Clause 104 a great injustice, and a blot on our escutcheon. With the eloquence he possesses he condemned Clause 143 which provides for the establishment of wine and beer shops for Asiatics, coloured people and natives. Let us just analyse his criticism. If he wants to prevent the Asiatics or natives being tempted to drink then he cannot do better than keep them away from canteens. He argues for their retention in the canteens, as servants, for drawing the liquor, etc. Is that not just what brings them into temptation? He knows as well as I that the opportunity makes the thief. Allow these people an opportunity of drawing it off, and the result will be that they come into temptation. I think that such a famous advocate as he is ought to watch his logic a little, it has run away with him in this case. The hon. member is indignant, and calls the exclusion of coloured people and Asiatics a blot on our honour. If he really has the interests of the natives and Asiatics at heart, he should keep them out of the bottle store. We feel that the natives are like children, and surely we do not wish to bring children into temptation. He would just as little put his child of ten or twelve years to work in a bottle store. We must consider the matter in this way. The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) said that 3,000 of the Indian servants would lose their jobs.

In a year.

He must not forget that hundreds of those servants are working in tea-rooms. In Durban there are many of them in tea-rooms on the beach.

It only refers to hotels.

I think that is incorrect, and that it includes tea-rooms. Asiatics also work in cafés, and not only in hotels. Then we come to the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) who spoke about the tot system in the Transvaal. I think that I have a little experience of the position in the Cape Province. I was for years a student at Stellenbosch and came into close touch with the wine farmers for many years there and in the Kuils River district. The evil of the tot, or drink, does not so much lie with the wine farmers, but the canteens. That is my experience. What is the present position? I want to appeal to the total abstainers and the supporters of local option to support the proposal to give only one tot to the native servants, in order to improve conditions in the country. It is really a good thing to apply the Free State system to the whole of South Africa. I would like to emphasize the case of the Western Province. We have to do here with a system, which has been in force for a few hundred years, of giving coloured persons and natives three or four tots a day. If they are willing to accept the Free State system for the whole of South Africa then I only want to say that the whole of South Africa ought to be thankful.

The Transvaal won’t have it.

I just want hon. members who say “No” to quite understand that then the position in the Western Province will remain as it is to-day. In the Free State there is no abuse of the system in force there. In the Transvaal and in the Wes tern Province there are unfortunate conditions. Abuse does take place there, I admit. An attempt is now being made by this Bill to remove the bad conditions, and certain persons from the north throw up their hands indignantly and will not assist. I am tired of this hypocrisy. Nothing is being done here in the Western Province. For years the churches have done nothing; no one has done anything. We have protested here, and taken action. We get no support from hon. members. As soon as we get across the Orange or the Vaal River, hon. members throw their hands into the air and say that a terrible thing will happen. We want to assist the Western Province and to eradicate the evil here, and to introduce the system that only one tot shall be given. What is the cause of the sad state of affairs among the coloured people here in the Western Province? The canteens are the churchyard of the coloured people, and therefore we must try to remove the abuse and then there will be only a moderate use of liquor. We want to introduce the Free State system; the Western Province is agreeable, but not the hon. members over there. What is the cause of so much consumption amongst the coloured people? The ruination of the body by drunkenness. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) quoted the League of Nations, and pointed out that Portugal, Belgium, South Africa, the Congo and Lourenco Marques have signed a contract. Does the hon. member know the conditions in the Congo and in Lourenco Marques? As long as the League of Nations is what it is to-day, when a small power like Greece is worried by its neighbour Italy, and hundreds of people are shot, and the League, when a protest is made to it, has to say, “This is a great power, we can do nothing,” it amounts to nothing. This signature is a scrap of paper. Belgium and Portugal will not carry it out. In the Congo and in Lourenco Marques there is unlimited drinking. That is more or less the criticism which is made, little constructive criticism. It is a pity because we ought to make the Bill as good as possible. What is the position in the Transvaal? The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) knows the position just as well as I. I just want to quote what the magistrate of Johannesburg, Mr. Young, said before the select committee. He said that people, who are sentenced under the liquor law, come into contact with criminals, and when they come out of prison they commit theft and burglary. Do hon. members want that state of affairs to continue in Johannesburg? In the Transvaal to-day there are about 384 women in gaol, 202 of whom were convicted for selling liquor to natives. What is the condition generally in the country? In 1925 there were 58,436 people in gaol for contravention of the liquor laws. On the Witwatersrand only, 23,826 were condemned for being in possession of drink, or of selling it. Now the magistrate said that they come into touch with the lowest characters, and that they become thieves and housebreakers. Do we want the position to continue? I know that there are members from the Transvaal who sympathize with poor people. For instance, the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). I appeal to him to assist in improving the position.

Take the drink away.

The question, of course, is what the natives of Johannesburg are drinking to-day. They put tobacco, vitriol, chillies, and other ingredients into the liquor, and make six or seven bottles out of one bottle of brandy, and poison the native as well. Now it is proposed to improve that position by the establishment of kaffir beer shops, the churches are opposed to it. But what was the reply of the leader of the church delegation when he was asked what else he could suggest. His answer was, “No, I know of nothing.” I have a telegram here from Lichtenburg from the Ring. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs ought to listen to the unsatisfactory Afrikaans which has been used, and how the telegraphs treat our language. The telegram reads—

Here we have the churches coming and saying that they want no tot system, but I am thinking that in order to get rid of the great abuse of liquor the church should with both hands accept the proposal to introduce a tot system in South Africa by which only one tot a day at most is given. The wine farmers of the Western Province have been abused here in a scandalous way. As the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said, the wine farmers belong to the best people in the country, and have done much for South Africa. Government canteens are also objected to. The clergymen say in their reply that they see no other way. What then must be done? Nothing? Dr. Loram, native commissioner, in answer to the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. Pretorius) told the select committee that he was in favour of the sale of kaffir beer by the State, and the proceeds would be used on behalf of the natives. Dr. Roberts, also a native commissioner, said that kaffir beer was a natural drink for the natives. All the authorities want a light kaffir beer which will be obtainable in shops under proper control. There are enough members here who have had experience of the illicit liquor traffic, and therefore I say that if there is an opportunity of altering the system, and of giving the native his natural drink, which is not dangerous, that we should be grateful for it. That is the judgment of the experts in this matter, men of experience. The magistrate of Johannesburg says that it should be permitted in Johannesburg, and other places, where it can be applied under strict control, and therefore we must be careful on this point. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) said that the Government does not see further than its nose. It is strange to hear that from him. Poor Natal in the old days imported coolies, and the wonderful Natal statesmen did not look any further than their noses. To-day the hon. member accuses this Government of that fault. O tempora, O mores. Let us look at his record a little, then he will see that he lives in a glass house, and must not throw stones. The Bible says that the sins of the fathers will be visited on the children. Natal is experiencing that to-day, with the coolies. In the Free State the sensible men were cleverer than the imported Natal statesmen, they kept the coolies out. I have in my hand our agreement with India, and I will only say that I have as yet only read it once, and that it clearly appears that the object of the agreement is to repatriate the Asiatics as much as possible. Efforts will further be made to uplift and educate the Asiatics in South Africa, but the objective is repatriation. Mohammedanism, the religion of the Indians, prohibits the use of liquor, and it is therefore a good thing, from a religious point of view, to keep liquor a Way from them. I cannot understand how hon. members can speak about breach of faith, and a slur on our country. Finally, just a few words to the Minister of Justice. I am very sorry that he has excluded the non-treating clause, and I hope to get his support to an amendment to include it again later on. As for tied houses, we heard of things in the select committee which I thought impossible in South Africa. Take mineral water. It appeared from the evidence that there were houses so tied they could not buy Van Riebeek water from the Van Riebeek Company, nor can they buy Mulvihal soda water. The Schweppes Company has the monopoly. Take the whisky ring which exists in Johannesburg to-day. This has also placed customers under the most stringent buying obligations, and the clause with regard to tied houses will do much to get rid of that system. I also want to suggest to the Minister a clause preventing bottle stores from giving credit. I do not know if it is possible, but what is the position to-day? There are officials who have accounts with the liquor shops, and who pay those accounts first because they are preferent. Their tradesmen’s accounts, and even their boardinghouse accounts, they will leave unpaid, but they pay the liquor bill because anyone in the Public Service who does not pay such a bill might lose his job. Just a few words more. I want to ask the supporters of prohibition and local option whether they are in earnest, really in earnest, about finding a solution of the matter, or whether they are trifling with the souls of our people. Legislation is necessary. That we all feel. Let us try therefore to make it as good as possible, and permit the moderate use of liquor to get rid of the abuse. That we must push as much as possible. There are members who are heavy cigarette smokers, their nails are yellow with nicotine, and even their fingers are covered with it. I wish they could see a photo of their lungs as the result of excessive smoking. Then they will become alarmed. Nicotine is also a dangerous poison. When I played football and engaged in many sports in my young days, I took no liquor, and never smoked. I only drink now on special occasions. Talk of moderation! There are some of my friends who when they sit at table eat so much that I think they will die from overeating. Moderation is best in all things. Let us try and make as good a law as possible, and reduce drunkenness. I think this Bill is an honest attempt to solve the matter, and to remedy the terrible conditions on the land and elsewhere. Do not let us create a criminal population by prohibition. We have had it in the Transvaal for 25 years, and it has been a hopeless failure.

It is of course impossible to mention every point at the second reading, but I want to make a few remarks with regard to the most important provisions. I have noticed with pleasure that the Minister is well disposed towards the Transvaal farmers who are trying to make liquor on their farms. I know that a prejudice existed against them, and that those, who in the Transvaal made drink out of peaches, and other fruit, were looked down upon, and were practically always spoken of unfavourably. I think that was entirely wrong and undeserved. I should like to know how it can be justified when we remember that liquor is also distilled in the Western Province, for instance. Why should the people who in the Free State and Transvaal distil drink from their own fruit stand on a different footing? Why is it wrong there? That I cannot understand. Hon. members must not be under the impression that anyone can distil drink in the Transvaal where and when he pleases. It is not so. There are proper conditions. In the first place they must have their distilling plant registered by the magistrate. Further, they must take out a proper licence, which costs £1, if they want to sell their drink, and in the third place there are strict regulations how the drink must be dealt with. There is the provision that every person who distils drink must have it classified into three different classes. The excise for Class A is 12s. 6d. per gallon; it means good first-class brandy. Class B embraces grape brandy and the excise is 17s. 6d. per gallon. Class C embraces other kinds of brandy, including peach, and the excise is 22s. 6d. per gallon, or nearly 4s. a bottle. It is clear, therefore, that there are adequate restrictions and regulations in the case of Transvaal farmers, and when the distilling is over the farmers have to fill in a form. I have one here, it is almost more complicated than the income-tax form, and on the back are all the regulations which the farmers have to observe. There is, e.g., the provision that distilled drink can only be consumed on the farm where it is made, and quite a number of other provisions. It is, therefore, clear that distilling is not so free as some people think. Under the Bill the Minister goes so far as to permit liquor, which is distilled from other fruits than grapes, to be sold, but only under the regulations of the excise law. I welcome that. If the farmers in the Cape Province have the right to sell their liquor, the Transvaal farmers must also have the right. I cannot agree with what is proposed by the hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick) that the sale of such drink shall also be allowed to non-licensees, under a certain system of control. The hon. member for Potchefstroom wants to go so far as to allow the unrestricted sale to private persons. That would be dangerous, because then a small canteen would exist on every farm in our country where drink was distilled. That will not do, and I hope the Minister will stand by the provision in the Bill. The second point on which I wish to speak is the tot system. Regarding the position in the Cape Province one must not lose sight of the fact that it is an institution a century old. But I do not wish to speak about it. I know the tot system as it exists here will not be welcomed in the Transvaal. The carrying out of such a system would be impossible, because who could pay the high cost of giving his natives certain quantities of wine every day? But I welcome the Free State system. It is a tried system which has existed for years in the Free State, and I have never heard that it was abused there. I advocate its introduction into the Transvaal. I can see no objection whatsoever, if precautions are taken against abuse of drink by natives. Moreover, the control, and a fairly strong control, is left in the hands of the Minister, because he can then withdraw the right of giving certain persons a tot. He can prohibit drink being given to certain natives, he can withdraw certain areas from the law, and prohibit certain sources of liquor. There are thus adequate safeguards, and the Minister has control. I have heard different arguments, and condemnations of the tot system as now proposed. One argument seems strange to me, to wit, that if a farmer in the Transvaal gives liquor to natives he is bound to have a certain amount of liquor on hand, and this may lead to him becoming a drunkard himself. This accusation I repudiate entirely on behalf of the farming population. There is hardly a farm in the Transvaal where there is no liquor in the house. If anyone were going to become a drunkard, he would have done so by how. I sincerely hope that the Minister and the majority of hon. members will see that this provision becomes law. The intention surely is not that liquor should be given to the natives every day. Not at all. The intention is to give natives after a hard day’s work, and where they have done particularly well, a little drink as a small reward for extra good work, without six months’ imprisonment hanging over their headls like the sword of Damocles, and without its being necessary to go round the corner of the house to prevent anyone seeing. That is humiliating, because it is done, nevertheless as the Minister said, in a stealthy way, which is wrong. The Bill gives the right to give the labourers openly what they earn, and therefore I should like to see the provision deleted that it may only be given to those who have been under agreement at least a month. Why this stipulation? At tot will only be given on special work, such as the cleaning of furrows, the harvesting of wheat, and other heavy work. It is just at that time that the usual squatters are not sufficient, and every farmer hires two, three or four natives at 2s. or 2s. 6d. a day. The hired natives would then be deprived of the rewards; that would be wrong. Thirdly I want to say something about the prohibition of Indian servants in hotels. There are certain provisos with regard to Natal, but it is prohibited in the Transvaal. I do not know that it is such a great evil. We know that it is the kind of work for which the Asiatics are particularly qualified. It is said that that work would supply jobs for Europeans, but is it a kind of work which we would like to see our children take up? Should we, e.g., like to see white girls as hotel servants? I think that we should as much as possible keep them away from the neighbourhood of drink, and the more Asiatics that do the work the less danger there is for the rising white generation. The object of this Bill is, inter alia, to properly protect hotels. Countryside bars and canteens are abolished, and the general aim of the Minister is to improve the hotels in South Africa. This can only be done if the earnings are increased, and the question is whether the replacement of Indians, who earn £2 or £3 a month, by Europeans who must be paid at least £7 or £8 is suited to advance this object. Will not the increased expenditure be got from the visitors, and will not the hotels become worse instead of better? I hope that this provision will not be passed, and I think it will be better to leave it as it stands. As for the treating clause I am very pleased that the Minister has deleted it. I think certainly that one should have the right of offering someone something. If we want to welcome a friend we like to offer him something. It is an old custom in South Africa, and our hospitality is well known. It might possibly suffer under such a treating clause. I hope the Minister will keep the treating clause out of the Bill.

I think if this House did its duty it would prohibit either the sale or giving of alcoholic liquor to tall aboriginal natives in South Africa. I know quite well that the Cape people have an idea that they are on the right road , and the Free State people have the same idea in giving tots to their boys, and I suppose they know their own business best. I bow to them, but I say in regard to the Transvaal. "Hands off in regard to the tot system." I am perfectly certain that if a plebiscite were taken of the people of South Africa nine-tenths of the white people would be against giving the aboriginal native any liquor at all. If we give the native kaffir beer I think that is as far as we can possibly go. In regard to those who advocate giving the tot to the native boy, I do not think they can understand the peculiarities of the native very well, because as far as I can see the boy will just take his allowance and then rush off to buy more as soon as he can. The kaffir boy, it is well known, drinks to a finish. He always has done and always will do. It reminds me of the Japanese axiom—

That is peculiarly true of the aboriginal native in this country. I now come to Clause 104 which deals with the question of the elimination of Asiatic waiters from hotels. Let me just say that you are not going to put up one class of people by pulling down another. Further, let me say most distinctly that the British boy in this country has no aptitude for waiting, and I would say also that if there could be any worse waiter that the British born boy it is the Dutch-born boy. I have no wish to see them become waiters, and I do not see why we should interfere with these people, the Indians and natives, who are working in these places by stopping them from doing the work which they have been doing hitherto. To that extent I hope with the good sense of the Minister, when we come to Clause 104, that he will give way on this point, as I am almost sure he will, because there will be very great pressure brought to bear upon him. In regard to clubs, my friend the great prohibitionist here in front of me (Mr. Blackwell) made an admirable speech, but he told us that there were about 40,000 members of the clubs in Johannesburg. I rather doubt that. Many of us are members of different clubs, and I am afraid he is counting some of us ten times over. All the same, since married men will take refuge in clubs from their wives, these clubs do fulfil a very decided want so far as the average man is concerned, and I am bound to say that when it comes to whether a man should go into a club or a bar it is far better for him that he should go into a club to get his drink. Clubs have their rules, written and unwritten, so that a man cannot drink with impunity. To that extent I think it is absurd that the Minister should try and put clubs on the same level as licensed houses.

Much has been said about the Bill, but there are still a few points I should like to mention. I have here several letters and telegrams, inter alia, a letter from the Standerton Chamber of Commerce, asking me to get the clause prohibiting the sale of drink on the diggings taken out of the Bill. I must honestly say that I see no chance of doing it. I have long felt that if there is one place where drink is an evil it is the diggings. If there is one place where it should be prohibited, it is there. I am thankful to the Minister that he has included the clause in the Bill. Whatever the desire of the said Chamber of Commerce may be for me, as their representative, to fight the clause, I must honestly say that I cannot do so. The sale of drink there is one of the greatest evils, and must be removed. We can safely say that thousands of bottles of liquor are sold on the diggings. It is smuggled in with the help of lorries. There are shebeens and bottle stores and nothing prevents the digger from getting his bottle of liquor any time of the day. There is an accumulation of all kinds of people on the diggings, and they are exposed to all sorts of temptations. The one tempts the other, and if the evil can be removed by prohibiting the sale of drink, it will be of great use, especially in the case of the poor man who cannot resist it, and who has become a slave to drink. He will then be able to spend his earnings on his family, who are to-day suffering through the evil. I am very glad that the clause has been included. If it is possible to stop the sale of drink there altogether, to not only take away the bars, but also the bottle stores, it should be done. We should protect out white population at the diggings. We talk so much about the protection of natives, but we must also save and protect the white population, and it must first be done on the diggings. I do not think that it will ever be possible to completely keep out the drink, but if we can only limit the sale to the nearest village it will be a great help. Now I want to say something about the tot system, which is being extended to the north. I have had the same telegram which the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) read out, namely, from the Ring of Lichtenburg. As a member of that congregation I come under the Ring, but I do not see my way to comply with its requests, to oppose the extension of the tot system to the north. I will give my reasons. As I said before I am not prepared to protect one section at the expense of another. In the Transvaal there is prohibition for natives, which does not exist in other provinces. The result of the distinction is that in the Transvaal a number of men and women are in gaol for selling liquor to natives. In the Free State the tot system is in force, and as far as I know there is no one in gaol for selling liquor to natives. My other argument is the following : what difference does it make whether the native gets drunk on beer or on liquor? It is the same drunkenness. The kaffir in the Transvaal gets drunk on beer. I can prove to hon. members that on almost every farm in the Transvaal the natives get drunk on beer on Saturdays. I do not know cases, however, of the assaulting of women and children as the result of drunkenness. There is no harm in giving a person a tot. I do not see that the Bible prohibits drink anywhere. Viticulture is recommended throughout the Bible. We there read that the first miracle of Christ was the making of wine, and at the time when wine was already being consumed. At that time Our Lord made wine. The apostle Paul, one of our greatest apostles, recommended wine to the members of his congregation. The Bible, however, prohibits the abuse of drink, and condemns the man who becomes drunk. The man who becomes drunk must be punished, but it is nowhere stated that the use of drink is prohibited. The law which deprives the natives of liquor has caused much trouble among the Europeans. The illicit sale of liquor is the cause of all the misery, and it has come about through prohibition. Now I should like to ask the gentlemen, and even the churches, who are so concerned about the native who gets liquor, whether they are inclined to tolerate the position that I, as a master, should give a tot to my natives, and if the police come and notice it, that I would be sent to gaol for six months. There is no alternative punishment. I go to gaol for six months, because I have given a native a tot, after a hard day’s work. Are they inclined to allow me, or any respectable farmer, to go to gaol in that way? We must use our common-sense. There is no trouble in the Free State. If the Free State tot system can be applied to the Transvaal, then there will be no trouble there either. As far as I know, there is not one farmer in the Transvaal who can introduce the tot system as it prevails in the Cape Province, and indeed very few will be able to apply the Free State system. But I want the farmer to be free to give his native a tot when he wants to, and not to be sent to gaol for it. I therefore do not see my way to oppose the tot system, because I think it is fair that we should be free in this respect. The evil of sending our Europeans to gaol must be avoided. We must not forget that if we give the native a little drink under proper control, the abuse of drink will stop. People are only too inclined to desire prohibited things. The native does not mind paying a high price for prohibited drink, and the poor whites are tempted by the high profit to provide them with drink, and in that way they drift into gaol, often even innocently.

I wish, with the indulgence of the House, to define my personal attitude towards the liquor traffic. I am not an extremist, and I am not a prohibitionist. The country is not ripe for that. I believe in the legal restriction of the trade, and in the rights of the people to some measure of local option. I have very deep sympathy indeed with the landowners of the Western Province of the Cape who have inherited from remote ancestors valuable vineyards with all that belongs to them. I have no sympathy with the hue and cry against those who have that valuable inherited land which grows grapes. We sometimes hear people suggest that, instead of turning these grapes into wine, they can be turned into other things for domestic use. Why should we dictate to the people in this industry to meet our prejudices? It reminds me of the definition of conscience—

I have no sympathy with the wine grower when he desires more extended markets for his wares amongst the people who are our wards. I deprecate, more than I can say, the tot system of the Cape Province. In a certain midland town, where the growth of grapes has long been a favourable form of land cultivation, the month of March has seen riotous disorder, because of the new spirits which were given, or sold at almost nominal rates, to people—which drive these people mad. I have seen that in seven successive seasons in that midland town. I dread the idea of that dangerous stuff finding circulation in other parts of the Union. I know Clause 98 is simply permissive—that employers of labour may do so and so. The true kindness and the real patriotism of the northern territories will be against putting at the disposal of people what has done so much damage in the Western Province. It may easily happen that individuals of no fine scruples will avail themselves of the provisions of this clause to the detriment of their labourers and those in their employ. I hope that the good sense of this House will, in the committee stage, stop any attempt to extend the tot system to any other part of the Union. If this tot system is to be extended to the Orange Free State and the Transvaal, what earthly and logical or valid objection can there be to extending it to the labourers on the mines? On its behalf it is claimed that it means an increase of efficiency on the part of the labourers. I believe what lies in the minds of many, and I believe the idea to be a mistaken one, is that a labourer who toils so many hours a day requires this personal pick-me-up—and that not only at 4 o’clock under the personal supervision of the owner of the estate. It is a most amazing picture. The owner will have to see that every labourer of his has the one tot! He simply cannot do it. Logically, can we get away from this? If the labour on the land is so exhausting as to necessitate the use of frequent tots, surely the underground labour in the, mines—work which makes such demands on the physical stamina of the native labourers—demands tots. Are we prepared, as a civilized people, to consent to the extension of this proposal? We must be against any extension, for fear of what it may lead to. When we come to the committee stage, I shall have something to say about the constitution of the licensing court, about the provisions in this Bill for the supply and control of native beer, and about the policy in regard to hotels and the employment of Asiatics, and cooks; but meanwhile I content myself with referring to what I regard as a wrong principle in the constitution of the licensing boards under this new proposal. We have been accustomed to the official element in the Cape—to magistrates, and representatives of municipal and divisional councils. We have this difference now, that the Minister, having before him a list of those who form municipal and divisional councils at the Cape, and municipal councils in other parts of the country where divisional councils do not exist, has the sole right of appointment to the licensing board. This House heard, a few days ago, a most amazing remark from an hon. member on the cross benches, that he would like to see this in the hands of a board of three magistrates. The civilization we represent on both sides of the House is not accustomed to have things done for it. We are free men, and we want to get away from the dictation of bureaucracy. We are accustomed to popular boards, and I am very much opposed to the idea of a purely official licensing board functioning in different parts of the country. I beg the Minister, who has done excellent work, and tried to harmonize four conflicting liquor systems in the Union, to be prepared to yield with that graciousness that so well becomes him—when he comes to the committee stage.

I have spoken before on this Bill, but the select committee have made so many alterations that I must make a few more remarks, as I represent a wine district. Even if I represented an urban area filled with abstainers, I should still consider it my duty to speak against a measure to undermine and ruin one of the most important industries in the country, while the abuse of drink is still being considerably promoted. The wine industry is the means of subsistence of an important part of the population in the Western Province. In my opinion, the Minister has tried to come to a satisfactory solution, but in so far as the select committee are concerned, I think that in their alterations they have not entirely succeeded in making improvements. A few words about Clause 98 regarding the supply of drink to employees. For centuries the farmers of the Western Province have been giving certain quantities of drink to their employees. It is not against wages. I challenge anyone to name farmers who sold drink to the work people. It is given as strengthener, as a tonic so that they can do their work properly. The employees consider that they have a, certain claim to it, and now the select committee comes, and wants to tell the farmers that their experience does not count, and that they can only give so much drink, and how they are to do it, a way which will just encourage drunkenness. No one will have the right to give liquor to his employees unless he has employed them for at least a month. Why not the day workers? Why the distinction? And then the provision is made that they may not be given a bottle of wine, or whatever it is, before 4 o’clock. Then the employees may make themselves drunk. The result will be that after 4 o’clock they will drink too much, will go home drunk, and will fight with their wives and children, and be unfit for work next day. The farmers have always supplied drink moderately, and not abused it. The farmers require sober people, who are able to work, and we can safely leave it in their hands to give drink to their people. They know what to do. I now come to Clause 54, which provides that no more licences shall be granted after a certain number of years to hotels, the property and buildings of which are worth less than £10,000. Otherwise, after 10 years the licence will be taken away. It is absolutely ridiculous. Where does one find along the road in the countryside hotels that are built at a cost of £10,000? The hotels will disappear, and the travelling public will suffer. Then there are the licence monies. It is provided that when application is made for a new licence, £150 must be paid, and on renewal £50. How will hotels on the countryside be able to pay if the licence is so high? The travelling public will be the sufferers, and the hotels will disappear. The stamp duties are much too high. £50 has to be paid for a special meeting of the licensing court; for an ordinary sitting it has fortunately been reduced to £10. Clause 91 deals with the sale of liquor. I think there are already sufficient limitations on the sale of liquor. But that clause now permits of the sale of inferior articles. I say nothing about it if the Transvaal farmer wants to distil liquor from peaches for his own use, but we must prohibit drink made from all kinds of fruit being pushed on to the market. Then there is the question of the treating clause. It may be injurious for young people to treat each other, but how are we going to stop it? It is quite impossible. The select committee also made a peculiar suggestion about the com position of licensing courts. Divisional councils are completely excluded. The councils have done very good work, and they have always sent members to the licensing court. Why should they be excluded to the detriment of the countryside? They know the requirements of the countryside. Anyone who is a wine farmer is not entitled to sit on that court, but a person who is hostile to the use of drink can. Why this improper distinction? We live in a country of wine farmers, stock farmers, and grain farmers, a chain of industries, and I appeal to other farmers in the House not to break it. I hope the undermining of the wine farmers’ business will be prevented, and that he will be allowed to make an honest living.

I quite realize that this is a Bill which can more fittingly be thrashed out in committee, but there are one or two phases of the measure on which I would like to make a few observations at this stage. The one phase with which I am concerned very much is Clause 54, which proposes in effect to close down the country hotels in the Union. There is no doubt whatever that none of the country hotels can afford an outlay of £10,000 in buildings alone, which will be required of them if they are to retain their licences at the expiration of the ten years’ period of grace. The result will be that they will have to close. This proposal is an unwarrantable attack on vested rights. The owners of these places invented their capital in them at a time when they had a right to believe their rights would not be interfered with, but the consequence of this legislation will be that the value of these licensed establishments will now be based on a ten years’ life only. These rural hotels will not be saleable, and in addition it will cause inconvenience to the travelling public. I want to give a few examples in my own constituency of places carried on at present as health and pleasure resorts which are exclusively summer resorts, which means most of the business is done in the six months of summer. Take the National Park Hotel, which Mr. Amery visited and where he spent some happy hours during his visits to South Africa. It is one of the most popular resorts in South Africa, and is connected with the main railway line by a railway motor ’bus, and, of course, has a liquor licence. It is quite out of the question the proprietors of that hotel incurring an expenditure of £10,000 on buildings with the hope of ever getting an adequate return on the capital outlay. The result will be that the hotel will have to close down in ten years’ time. There is another popular health and pleasure resort at Van Reenan which serves a useful purpose. It is also a summer resort, which means the business is done in the summer months. The buildings, I suppose, are worth £2,000, and the volume of business done does not warrant any further expenditure in buildings. It is a village of two to three hundred inhabitants, and has a police station close at hand. That place will have to close down, if this Bill becomes law to the detriment of the public. Then there is Bergville which is the seat of a magistracy, and also has two to three hundred inhabitants, and is the centre of a prosperous farming community. They have an annual show, and stock sales take place every alternate month which are attended by buyers from all over the province. There is only one hotel there, and if that hotel closes down, goodness knows what will happen. The people who are in the habit of attending the shows and the sales will have to give it a wide berth. I can mention another village, Winterton, where they also have an annual show and stock sales every alternate month, and where the hotel is a boon to the travelling public and to those who have occasion to visit this place to do business. For that reason I take a serious view of this legislation, both from the point of view of the interest of the proprietors and the travelling public generally, and I hope the Minister will give full consideration to what I have said. I do not think that it follows that what was good for the Free State 20 or 30 years ago would apply to the conditions which obtain in Natal to-day, and for that reason I hope the Minister will give due weight to what I have ‘aid. I would like to say a few words with regard to the tot system. We are pleased we have been exempted in Natal, but are opposed nevertheless to an extension of the system to other provinces. It affects us in many ways. For instance, the native goes to the neighbouring province for work, where he may be taught to acquire an appetite for strong drink, so that when he returns he will seek for it and fall an easy prey to the illicit liquor dealer. Then again, there is the danger of placing temptation in the way of the poor class of farmer, who, owing to financial embarrassment, may embark upon a career of illicit liquor dealing in order to improve his finances under the cloak of the tot system. That is within the range of possibility, and with it you will add to the difficulties of the police. There will be the further temptation to the farmer to go one better in his treatment of his servants as an inducement to his neighbour’s servant to come and work for him. These are dangers I foresee, and we in Natal are generally opposed to the proposals in this Bill regarding the tot. The one redeeming feature in this clause is that it is going to limit the quantity to be supplied daily under the tot system in the Western Province. It will do a lot of good to limit the supply to one tot per day, but I would prefer to see the system abolished entirely in the Western Province. Regarding the wine and beer shops, I am a strong supporter of native beer shops in municipalities under proper control, but it is dangerous to establish wine and beer shops in rural areas, and I do not know what has caused the Minister to introduce this legislation, because, as far as I know, there is no call for it and it has been introduced to put facilities in the way of the coloured man and the Asiatic to obtain drink without any request for it. In Natal they have ample Indians and coloured people have ample facilities already in the existing Bars, and why this Government should propose to establish further facilities for them it is difficult to understand. Here again, it is going to add to the difficulties of the police in the detection of illict liquor dealing. I hope the Minister will take into consideration seriously the advisability of not instituting these wine and beer shops. With regard to kaffir beer, we have had the monopoly system in Natal for a number of years, and notwithstanding what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said the other day, that system has been an unqualified success in Natal. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout passed severe strictures on the system, and I wonder where he got his information from. He certainly had no right to base his statement on the evidence given before the select committee, because the evidence given was that the system has been an undoubted success, and has reduced illicit liquor selling a great deal. I want to refer to the two principal witnesses, the representative of the municipal association in Natal and the chief constable of Durban, to refute what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said. Mr. Daniel Sanders, President of the Natal Municipal Association, as well as mayor of Pietermaritzburg, said this—

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said that it had gone on getting worse. Mr. Sanders further states—

That is the evidence of the chief witness representing the municipalities of Natal. I would like to quote a passage from the evidence of Mr. W. A. Alexander, Chief Constable of Durban. He states—

Then the question was put to the witness—

Mr. Alexander replied—

How the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) could make the statement which he made here that the evidence pointed to the fact that this monopoly system was a failure, it is difficult for me to understand. Let me say this, that my own town has this monopoly system, and I had experience of the conditions before the monopoly system was introduced in Ladysmith. As an old Crown Prosecutor charged with the duty of initiating and conducting prosecutions in that district, I became conversant with the conditions which existed before the monopoly system was introduced, and I can say without hesitation that subsequent to the monopoly system conditions improved, and the system has been a great success there and in other towns in northern Natal which were not mentioned by the witness in question, such as Dundee. For that reason, I do think that the system is one which might well be extended, but if the other provinces do not want it, that is their affair entirely. As far as Natal is concerned, I hope nothing will be done to abolish that system. I want to say in regard to the question of local option, that I am very sorry that no system of local option has been introduced in this measure, because I think it is highly necessary. When I spoke in the debate two years ago on this Liquor Bill, I suggested a form of local option which is very popular in Natal, and which gives people residing within a certain radius the right to say whether they will have licensed premises within that radius or not. I quoted the section on that occasion, and I will quote it again. It is section 45 of the Natal Liquor Act, No. 38 of 1896, and reads—

I am not necessarily wedded to the 150 yards radius, but the principle is one which I think might very well be introduced into this Bill, and which would meet with approval, I am sure, as far as Natal is concerned. There are other matters arising out of this Bill which I think may more fittingly be dealt with at the committee stage, and which I will therefore not mention at present.

This matter has been much debated, and the House and the Minister are tired of listening to it. I am glad that the Minister has made it a non-party matter. Some people regard me as a total abstainer, but I will, nevertheless, try to do my share in obtaining a good law. I should like to make it clear that when I speak I do not accuse the wine farmers of any offence. I admit that they belong to the best people we have in the country. They have done much for the development of our country, and the wine industry is one of our most important. By their co-operative societies they have put the wine industry on such a footing that there is a measure of control, but, on the other hand, I cannot forget that, as a representative from the Transvaal, I have had to fight hard, very hard, in the past to get the liquor question put right to a certain extent in the Transvaal, so that it should not be entirely ruined. Since 1896—I admit—I have practically fought against the supply of liquor to natives, and we were obliged to fight hard for it. There were thousands and thousands of natives on the Witwatersrand, and conditions then were such that people could hardly live there. Now the hon. members for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) and Ventersdorp (Mr. Boshoff) argue that our law is the cause of so many people going to gaol. I repudiate that accusation, because if that measure had not been taken at the time, the gold-mining industry would not have become what it is to-day. Unfortunately, people have smuggled liquor and gone to gaol, but that law was absolutely necessary. The hon. members for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) and Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick), ex-ministers of religion, have raised a very uncertain voice in the House. They should have adopted a different attitude, but they are no longer clergymen, and do not care. Moreover, all the church councils of the Transvaal have passed resolutions against the tot system.

The church councils are not the church. We are all members of the church.

The Minister knows that the representatives of the church belong to the best people. They wanted to send a tremendously large deputation to the Minister, but, unfortunately, his illness prevented his meeting them. It is not the Minister’s fault, but I can assure him that the deputation would have consisted of 300 to 400 of the best citizens of the Transvaal.

A deputation of 300 to 400 persons would have been an absolute breach of faith with me. That is not a deputation.

Such a large deputation ought to throw weight into the scale.

It is a commando.

It shows how important the matter is. It is not rebellion, and no one can complain of the churches setting forth their point of view. It is peculiar that it appears to be the members from the Transvaal countryside who are advocating so strongly the tot system there. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie), who represents a Cape division, said that they did not insist so much on the tot system being introduced in the Transvaal. It is an old principle in the Cape Province.

Do you want it to remain so?

The making of light wines has been mentioned; will anyone say that light wine will be made in the Transvaal? Will light wine be given to the natives?

Do the Transvaal farmers give nothing to their natives now?

There are people who do, I know, but if so the Minister is not carrying out the law. I am very sorry it takes place. The object of the clause in this Bill, however, is for light wine to be given to the natives. That will not be done, and hon. members must clearly understand it. I want to ask the hon. members for Pretoria (South), Ventersdorp and Potchefstroom whether, in their hearts, they are convinced that the Transvaal farmers will give wine to their natives. What farmer can afford it?

I am speaking for the farmers I represent.

And I on behalf of my constituents. One thing is certain that the Transvaal tot system will be of no benefit to the Cape wine farmers. They will in the north give peach brandy and use prickly pear, etc., to make liquor, and I am afraid that the natives on the mines will also be wanting drinks. I am glad that the Minister does not permit it inside municipalities. I live within a municipality. I have never found it necessary to give natives liquor, and do quite well by giving them good food, etc., instead. I am not going to ruin them by drink. Members for the Cape Province can decide about the tot system in the Cape Province.

You will have to vote on it.

I shall not run away. I shall vote, and assist the Minister to put the Bill right. The provision for not giving the tot till after 4 o’clock appears strange. If drink must be given, it would surely be better to give it little by little throughout the day. If they get it all at once it might make them drunk. The great objections in the Transvaal are the tot system, the State canteens, and the wine and beer shops. I hope the Minister will not be obstinate if we propose amendments. It is not a party matter, but the Government will, nevertheless, have to take the responsibility. During the debate I listened to the speeches of supporters, as well as opponents, but I was surprised at the speeches of the hon. members for Potchefstroom and Pretoria (South). The hon. member for Potchefstroom has a group of farmers in his district who make brandy from grapes, and they have had a bad time, but the hon. member now wants to go further than the farmers in the Cape Province, and give everyone the right to sell to whomsoever he pleases. I shall vote for a second reading on condition that we may move amendments in committee which will be carefully considered. I am against the tot system and canteens. With reference to kaffir beer I am not yet quite sure as to my attitude. I know it is a kind of food to the natives, and if there is a small amount of alcohol in it, 2 per cent., then they can drink just as much of it as they like. It will do no harm so long as they do not add any other stronger liquid. In Cape Town and the surroundings there is much drunkenness, I think more than in Johannesburg. I do not wish to blame the farmers in the neighbourhood, but it is a fact. I shall support the Minister where he tries to fight the drink curse.

I am one of the four unhappy wine farmers in this House, who have been so much maligned, but I challenge all the members of the House to find a single wine farmer in the district of Stellenbosch who is a drunkard. In most wine districts the farmers are the most sober people of all. As children they come into contact with light wine, and are given a little. It is impressed on them that if they drink more than a certain quantity it may do harm. They know it and are careful. But if anything is forbidden, the temptation is created. Poor Eve would never have eaten the fruit if it had not been forbidden. If you put a glass of wine on the table, and tell your child that he may not drink, you may be certain he will as soon as your back is turned. The Bill is in a terribly complicated position, just like the Diamond Bill at a certain stage, when the Minister himself had to amend his own amendment. I would advise the Minister to refer the Bill back to another committee, not composed of persons like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), and the other gentlemen who do not know the conditions in the Western Province. One of them is a total prohibitionist, and he admits it. We can see quite well that the Rev. Mr. Cook was sitting by, and exercised his influence on the Bill. The Minister will be wise if he appoints an impartial commission containing no wine farmers or abstainers, and then the Bill will soon be passed. There are peculiar provisions in the Bill. Clause 15 provides that anyone who has a vine, or who makes wine may not be a member of a licensing court, but abstainers like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout can be members. I cannot understand it. The hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) has already pointed out that the divisional council are excluded from membership of the licensing court. So far two members have always been appointed in the Cape Province by the Governor-General, and the others are appointed by the chairmen of the town councils, and also a few members by the divisional councils. Now they are completely excluded.

They can be appointed.

By the Government. I am certain that in Stellenbosch members will be appointed who are partly abstainers. I want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout why no new licences should be given to the countryside. I should like to see that it was given licences for wholesale trade. The handling of the wine will be much cheaper there than in the great cities. Then I want to note a protest against the proposal to introduce the colour bar. There are coloured people in my district who are highly developed, and have good manners, people who never go into the canteen. Why should they not take a bottle of wine home when they want to use it as a table wine?

It has been said that the criticisms so far have not been constructive, but destructive. That is unavoidable, the Bill has been drafted by a special select committee of three members and the criticism cannot but be destructive. I want to bring a few things to the notice of the House. In the first place I am sorry that the whole question of local option has practically been removed, as well as the system of petitions in the Cape Province. It may not be the ideal of total abstainers, but it is certain that the position has been much improved from what it was formerly. It cannot be denied that there is drunkenness in the Western Province, but the same thing occurs throughout the world, and even amongst so-called civilized people, with generations of civilization behind them, often in a worse degree than with us. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) will deny this, he denies everything which is said in favour of the use of liquor. When drunkenness amongst coloured people is spoken of we must not forget that we have to do with people who are possibly not as keen on remaining sober as we are. Yet there is great progress to be noticed among the coloured people, even in the wine districts of the Western Province. In comparison with a few years ago the working people are much more advanced and an improvement has taken place, although I admit that there are still victims of drunkenness. Many members would be astonished to see how the great bulk of the workers live on the wine farms. Their method of living compares favourably with that of the poor whites, and it cannot, therefore, be said that the wine farmers do nothing, and care nothing for what becomes of the people. The wine farmers have always tried to keep their employees in a good position and to make respectable people of them. There is drunkenness, but it has much diminished. If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that the wine farmers are out to dispose of their liquor to the people, then I absolutely deny it. He does not know what he is talking about; when he travels in his motor and sees a coloured person who is a little jolly he calls him drunk. The wine farmers are not so stupid as to allow their workers to drink so much as to prevent them doing their work properly. They are sensible people. It is noticeable that the wine districts contribute the most, not only towards agricultural schools, church establishments, etc., but also to the development of the coloured people in the Union and abroad. The wine farmer contributes the most to missions. I hope the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will ultimately learn a little, and discover that legislation which prohibits coloured people from the moderate use of liquor will only result in creating a greater evil than the one he wants to fight. Experience in other countries—Scotland, Sweden and Norway—proves that total prohibition is not practical. America, too, will have to go back to permitting the sale of drink. We know what happens in Johannesburg, and the prohibitionists cannot deny it. We have heard that even to-day there are still hundreds of women in gaol in Johannesburg because they sold liquor to people illegally. What does the Bill propose? That certain persons in the Western Province can also be prohibited from obtaining drink. This will mean a repetition of the Johannesburg evil. In the Western Province wine farmers will soon be engaged in making wine for two months. The employees will be working with wine the whole day. The coloured people will be in the farmers’ cellars day and night, and it is quite clear what the result will be if all drink is withheld from them. If the man does not get something from his master regularly he will commit an excess at the bucket he is handling, with the result that he will become drunk. Then there is the provision that he can only have a tot after 4 o’clock. It is a fairly large tot. Will it be a good system? I remember something that was said years ago by the late Senator Viljoen. He remarked that his workers were drunk on Sundays, that they had consumed much more than the tot he had given them. He then learned that they had made wine in their own vats in the bush. We are rightly going to repeal the Cloete Act, because that caused the evil of the so-called paraffintin trade, which was introduced and caused the abuse of drink. But if the Bill is passed as it now reads the result will be that the coloured people will make drink secretly on every farm and when the police come the farmer will be accused of being the cause of drunkenness. The workers will not admit that they stole it. Illicit liquor dealing will take place here just as in Johannesburg, and poor whites will be tempted to resort to it. It will not be restricted to towns and villages, but will extend to the countryside. At present the tots are given when the work is heavy, under the personal supervision of the farmer, who is too much interested to give too much. The wine farmers in my constituency had a discussion with the clergymen, and the former said that some farmers went to excess in the giving of liquor, that it was a wrong thing, and that they would do their best to stop the evil. The mutual action in Wellington has led to a great improvement. The wine farmers do not want to give liquor to produce drunkenness, but merely for the benefit of the health and to buck the workmen up a bit. The language used by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout about our wine farmers was unworthy. I, like the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), am astonished that the Minister wants Indians and natives to work in places where drink is sold, because he wants to retain the work for white boys. Does the hon. member want to see his own son doing that work? I am afraid that if white boys from the Karroo, who have not been in touch with drink, are employed as waiters in places where drink is sold, they will acquire the habit of taking tots and the habit eventually will finish them. I think that we should not be so anxious to get that work for our boys. We must find and indicate a better occupation than that for our boys. There is an amusing proposal in the Bill, namely, that within licensed premises a person shall be supplied with as much as he wants, but that he may take nothing away to drink off the premises. It is laid down that a proper quantity may be taken. Who will lay down the quantity? The principle that a coloured person can get drink on the premises, but can take nothing home, will lead to great temptation. Some will drink as much as possible on the premises, because they can only carry it away in their stomachs. They will become drunk and the licensee will be punishable. We are creating fresh evils. If there are two people they will not restrain each other, but compete and see who can drink the most. The wine farmers will suffer severely. They have a good business now, and belong to the best citizens in the country. As for the provision that no wine farmers may sit on the licensing court, I think it is unfair. If a proposal were made to abolish the refreshment room of Parliament, it would also be unfair to allow no people to be members of the commission to investigate who are in favour of the refreshment room. Why should the wine farmers be excluded and the total abstainers be allowed to be members?

I have no financial interest in it.

Many people have indirect interests. Many industries have indirect financial interests in the wine business. As a result of the appointment of the commission the Bill leaves much to be desired. It seems to me that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) moved a resolution which the other two members tried to make him withdraw and when they failed they gave in. I think the Minister has not acted quite justly. He has left it to the fanaticism of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to draw up a Bill. He refused to be a member of the large select committee, and subsequently appointed three persons from the Transvaal. He ran away from his own child. The Minister should have defended his principles). We now have 200 clauses, of which half will have to drop because they mean nothing and are wrong. The Minister has not maintained the dignity of his position, he has not shown responsibility in regard to this important matter, but has shunted it on to others. For this reason it will be difficult to get the Bill through the committee stage.

I do not know whether to admire most the tremendous courage of the Minister of Justice or his monumental patience, but I am sure that nobody, after he has piloted this Bill through, will want to touch the vexatious question for at least 10 years, so now is the opportunity for everybody to get going. I look at the Minister much as one would at a “bookie,” who says, “All in, run or not; back your fancy, now is your time.” Or, to use another sporting simile, he is throwing the football into the scrum, and each one is trying to heel out for his side. No one particular view can obtain in this country in regard to liquor; there can only be compromise after considering all interests concerned. It can only be a question of reasonable compromise all round. Personally I like the tenour of this Bill in one way. It is, I think, aimed at monopolists, and we are afraid of monopolists; we are afraid of a monopoly of big finance, afraid of even a press monopoly, and very much afraid of a liquor monopoly. All these things get into the hands of such huge trusts that at last they almost control Governments; therefore, so far as this measure is aimed at destroying a monopoly, I think it will meet with general assent. When we come to the impossibility of prohibition, I would say this, that, having twice in my life been under conditions of strict prohibition, if it depended upon my vote, it would be for prohibition. I have seen in the Transvaal, even under a republic, that much vaunted ideal, it was impossible to carry out a law of partial prohibition, and everywhere one finds that is so. From America we have the great lesson that unless 90 per cent. of the people favour it, no law can run. My view of the whole liquor question is somewhat different from the usual stereotyped view of various sections of the people. My opinion is that liquor should be made to pay every penny that it costs, and something over. I am convinced that liquor is not paying its full cost, and we are taxing the community for this large and remunerative industry. Only the other day—and it is wholly characteristic—we had the Minister telling us that, owing to the need for economy, he had to cut down the police. Why should there be any question of cutting down the cost of police when liquor is taxed to such a limited extent? Surely we could put enough taxation on that article of unnecessary consumption, that luxury, which would give the Minister all the police he needs. We have the Minister of Finance, too, who wants to go down the corridors of time as a very great financier, and whose one idea seems to be to spend no money in order to build up surpluses, saying there is no money in the Treasury for anything else. I would like the whole liquor question approached from that economic point of view—can it be made to pay more, and thus relieve the ordinary taxpayer of some of the burden of taxation? Another great lesson from America, and also in our own country, is that people will give anything for drink, and voluntarily pay extraordinary amounts for even the very worst liquor. When we put on heavier taxes on imported liquor, I believe rightly, we ought also to put on larger excise, so that we can at least say that it is paying for the police, law courts, gaols, our hospitals; and we shall not tax the general community for these things. That would, I think, be the best way of getting at this liquor question. I firmly believe in taxing vice, and not virtue. We ought to put our handicap on things not wanted, and if that principle were carried right through, you would be taxing in a fairer way. Those who have to consider the question of taxation should also always consider the incidence, and where it can be placed with least friction. The cigarette duty is better in this respect, that it is collected at the point of consumption. The defunct tobacco tax failed because of wrong incidence. One thing I have against the late Government is that if it had given the provinces the right to tax kaffir beer—and the Transvaal at least vainly appealed for it—there would have been a considerable revenue to the councils. I cannot understand why the native should drink his beer—frequently given to him on the mines—free of duty, while Europeans have to pay a beer excise. It does not seem to be quite fair. Under a municipal system of providing beer for the native, which I thoroughly believe in, there it might be possible to impose some taxation on it. The Government should bring about some sort of control, otherwise the natives will become a deteriorating race, going down and down until they become like the Red Indians. Having always thought liquor should bear its entire cost, I think the courts are wrong in having to treat drunkenness as a crime. I agree with a previous speaker that it should be treated as a disease. I wish that magistrates had the power to order an inebriate to a home, a comfortable place where an attempt could be made to restore him to a useful place in society. Instead of that the Minister is filling his gaols, and refilling them again and again with the same people at great expense. While a man was in a place of refuge from temptation, the amount he usually earned could be handed over to his wife and children, and that cost should fall entirely upon intoxicating liquor. If that reform were placed on the shoulders of liquor, we might find a reward in decreased consumption, thus dealing with the evil in the best way. My own party—

Your party—what is it?

Well, not the Creswellian wing of the Nationalists, but the Labour party proper, is in favour of State control of liquor. That solution we may have to face some day. Meanwhile the point of view with regard to liquor could be somewhat changed, and we might induce the Government to put further taxation on drink in order to raise much needed money. Then we would be on the way to a desirable reform. I feel astonished that the Government, wanting money as it does to build up industries, has allowed an excise tax on brandy to go uncollected—that for brandy used in the fortification of wines. There is severe temptation to a brandy farmer to put in false returns that his brandy is being so used, and he can therefore claim tax exemption. I would again congratulate the Minister on having taken up an immense question in the large way he has done, which shows great honesty of purpose in trying to see whether, amongst all our varied opinions, we can get something workable in place of the present unsatisfactory state of things.

I assume the object of the Minister in framing this monumental work is to restrict as far as possible excessive drinking. But when one considers some of the means by which he proposes to arrive at that object, one cannot help feeling seriously alarmed. I take it, for instance, that the proposed extension of the tot system is based on this principle—the Minister finds in the Western Province of the Cape an excessive amount of drinking amongst labourers. It is common knowledge that these people receive to-day from eight to ten tots a day. Their work is supposed to be so arduous that every few hours or so they require a stimulant to keep going, with the result that they are to-day moral and physical delinquents. The Minister proposes to reduce those ten tots to one a day, and further on the ground of uniformity he argues that he must in common fairness allow the same privilege to the natives in the Transvaal, Orange Free State and elsewhere. Now that is not an argument which is accepted by the people of South Africa, and we in Natal are most thankful that Natal is to be specially excluded from this curse of the sale of drink to natives. We cannot express our gratitude sufficiently for that, for if this House had decided that drink had to be supplied to the natives of Natal it would have had to be forced upon us by other than legislative means. But if the Minister admits by this exclusion that drink is bad for the Natal natives, how possibly care it be a good thing for the natives of the Transvaal? So that when the Bill comes before the committee we do hope that the measure extending drink to natives further than exist today will be excluded. As my hon. friend in front of me (the Rev. Mr. Rider) said, this is purely permissive, but in practice if you legalize it no native will work for a master who does not give him drink when another master next door does so, and of course as time goes on it will be found that the master who gives the strongest drink will get the most labour. Turning to another point, it seems to be a habit in all Pact legislation—and this is a grave objection—to drag into any measure whatever its primary object, all sorts of side issues and sidelines which have nothing to do with the main point at issue. In this drink reform measure we have the white labour policy dragged in, and the colour bar, and this is a Bill which has to do with liquor. Then we have the wretched Rent Act, which is having a great effect on building.

An Act passed by the South African party.

Yes, possibly, but although it may have been necessary in regard to housing at one time as far as business is concerned it is quite unnecessary and a grave interference in accepted contracts. What may happen is that a tenant goes to a landlord and enters into an agreement with him, and no sooner does he get into possession he turns round and says the rent is excessive, and he appeals against the contract which has been entered into—the understanding come to under an honourable understanding goes to pieces. This Bill has also many other clauses which are going to interfere in the conditions existing between landlord and tenant throughout the country. Then again why should the Minister lay down that nobody in future but a rich man shall have an hotel in the country. On what possible grounds can he justify that no licence shall be continued in a building valued at less than £10,000? If he said that in future following the example set on the diamond fields—only poverty stricken people should sell liquor I could understand it. As it is a number of men who to-day are serving the public exceedingly well and under very difficult circumstances and many of these are going to be deprived of their means of livelihood. That seems to be perfectly monstrous. Then we have the colour bar again aimed at the Asiatic in particular. The action of the Government in introducing the colour bar into all its legislative enactments will throw discredit on the good faith of South Africa. This colour bar clause applies primarily to Natal. When Natal went into Union, any of its assets or crown land or anything which could be used for the rest of South Africa, were divided in the ratio of 5 parts to Natal and 95 parts for the remainder of the Union.

I thought the Transvaal was paying the debts of the whole of the Union.

I am referring to our Crown lands. Natal is the only province which had any crown lands worth a cent.

They have been removed to another province!

The Minister is getting excited. The poor people of Natal never obtained a yard of these crown lands, but our friends over the borders were admitted to them. We didn’t object, but we have the right to point out that where we have assets, the Union takes them from us and shares them out very generously, but when we have a disability that is an entirely different matter; if Natal had any troubles, they were Natal’s troubles; if Natal had Asiatics she could keep them, although if we desired to solve the Asiatic problem we could throw the whole of the Union open to the Asiatics and we should never notice them.

We heartily decline that.

That is the spirit I am endeavouring to indicate. However, we never complain; Natal men are far the most modest men in the House. They ought to raise their voices more than they do. They might even with advantage send a few more letters to the press. So we are told to keep the Asiatics and in this Bill we are told that we are not to employ them in those very occupations in which they have proved most efficient. These Indians who have been serving in clubs and hotels have never done anything else; they are bred and trained to the work and have been excellent servants and there has been no question of their being concerned in illicitly selling liquor to natives. I am not going to argue the constitutional point with the Minister of Justice, but I will leave the matter to the Minister of the Interior and his conscience, who signed the gentleman’s agreement with the Indian Government. The Bill, however, will do a gross injustice to the Indians by driving them out of their employment, and it will do a grosser injustice by saying to the Natal hotel proprietors that if you continue to employ Indians you must pay double licence fee paid in any other part of South Africa. We consider that is perfectly monstrous. Then why should a Bill of this sort interfere between landlord and tenant in regard to repairs? I assume the Minister is trying to get at the landlord, who in many cases is a representative of a brewery. Now this opens the question of tied houses, and I see no harm in these tied houses. On the contrary there has been an immense improvement in all these country hotels which at one time were little better than shebeens, when they were taken on by breweries which enlarged and repaired the buildings and placed decent tenants into them. Under these conditions you deal with a responsible body, but in the old days you had to deal with an unfortunate individual who had to make the best of his living under the most disadvantageous circumstances. I do not say that the Bill has not many admirable points it certainly has and a measure running into 129 pages must have something good in it somewhere and the necessity for legislation is apparent. Although the Minister has some doubts whether the Bill will pass this session I hope the measure with the objectionable features excluded it will pass into law.

When I moved the second reading, I asked members to postpone discussing details until the committee stage, and I set the example. The example has, however, not been followed in most cases. Quite a number of members have made long speeches, and I should be prepared to bet a large sum that most of it will be repeated in committee. I thought the debate would last at most two days, but it has taken four, and I have no hope that this long debate will appreciably shorten the discussion in committee. But one must not be too despondent. In the first place, I want to refer to the statement made by the liquor trade that the Bill will not go on to the statute book this year. I am glad that not a single hon. member has stated that. I have not the least intention of postponing the matter further, and I may mention that I have received a telegram from the liquor interests in the Transvaal informing me that they do not agree with the desire expressed in the rumour I have referred to. It is certain, however, that the debate has not made the passing of the Bill easier. Take, for instance, the tot system. That is one of the difficulties. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) rightly said that there is no question of extending the tot system to the Transvaal. The system prevails in the Transvaal illegally as a matter of fact, but it exists, and now we are trying by this Bill to keep it within narrow limits. For this reason I expected that abstainers would welcome the provision, and that they would stand by the principle contained in the Bill, whereby all the trouble would be removed. The abstainers have not done so, however, and I say that it will be their fault if no improvement in the tot system is effected. The wine farmers are dissatisfied with the provision in question, and I agree to a great extent; they say rightly that the tot system is not the cause of drunkenness, but that it is due to the liquor which the workers buy off the farm, which is often doctored. Now, however, we hear throughout the country that the evil is due to the tot system. It is insisted that the tot system should be abolished, instead of being regulated, and I will say what the result of that will be, that the position at the Cape will be continued as it exists to-day, that in the Free State will be maintained, that in the Transvaal will be unchanged, and we shall have to thank the abstainers for all this. The people who state that the introduction of the tot system into the Transvaal will bring unprecedented dangers with it are not well informed. All we here propose is to legalize a thing which is to-day done by almost all the farmers in the Transvaal—I say expressly almost all the farmers—of giving their natives a tot. Now it is said that if we legalize this, terrible things will happen. They forget, however, that the tot system exists in the Free State, and that it is never abused. Are we in the Transvaal so much worse than those in the Free State? Others again have spoken of peach brandy, and have stated that the Transvaal farmers would then be able to give peach brandy to their natives, but they forget that peach brandy is also made in the Free State, and that the evil does not exist there. Are we then so much worse in the Transvaal than those in the Free State? I refuse to believe it. Peach brandy has done no harm in the Free State, nor will it in the Transvaal. We only want to legalize in the Transvaal what the farmers have been, and are to-day, doing illegally, namely, giving their employees a tot now and then. The hon. member for Lydenburg is right when he says that the farmer does it to-day when his natives have done hard work. If there is much work and the farmer has a number of employees in his service then almost without exception he gives them a tot. When at New Year’s time or on a birthday the farmer feels happy and merry, then he wants his workers to share in his happiness and merriness, and give them a tot. But I go further. Do members think that the inhabitants of the towns and villages never give their servants a tot? As a matter of fact they do. When the Europeans are merry and happy it would be wrong not to allow the native servants to share in it. I only want to legalize the tot system in a restricted form, but owing to the action of abstainers on whose support I was calculating, I fear the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) will get his way, and the Cape system will remain unaltered. The tot system is not the cause of drunkenness. The people I see drunk in the Peninsula on a Saturday are not drunk through misuse of the pure drink which they get on the farms. There is another difficulty. We have heard a complaint about the provision which prohibits the coloured person from taking a bottle of liquor home, and which compels him to take all his drink on licensed premises. I appreciate the objection. The respectable coloured person prefers to take his drink home instead of drinking it in a canteen. But there is great danger in allowing the sale of liquor in bottles to coloured people in view of the considerable number of undesirable shebeens in this neighbourhood. If we amend the provision I fear the number of shebeens will considerably increase. I can, however, well understand the objection of the respectable coloured people, and I think we shall have to make some provision or other.

The Cloete Act did much harm.

Yes, the repeal of the Cloete Act will assist in this direction. An important point was mentioned by the Natal members, which is also of importance to the Transvaal. It is the wayside hotels. The Free State wants no wayside hotels outside of the urban areas. They are absolutely necessary in the Transvaal and also in Natal in certain parts. Perhaps a few of the cases which hon. members mention are solved by this Bill. I think it will satisfy all sections if we provide that existing hotels shall not be abolished, but can continue if they satisfy the licensing courts, and that new hotels must comply with the requirements that they shall be worth at least £10,000, and in the case of clubs at least £5,000. As for the Transvaal, the old hotels will, therefore, be allowed to continue as long as they comply with the necessary requirements. A great deal has been said about Clause 104. Hon. members will be glad to learn that I intend to go into the clause now. I will not, however, in any case, admit the argument of a breach of faith. No breach of faith at all has occurred against the Indian Government, but I will go into the matter and see what the best proposal will be, and whether I should introduce it in an amended form in the committee stage, or support an amendment by some hon. member. I am, therefore, not going to discuss it now. Just a few words more about what the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) described as the miserable white labour policy. I shall do my best, as in the past, to provide careers for the white population of South Africa. The miserable white labour policy means that whilst our boys are not now able to make a living, they will be able to do so, when as much opportunity for work as possible is created. That is our duty towards our children, and towards the country. That miserable civilized labour policy will be welcomed by three-fourths of the population of South Africa, and I like it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

On the motion that the House go into committee on Monday.

I hope the Minister will not press for Monday because it has been pointed out there will be numbers of amendments on the paper and I suggest we should have at least a fortnight. Monday is much too early.

If you don’t start on Monday you will never get it through.

We must not think the whole Bill is going through on Monday. I have not any of those sanguine anticipations. We probably shall not get very far on Monday, but I would really like to make a beginning, and if there is any real trouble on a particular clause that clause can stand over, or if we strike a snag in that way the whole Bill can be postponed till a later date. I am going to be as kind as I can because I know that if I am not very kind and considerate I have not got a hope.

House to go into committee on 6th February.